A Study of Implication and Silence

By Mitch Rhymer

Hebrews 7:12-14

Introduction:

1. Implication and silence are tools of communication.

2. Understanding these tools and their implementation exposes one's reasoning ability.

3. No one wants to be called a fool.

4. Yet the fool is one who reasons improperly.

5. Isaiah 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:

6. In order to communicate Biblical truths God relies upon reason and requires that we become wise rather than fools when it comes to understanding the Bible.

7. And despite this plea from God many men today are willing to stand against two essential tools of God's communication with man, implication and silence.

8. They reason and rationalize their way around the inference of God's authority.

9. In many cases they turn their anger outward persecuting and reviling the very book they seek to obey.

10. It is true what Lord Halifax said, "Nothing has an uglier look to us than reason when it is not on our side."

11. Let us reason together.

I) Implication Hebrews 7:12

A) Argument defined.

1. According to the Jews and the Old Testament, the Aaronic priesthood and the Law of Moses were intertwined.

a. This mindset would require that to change one then one would have to change the other.

b. We need to see that if one of these were to cease then the others would have to cease in their authority over the lives of men.

2. Hebrews 7:1-11 has connected our High Priest, Jesus, with the order of Melchisedec and not the priest hood of Aaron.

3. Therefore since the priesthood had changed then the Law had changed.

4. Therefore since the priesthood of Aaron had ceased then the Law of Moses must cease.

B) Implication and Inference are tools of Biblical interpretation.

1. One must infer, and infer correctly, if he intends to understand what the Bible implies.

a. Let make sure we understand that these are not difficult tools that take advanced degrees.

b. These are tools we use everyday; all we are doing is outlining the way we can be more productive in their use.

2. Matthew 22:30-32, Jesus speaks to the Sadducees concerning the resurrection.

a. He asks them if they had not read.

b. This question asks the Sadducee if he is able to understand the Bible inference about resurrection.

c. Jesus, then, quotes Exodus 3:6,16 - "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but the living.

d. The Sadducees were to infer that the Bible had implied that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive after death.

3. Acts 22:16, Saul was told by Ananias to wash away his sins.

a. The Bible does not specifically state that Saul's sins were still on his record even after he believed in God.

b. Yet the command of Ananias to Saul implies that Saul's was still sinful and needed to have his sins washed away.

c. We infer that Saul had not yet been forgiven of his sins and needed something more than belief to secure the forgiveness of God for his sins.

4. In Ephesians we read of the one body and the church as the body of Christ.

a. The Bible does not explicitly state that the body is the church.

b. But we infer that the Bible implies they are one and the same.

c. Ephesians 4:4 - There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

d. Ephesians 1:22-23 - And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

C) The rule we are studying is implication on God's part necessitates inference on man's part as the Bible is read.

1. Yet the idea of inference is abused.

2. Some have tried to use Acts 16:15 to prove infant baptism is scriptural.

a. They argue thusly,

(i) Lydia and her household were baptized.

(ii) Lydia was married and had children and some of those children were infants.

(iii) Therefore it is scriptural to baptize children.

b. The tragedy lies in the fact that the second step is not an inference but an assumption.

(i) There is not enough information to know the condition of Lydia's household.

(ii) Yet many try to draw Biblical conclusions based upon shoddy assumptions rather than getting the appropriate information.

3. These abuses of the rules of implication and inference have been the source of much error in the religious world.

a. Many try to justify their beliefs without all the evidence.

b. Many seek to authorize their spiritual condition based upon what they assume the Bible says rather than what the Bible authorizes.

c. How many times have we heard John 3:16 quoted as the only condition for salvation?

d. How many times do we respond by saying that is not enough evidence to understand God's conditions for salvation?

e. How many times have people responded with statements like well that is all I need or that is enough for me?

f. It is the case that we want to have all the evidence rather than make decisions based upon incomplete assumptions.

D) The Bible authorizes only by means of explicit statements, approved examples, and necessary inference.

1. Notice the term necessary.

2. The idea is that God has given permission, implying a directive or a force that man must infer as permissive or forbidding.

a. Hebrews 7:12 uses the phrase "of necessity."

b. Therefore the force of this verse implies that God is giving permission or forbidding something about the priesthood of Christ.

c. Man, therefore, must infer from this verse that since the priesthood had changed then the law governing the souls of men had been changed as well.

3. This verse is leading us through the method of implication and inference so that we may be better Bible students and followers of the will of God.

II) Silence Hebrews 7:14

A) Argument defined

1. God said that that the priesthood was to come through the lineage of Aaron from the tribe of Levi.

2. God did not say that it did not come through the tribes of Judah, Dan, Simeon, Naphtali, etc.

3. However, when God specified that the priesthood was to come through the tribe of Levi.

4. Therefore, it would have been a violation of the God's law for a priest to come from any other tribe than Levi even though there were not any "thou shalt not..." commands.

5. The law of silence (spake nothing) is evidence that the Law of Moses has been disannulled.

B) The Bible commands in two ways.

1. These two ways are generic and specific.

2. Consider Mark 16:15, God ye into all the world.

a. This is a generic command, or general command.

b. Jesus did not specify the manner in which the disciples were to go.

c. One could go by train, or by plane, or through the State of Maine.

d. But applying the law of silence here would be insane.

e. Because limiting the how one goes binds where God does not bind.

3. Time and again God has given us specific commands.

a. In Genesis 6:14, God commanded Noah to build an ark out of Gopher wood.

b. God authorized the building of an ark and the material Noah was to use, Gopher wood.

c. God did not itemize every type of wood that Noah could not use but God did not have to.

d. When God specified Gopher wood, ever other kind of wood was off limits.

4. According to Exodus 26, God commanded Moses to build the tabernacle.

a. God was very specific.

(i) God said there was to be ten tents.

(ii) God said to use blue, purple and scarlet as colors for the tabernacle.

b. The purpose of these commands is so that man would not be free to do what he wanted.

(i) Moses could not have built 9 or 11 tents.

(ii) Moses could not have used black, orange, and brown.

c. Moses was to "make all things according to the pattern." ( Hebrews 8:5)

5. The law of silence applies to worship as well.

a. How many times have people said that God did not say we could not have a piano in worship?

b. How many times have men claimed that God did not specifically forbid guitars or clapping or choirs or skits in worship?

c. Remember Nadab and Abihu. ( Leviticus 10:1-3).

d. God specified that fire was to be taken from the brazen altar in worship.

e. God did not have to say where fire was not to come from.

f. Thus because they brought in fire not from the brazen altar God struck them dead where they stood.

6. Those who object to the law of silence in worship should take note of these two men.

a. The consequences of what men want today in the Lord's church may be too much for people to bear.

b. God is more than clear on the matter.

(i) When God is specific, his silence is prohibitive.

(ii) When a child wants to go out and play, parents will be specific by saying you can play in the back yard.

(iii) This does not mean that parents have to say all the places the children cannot go.

Conclusion:

1. David Hume said, "No man turns against reason until reason turns against him.

2. We need to recognize that if we are to reason together then we must submit to the rational conclusions that follow.

3. Hebrews 7:12-14 establishes two very simple rules for Biblical interpretation.

4. Let us infer where God implied and be silent where the Bible is silent.

Posted in: Bible Study, Denominationalism, Sermon Outlines