Day 101-9/9/2016

We will illustrate these principles with examples.

A. Bible Applications that Demonstrate the Need for Bible Authority

Some Bible events or teachings illustrate the principles we are studying. They show that certain acts or ideas would be wrong simply because they were different from, or were not part of, what God said. But other acts would be acceptable when they fit general instructions.

Noah making an ark of gopher wood— Genesis 6:14

God told Noah to make an ark of gopher wood. Metal, pine, walnut, etc., do not fit the definition of gopher wood. They constitute different kinds of materials. God did not expressly say not to use them, but they would have been wrong because

He said “gopher wood” and was silent about metal, pine, etc.

Had God wanted to leave Noah free to use any kind of material, He could simply have said to make an ark, and specified no material at all. Then Noah could have chosen any kind of material. But when God specified the material, Noah was left with no other choice.

On the other hand, God said to “make” an ark, but there are many things a person can do that would fit the definition of making an ark. He might use a hammer and saw, an ox cart to carry the wood, etc., as tools to “aid” the work. None of these things are specifically mentioned, but they would have been acceptable because, Noah would still be just making an ark.

Naaman dipping in the Jordan – 2 Kings 5:10-14

Elishah told Naaman to dip seven times in the Jordan and his leprosy would be cured. The instruction was specific regarding what action to do, what river to use, and how many times to dip. But he wanted to do something else, such as have Elishah wave his hand over him or dip in some other river (the Abanah or the Pharpar in Syria).

Elishah did not say “not to” dip in the Abanah or Pharpar, but would that have been doing what God said or doing something different? Likewise, it would have been disobedience to dip a different number of times. Had God wanted to leave Naaman free in these matters, he could have simply said to dip in water. Then Naaman could have dipped in any body of water any number of times. But God’s instructions left no choice but to dip seven times in Jordan.

But the instruction was general in the sense that God had not said where in the Jordan to dip: northern Jordan or southern Jordan? Nor did it specify whether or not the servant might help put him under. If the servant put him under what would

Naaman be doing? Dipping in the Jordan. That would be a legitimate aid, because it still fit the instructions God gave.

Nadab and Abihu offering incense – Leviticus 10:1-3

Nadab and Abihu were Old Testament priests who offered incense. But they used “profane” fire (“strange fire” - ASV) that God had not commanded them to use. So, God destroyed them.

Note that the problem was not that they disobeyed a specific prohibition – God had not said “not to” use the fire they used. The problem was that they used fire different from what God said. They did what God had not commanded or authorized them to do.

Some today might justify such an act by saying the fire was just an “aid” to offering the incense. But God disagreed. The fire was not just an aid but different fire from what God specified.

(The passage does not give enough information for me to give a good example of acceptable alternatives they might have had: perhaps how much fire they used?)

The temple as a house of prayer— John 2:13-16

Jesus cleansed the temple twice. The first time He said not to make His Father’s house a house of merchandise. The second time He quoted Scripture saying it should be a house of prayer (Matthew 21:12,13), and condemned them for making it a den of thieves. Note that, in the first cleansing (in John 2), Jesus said nothing about thievery. He objected simply on grounds that doing business for profit (“merchandise”) did not fit the intent of the temple.

Jesus here argued from the “silence of the Scriptures.”

He did not cite Scripture that expressly forbade doing business for profit in the temple.

But He concluded that such would not fit the authorized spiritual purpose of the temple and on that basis cast them out of the temple.

This is exactly the kind of reasoning we do when we conclude that local congregations today should not operate money-making businesses or provide entertainment, recreation, etc.

Such acts do not fit (are not included in) the spiritual purpose

God has stated for His church.

So we believe they should be rejected from the work of local churches.

On the other hand, Jesus’ statement is general as regards how long the prayers should be. That is not specified, so the length would not matter (so long as it was otherwise Scriptural). But activities that did not constitute authorized worship were eliminated.

Jesus at God’s right hand – Hebrews 1:5,13

Comparing Jesus to angels,

the writer asks what angel God ever told to sit at His right hand as God’s Son.

The fact that God said that to His Son Jesus,

but did not say it to an angel,

constitutes sufficient proof that it is not true of any angel!

God did not have to say the angels would not sit at His right hand.

When He specified that Jesus would sit at His right hand and mentioned no angel, that eliminated the angels.

(Of course, the same reasoning would eliminate a man or anyone but Jesus sitting at God’s right hand.)

(Again, the passage does not give enough information to discuss what might be authorized alternatives.)

Priests of the tribe of Levi — Hebrews 7:11-18

Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy that He would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (v17). But Jesus could not be high priest under the Old Testament, because the Old Testament said priests were of the tribe of Levi, and Jesus (as a descendant of David) was of the tribe of Judah. The Law of Moses said “nothing” about priests from the tribe of Judah.

Hence, the only way Jesus could be priest would if there was a change of the law (v12).

This argument is also based on “silence of the Scriptures.” God said priests would be of the tribe of Levi, but said “nothing” about the tribe of Judah (v14). Therefore, people of the tribe of Judah could not be priests under the law.

Some people today might think, “Where does it say priests can’t be of the tribe of Judah?”

But the Hebrew writer did not so reason.

The law designated the tribe of Levi and said nothing about tribe of Judah.

That was enough to prove tribe of Judah was wrong.

Notice, however, that this was true under what Moses said (v14).

It would not be true under some other law.

So, the author points out that Jesus could be priest when the law changed to the New Testament.

Marriage joining one man and one woman — Matthew 19:3-6

Jesus was asked about the grounds for divorce. He said that His teaching would differ from Moses’ teaching and would agree with God’s original marriage law.

That law God joined two people — one man and one woman — as one flesh.

Therefore, divorce is wrong.

This is an argument from the silence of Scripture.

God joined the two and said nothing that permitted breaking the bond or being joined to a third party.

It follows that breaking the bond and joining to another person would violate God’s will. The conclusion is that divorce is forbidden (though Jesus allowed an exception when one spouse violates the one-flesh covenant by having the sexual union with someone else — v9).

God specified what He wanted. Therefore, other arrangements are wrong. We must limit ourselves to doing what God authorized, no more.

Note that Jesus did not reason that divorce would be acceptable because “God never said not to get divorced.” The passage He cited said “the man is joined to his wife and the two become one.” That was enough to prove that undoing the bond would be wrong.

The same reasoning would show that the sexual union is wrong outside of marriage, before marriage, with several wives, or with someone of the same sex.

True, these are all expressly forbidden in other passages, but the kind of proof Jesus used here is an additional valid proof.

All of these practices differ from what God said at creation and no passage elsewhere authorizes them,

therefore they are all wrong.

On the other hand, subject to other requirements,

a preacher would be an authorized “aid” to a wedding.

Even though no passage specifically mentions preachers performing weddings,

what does he do?

He joins a man to his wife,

as God authorized.