Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

[SoulFly51]

That is all.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Hmmmmmmmmmm... Pondering...

 

[Iosias]

In what context?

 

[HeyHomie]

I couldn't agree more!

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I'm finding myself wondering if the Original Post has something to do with the Apocalypse. I think I'm hearing the thundering of horses' hooves.




No wait... That was just the garbage truck. Never mind.

 

[SoulFly51]

In what context?

To specify is to ruin my fun.

And the term "context" is unauthorized.

 

[crawfish]

Sarcasm is DEFINITELY unauthorized.

 

[Apollos1]

This thread may just turn out to be alot of fun!

Oh the suspense...

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

(it's unauthorised (British spelling)-according to most grammar books to forget the apostrophe in "it's")

Hmm?

True.

Looking at the statement:

It's unauthorized to say

ie - "the Bible either implicitly or explicitly prohibits or is silent about the statement..."

that silence
definition:
"the lack of explicit requirement, implicit requirement, explicit permission, implicit permission, explicit prohibition or implicit prohibition."

equals a command of God.
"is equivalent to an explicit or implicit requirement found in the Bible."

The Bible would not authorise the statement "silence equals a command of God", because by its very nature a commandment is either an explicit or an implicit requirement. Anyone making the statement "silence equals a command of God" would be in error, and error is definitely unauthorised.

However this would be authorised (authorized):
It's authorized to say that silence equals the lack of an explicit or implicit command; explicit or implicit permission; or explicit or implicit prohibition by God.

This is also correct:

It's authorized to say silence equals unauthorized by God.

My brain hurts, I think I'll log off and read the Bible (The Authorised Version)
Refrus

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Oops double posted- I think that's unauthorised too.

refrus

 

[- DRA -]

Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

That is all.

Please explain your understanding of the "silence" of God about priests from the tribe of Judah ...
Hebrews 7:13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing [was silent] concerning priesthood. (NKJV)

Was the writer of Hebrews reasoning that God's silence about priests from Judah authorized them to be priests, or that God's silence did NOT authorize them to be priests?

 

[Splayd]

Thanks for that DRA.

I love the example Paul provides here. First of all, it's important to note that Paul doesn't simply dismiss this matter as many today would. He recognised that the new covenant is necessarily consistent with the old and subsequently addresses what may appear to some as a contradiction. A lot of people today wouldn't care or even see the relevance, but he demonstrates here that all of scripture is in harmony with the rest and is to be considered within the context of the rest.

His method in determining the truth of the matter is interesting too. When confronted with silence from one covenant... he delves even further back. It's clear from his account that the Mosaic covenant didn't undo everything that preceded it. The precedent is established prior to the new and even prior to the Mosaic.

What a wonderful approach he presents. If the NT is silent on a matter, perhaps we should consider his example and look for an earlier precedent. Perhaps we should consider the context of ALL of scripture and recognise the harmony that exists between the different covenants.

Peace

 

[Apollos1]

DRA –

Hebrews 7:14 is my favorite example as to how silence is applied toward scripture as witnessed within scripture itself. God's attitude toward silence, whether within the old covenant or the new, remianed the same. I had just inserted this point into a post I am working on.

Silence Excludes:

Silence can not authorize and it can not prohibit, BUT the application of silence in scriptures shows that silence EXCLUDES.

Hebrew 7:14 - For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

The priesthood had changed - verse 12.

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

Of course the major point the Hebrew writer is making here is that there was a change OF the law… not a change IN the Law, but a NEW law! And this change is what made it possible for Jesus to now be a priest even though He is from the tribe of Judah.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA –

Hebrews 7:14 is my favorite example as to how silence is applied toward scripture as witnessed within scripture itself. God's attitude toward silence, whether within the old covenant or the new, remianed the same. I had just inserted this point into a post I am working on.

Silence Excludes:

Silence can not authorize and it can not prohibit, BUT the application of silence in scriptures shows that silence EXCLUDES.

Hebrew 7:14 - For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

The priesthood had changed - verse 12.

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

Of course the major point the Hebrew writer is making here is that there was a change OF the law… not a change IN the Law, but a NEW law! And this change is what made it possible for Jesus to now be a priest even though He is from the tribe of Judah.

Thanks for this excellent commentary on those passages in Hebrews 7.

Silence itself doesn't authorize us to speak on God's behalf (which would be contrary to 1 Peter 4:11a). However, silence doesn't authorize us to deviate from that which God has specifically instructed. The classic example is the building of the ark in Genesis 6 from gopherwood. Noah, being the man of faith that he was (Hebrews 11:7), did exactly as God instructed him (Genesis 6:22). Thus, even though God was silent about other types of wood, Noah understood what he was supposed to use - and used it. Faith works that way (Romans 10:17). Faith didn't suppose or assume that oak or pine would substitute for gopherwood. Rather, Noah's faith prompted him to simply do as he was instructed. I think there's a lesson here for us to apply to our lives as we endeavor to live and serve God today under the gospel of Christ (Romans 15:4).

 

[- DRA -]

Thanks for that DRA.

I love the example Paul provides here. First of all, it's important to note that Paul doesn't simply dismiss this matter as many today would. He recognised that the new covenant is necessarily consistent with the old and subsequently addresses what may appear to some as a contradiction. A lot of people today wouldn't care or even see the relevance, but he demonstrates here that all of scripture is in harmony with the rest and is to be considered within the context of the rest.

His method in determining the truth of the matter is interesting too. When confronted with silence from one covenant... he delves even further back. It's clear from his account that the Mosaic covenant didn't undo everything that preceded it. The precedent is established prior to the new and even prior to the Mosaic.

What a wonderful approach he presents. If the NT is silent on a matter, perhaps we should consider his example and look for an earlier precedent. Perhaps we should consider the context of ALL of scripture and recognise the harmony that exists between the different covenants.

Peace

Actually, I think we should be careful to not overlook an obvious point. God had spoken. He specified that priests would be the tribe of Levi. His silence about other tribes did NOT authorize them to be Levitical priests under the law of Moses. Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

With this understanding, we should be cautious today about disregarding what God has specifically stated/commanded/directly stated for us to follow today under the law of Christ. Agreed?

 

[- DRA -]

To specify is to ruin my fun.

Is the term "fun" authorized?

And the term "context" is unauthorized.

By authorized, do you mean specifically or generically? I believe considering the "context" of a passage or text is generically authorized in the word "study" (KJV) in 2 Timothy 2:15.

 

[Splayd]

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

AND YET... Paul's whole point here is contrary to yours. By appealing to the example of Melchizedek, he's establishing that Moses' silence on the matter doesn't exclude Jesus because of the earlier precedent. Otherwise, why would he bother mentioning Melchizedek at all? Paul says an awful lot about him, given the little that's written in the OT.

If your take is right, wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for Paul to not even bother going there at all and focus purely on the fact that God changed things because it's a new covenant?

 

[Splayd]

However, silence doesn't authorize us to deviate from that which God has specifically instructed.

That wouldn't make sense anyway. You can't have specific instructions and silence about the same aspect. It's either one or the other.

The classic example is the building of the ark in Genesis 6 from gopherwood. Noah, being the man of faith that he was (Hebrews 11:7), did exactly as God instructed him (Genesis 6:22). Thus, even though God was silent about other types of wood, Noah understood what he was supposed to use - and used it.

The instruction to use gopherwood is a positive instruction (ie: do this). On it's own it doesn't contain any negative instruction (ie: don't do this) but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction. By trying to make more of the issue by looking for the negative implications we necessarily add to the instruction and enter into an entirely unecessary world of complications, insinuations, disclaimers and definitions. I'd rather stick to what's actually said.

Consider the road some might go down with this. Is Noah allowed to use a hammer? Well there's silence about that, but common sense dictates that he'll need to use tools so we'll justify it's use by establishing (from silence) that tools (aids) are acceptable. Can he use nails? Hmmm... this is tricky because nails are a building material and as such would conflict with the use of gopherwood as a material. Besides, if the nails are made from metal then the ark would be made of gopherwood AND metal. Best to just use nails made from gopherwood. Hang on a second. We're supposed to use tar too. Now tar isn't made from gopherwood, but it's part of God's instruction so God mustn't be talking about building materials specifically when he talks about gopherwood. He must just mean that gopherwood is the only wood we're allowed to use. Does that mean Noah could use metal or plastic or rock etc... for some parts of the boat as long as he uses gopherwood exclusively for the wood part? Hardly. We'd batter come up with another extrabiblical way to define exactly what constitutes a boat and where and when the extras can be applied. etc... etc...

What a mess. Meanwhile - if we'd simply worry about following the instruction in the form it's given, we'd avoid all that legal mumbo jumbo. Noah was instructed to use gopherwood to build the ark. If he does the positive aspect of the instruction, there's no need to even consider the unspoken negative aspects.

Peace

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by Apollos1

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

AND YET... Paul's whole point here is contrary to yours. By appealing to the example of Melchizedek, he's establishing that Moses' silence on the matter doesn't exclude Jesus because of the earlier precedent. Otherwise, why would he bother mentioning Melchizedek at all? Paul says an awful lot about him, given the little that's written in the OT.

If your take is right, wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for Paul to not even bother going there at all and focus purely on the fact that God changed things because it's a new covenant?

Actually, I think you are overlooking several points the writer of Hebrews made:
* Jesus is declared to be high priest (3:1)
* Jesus was called by God to be a high priest just as Aaron was (5:4)
* Jesus was called to be a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:6,10; 6:20)
* Melchizekek was greater than Abraham (7:4-10)
- Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek
- Melchizedek blessed Abraham
* In a sense, Levi (the father of the Levitical priests) paid tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek (7:10)
* The point? Melchizedek's priesthood was greater than the Levitical priesthood

And,

* The priesthood of Melchizedek preceded the Levitical priesthood (Melchizedek lived ~ Genesis 14, the Levites were declared to be a priest until years later after the Exodus from Egypt)
* After the Levitical priesthood was ordained by God, God foretold of another priest - after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4 - approximately 450 years after the Levitical priesthood was established)
* The priesthood of Melchizedek differed from the Levitical priests
- They died and were replaced - There is NO record of Melchizedek's death, therefore, in a sense, his office remained open (7:3)
- Melchizedek's priesthood was not based on genealogy - The Levitical system obviously was
* Jesus is declared to be that priest prophesied of in the O.T.

Therefore, God was NOT silent about the matter another priest arising after the order of Melchizedek.

And, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear what his point was in 7:12. God intended for the priesthood to change. Because the Levitical priesthood was coupled closely with the law of Moses, that meant the law would also change (that discussion follows in 7:22 and begins again in 8:7.

Because the priesthood and law changed, folks such as myself can now enjoy the blessings of God (i.e. Ephesians chapters 2-4).

 

[Splayd]

Actually, I think you are overlooking several points the writer of Hebrews made:

Far from overlooking the points you raise, I base my entire argument on them.

Therefore, God was NOT silent about the matter another priest arising after the order of Melchizedek.

Absolutely! That's my point right there. Moses' silence about non-Levitical priests didn't negate what God actually did say prior to that. Some seem to take the approach that every time God makes another covenant, all the precedents prior to that are to be ignored altogether. Paul didn't. He recognised that despite the Mosaic coveant, the earlier precedent still held.

Because the priesthood and law changed, folks such as myself can now enjoy the blessings of God (i.e. Ephesians chapters 2-4).

No disagreements there brother.