“I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden.” With that opening line to her 1970 hit song Lynn Anderson destroyed the logic behind two of today’s basic principles in religion. Of course that’s not what the song was about. Ms. Anderson was singing about the need to take hold of life and love as it is rather than demanding the paradise we want it to be. Regardless, the logic of the line flawlessly destroys the gospel of prosperity and the idea that we can worship God any way we choose. What the line recognizes is that even the best of promises here on earth have limitations.

God never promised us a rose garden in this life. In fact, His promise of trouble (Lk 12:51-53) necessarily excluded a rose garden. Let’s set aside that specific application and focus on the basic principle that God’s promises and commands necessarily exclude certain things. Another phrase for that is Silence of the Scripture. When God authorizes something, by necessity the authority granted only extends to the things included within what He specified and does not require a declaration of everything that is excluded. This is a constant source of discussion and division among people who are serious about understanding God’s will. Since it isn’t always applied accurately, or consistently, some seek to eliminate it entirely. But they’re not even consistent in their exclusionary application.

However, our inconsistencies aside, it is a foundational principle in the Bible. Just one example in the NT from the book of Hebrews. In chapter 7:14 the writer pointed out that appointment of the tribe of Levi as priests eliminated Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah, without the need for a “Thou shalt not” select priests from Judah. Jesus could not be a priest under the Law of Moses. God’s NT revelation explicitly endorses the concept of silence of the scripture as a form of prohibition. We cannot escape that conclusion.

Not as well known, but perhaps the best OT example is when King David decided to build God’s Temple and God said "No!" Most people jump to a later expansion by David about the blood on his hands, but both initial accounts of this event recognized that God had authorized a tent (2 Samuel 7 & 1 Chronicles 17). God’s explanation was an explicit endorsement of silence of the scripture as a prohibitionary principle. His word to David was in the form of a negative question, “did I speak a word…saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of Cedar?’” (2 Samuel 7:5-7; 1 Chronicles 17:4-6). In Exodus God had given detailed instructions to Moses for the Tabernacle (a tent) and never changed that. Five hundred years later that command still stood with its original exclusivity until God specifically authorized something different.

So, when someone ridicules silence of the scripture or asks “Did God say we couldn’t do x or y?”, remember David and respond with “Did He say we could do x or y?” This usually surfaces in the effort to introduce OT practices into church worship. Here’s where those who want to reject silence of the scripture are inconsistent in their selective application by choosing the things they want and rejecting the things they don’t want. We must learn to trust God and obey Him by doing what He says and not doing what He doesn’t say.