On Bible Interpretation, Evidence, and Music
Image
2 Timothy 3:16 reveals that all of Scripture is God-inspired and instructive. Taken with Romans 15:4, similar verses, and examples of NT use of OT passages, some have concluded that even incidental narrative details are potential sources of doctrine.
Since OT narrative details reference everything from clothing to cooking, tools, weapons, vehicles (carts, chariots), and so much more, there are, of course, references to music. There are even references to specific instruments, moods, and uses of music.
I want to offer a few thoughts here for two audiences. The first is those who claim the hermeneutic (interpretive approach) that takes every narrative detail as a potential source of doctrine. The second audience is those who have participated in conversations, debates, or quarrels on the topic of “what the Bible teaches about music” and sensed that there was some kind of disconnect regarding how to use Scripture to address features of present-day culture.
Maybe something here can help a few understand each other a little bit better on these topics and more accurately identify points of agreement and disagreement.
Narrative and Evidence
I’ve written about proper use of narrative before, with a focus on why we should avoid “spiritualizing” elements of narrative—whether OT or NT. Many of the same problems afflict efforts to extract doctrine from narrative details.
Here, we’ll focus on the role of evidence in Bible interpretation, especially narrative.
It should be a given that since we’re talking about God’s Word, and teaching we are going to claim is “biblical,” any interpretation we take of any passage of Scripture—narrative or not—needs to be justified by evidence and reasoning. Saying “God meant this when He said that” is a weighty claim! It needs to be justified.
In other words, whenever we claim, “This information in this text has this meaning for us,” we should be expected to prove it. The “proof” may be informal, as it usually is in preaching. Still, we should expect listeners to want reasons. Our beliefs and assertions should be warranted, and we should help others see why they are warranted.
Narrative is no exception to this duty—any more than poetry, prophecy, or epistles.
Classifying Evidence
Some years ago, I wrote about casting lots as a thought experiment on handling biblical evidence. A lot of readers wanted to debate the validity of casting lots—but my intent was to stir curiosity: Why don’t churches or individual believers generally make decisions that way today?
There’s a reason we don’t. It has to do with evidence.
I’m going to talk about three qualities of evidence, two types of evidence, then five sub-types.
First, three qualities:
- Consistent with
- Supportive
- Conclusive
Say a building burned down, and we discover that Wolfgang was at the location when the fire started. His presence there is consistent with the claim that he started the fire, but it doesn’t support that conclusion at all. This is more obvious if lots of other people were there, too.
But suppose we also learn that Wolfgang had publicly said he wished that building would burn. He also bought lots of flammable liquids earlier that day. That still doesn’t prove he did it, but it is supportive. Though inconclusive, it is evidential for the claim that Wolfgang started the fire.
Now suppose Wolfgang was the only person there at the right time to have started the fire. Suppose the building was recently inspected and found to have no faulty wiring. There were no electrical storms that day, either.
We are now probably “beyond reasonable doubt” about Wolfgang’s guilt. The evidence is conclusive in the sense that it warrants a high-confidence conclusion.
On to the two types:
- Internal evidence
- External evidence
In reference to the Bible, internal evidence is anything within the 66 books of the Bible. External evidence is everything from human experience, human nature, and the whole created world outside the Bible.
Simple enough. On to the five sub-types. These are types of internal evidence. We could choose almost any topic, then classify every (or nearly every) biblical reference to it as one of these types. I’ll use music for this example:
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in all contexts.
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in a particular setting.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality, and evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality but no evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, but no contextual indications of quality or exemplary intent.
What do I mean by “exemplary intent”? Sometimes we read that person A did B, and the context encourages us to believe we’re seeing an example of good or bad conduct. For example, we read that Daniel prayed “as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). The context encourages us to see Daniel’s choices as both good (“contextual indications of quality”) and something to imitate in an appropriate way (“exemplary intent”).
Evidence and Certainty
Why bother to classify evidence? Because classifying the information (evidence/potential evidence) guides us in evaluating how well it works as justification for a claim. In turn, that shapes how certain we can be that our understanding is correct and how certain we can encourage others to be.
Looking at the five types of internal evidence above, the evidential weight and certainty decrease as we get further down the list. By the time we get to type 5, we may not have evidence at all—in reference to our topic or claim. Depending on the size of the claim, there might be information that is consistent with a claim, but not really anything supportive, much less conclusive.
As we move up the list of types, relevance to the topic becomes far more direct, and interpretive possibilities are greatly reduced. Certainty increases because there are fewer options.
There is no Bible verse that tells us this. It’s a function of what is there in the text vs. what is not there. We know there is a difference between an apostle saying, “Do this for this reason” and an individual in an OT history doing something, with no explanation of why it’s in the text. The relationship of these realities to appropriate levels of certainty follows out of necessity.
How Narrative Is Special
Speaking of differences between one genre of writing and another in Scripture, let’s pause to briefly note a few things about narrative.
- Humans pretty much universally recognize narrative. They may not be able to explain what sets it apart from other kinds of writing, but they know it when they read or hear it.
- The characteristics of narrative that enable us to recognize it are not revealed in Scripture. There is no verse that says “this is the definition of narrative.” We just know.
- Those characteristics include the fact that many details in narratives are only there to support the story. They are not intended to convey anything to us outside of that context.
- There is no Bible verse that tells us narrative works this way. We just know. It’s built into the definition.
What does this mean when it comes to evidence and justifying our claim that a passage reveals a truth or helps build a doctrine?
It means that narrative detail has a different burden-of-proof level by default. Because the story-supportive role of narrative detail is inherent in the nature of narrative, our starting assumption with these details is normally that they are there to give us information about the events and characters, not to provide other kinds of information.
Can a narrative detail have a secondary purpose of revealing to us the nature of, say, hats and other clothing, carts and other vehicles, stew and other dishes, axes and other tools, lyres and other musical instruments? Probably sometimes. As with any other interpretive claim, the burden of proof lies on the interpreter to justify it. In the case of narrative, though, the interpreter has a lower-certainty starting point, and a longer journey to arrive at a warranted belief.
The Profitability of All Scripture
2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4 do indeed assure us that all of Scripture is important. “Verbal, plenary inspiration” describes our conviction that every original word of the Bible is fully and equally from God. So we don’t look at any words and dismiss them as unimportant. What we do is ask how do these words work together in their context to provide us with “teaching… reproof.. correction… and training in righteousness.”
Narrative details are important. They’re so important that we’re obligated to stay out of the way and let them do their job.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 748 views
Thanks for this substantive article. I have strong disagreements with what you have set forth, but it is helpful to learn in more detail what your approach and viewpoints are.
It means that narrative detail has a different burden-of-proof level by default. Because the story-supportive role of narrative detail is inherent in the nature of narrative, our starting assumption with these details is normally that they are there to give us information about the events and characters, not to provide other kinds of information.
Can a narrative detail have a secondary purpose of revealing to us the nature of, say, hats and other clothing, carts and other vehicles, stew and other dishes, axes and other tools, lyres and other musical instruments? Probably sometimes. As with any other interpretive claim, the burden of proof lies on the interpreter to justify it. In the case of narrative, though, the interpreter has a lower-certainty starting point, and a longer journey to arrive at a warranted belief.
In particular, I think that these comments are problematic, especially your second paragraph that I have quoted. You assert that narrative details have other purposes "probably sometimes."
That is a point that needs to be probed deeply.
Feel free to dig into that. Maybe this will help:
We all know that narrative details are almost always there to tell us about what happened and/or about the persons involved. This is inherent in what makes it narrative.
Can we learn other things, too? Well, let’s remember that the central problem is the need to justify interpretive claims. Can we we justify claims that are unrelated to the events, locations and persons in the narrative?
Well, it’s fair to say that if we are making a small enough ‘outside the narrative’ claim, sure, it can be done. I’ll give an example or two in a minute. But with these really small/modest claims, we’re generally talking about things that are either already obvious or things that have strong support in other passages—making the claim unnecessary.
Examples.
Example 1, Esau’s meal (Gen 25:29-34): Esau comes back from hunting, is super hungry, finds Jacob cooking some red stew, with lentils, makes a deal to get the stew in exchange for his birthright.
What can we learn about stews in general and lentil stews in particular vs. other stews? It’s a silly question, because the point of the story is the bad deal Esau made and how the deep rift with Jacob started. It could have been a plate of donuts. But we’re told it was lentil stew, so can we make interpretive claims about stew and lentils unrelated to the narrative—and justify them?
Some really small claims:
- People eat food.
- Stew can be really appealing.
- Lentils can be an ingredient in stew.
We could list a few more things at that level, but they’re all things we already know and that there is not much value in “learning” from the text. … and there is a kind of disrespect of the text involved in using it that way.
But the reasoning seems valid.
Example 2, carting the ark (2 Sam 6:3-8): The ark of the covenant has been recovered and David is returning it to Jerusalem. They put it on a nice new cart. Along the way, Uzzah feels the need to keep the ark steady, reaches out and grabs it, is struck dead.
Can we learn about wheeled conveyances, carts, and propulsion systems (here, oxen)? Again, the question seems silly because we know the main point has to do with the holiness of the Ark, and the rules God had given them for moving it from place to place (to respect His holiness)—which involved priests carrying it on staves. This is all contextual. Other strong contextual points include aspects of God’s character and our relationship with Him.
Can we learn things unrelated to the narrative? Sure.
- Carts are one way things can be moved from place to place.
- Carts can be unsteady on rough terrain.
- Cargo can be unstable.
Well, these are all ‘evident’ as assumptions in the narrative, but again, why would we need to learn these things? And again, it’s a kind of insult to the text, because that information isn’t there for that purpose.
As soon as we try to make larger claims, like “maybe lentil stew is bad” or “maybe lentil stew is especially seductive,” we have gone way out on a limb with a claim that would be very difficult to prove.
Likewise, with the cart example, if we tried to claim that “carts are inferior to hand conveyance,” we have a larger claim that would really be tough thing to prove.
… unless we had, say, Paul the apostle writing in the Epistle to the Colossians that Christians should avoid lentil stew and not use carts, maybe with a reference to Esau or Uzzah.
But if we had that, why would we need to try to milk that out of Gen 25 or 2 Sam 6? We would already have unambiguous teaching on these topics.
There could be exceptions to this, I suppose, but almost always an “outside the narrative” claim based on “inside the narrative” details is not worth making. It’s either so small as to be obvious or larger but then requires corroboration from somewhere else… making use of the narrative in that way pointless.
Now I have occasionally done something sort of like this in sermons: A narrative detail adds a nuance to the story that can lead us to a number of other passages that make a relevant point. I don’t have an example handy, but this is consistent with what I’ve been saying. In those cases, I’m not deriving the claim from the narrative detail. I’m using it as a hitch to other passages and relying on those to make the claim. There is a difference.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Our church song leader is named Wolfgang. Seems ironic, given the underlying argument behind your article
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Your church building OK, Don? :^)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
To the point about narrative, the point that it is "that which is" more than "that which ought to be" is well taken--though one can often infer that the participants in the narrative did believe that something was "that which ought to be", or "that which ought not to be."
That noted, a lot of the worst knock-down, drag out arguments I've seen here and elsewhere are when arguably one or more participants simply are taking the text somewhere it simply does not go when one looks at the historical context, original languages, and such. A lot of that happens when people view things through the lens of their own microculture so strongly that the ordinary tools of exegesis simply don't seem to penetrate.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I did an interview with Mike Riley this morning closely related to this topic. It will show up on our podcast in a few weeks (shameless plug)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I find it perplexing that you consider paying the closest possible attention to what the Spirit in His wisdom has inspired to be in His Word as somehow insulting to the text. I think that holding that the details of narratives a priori are mere story details is insulting to the Holy Spirit.
I also think that your asserting that biblical historical narratives are no different than any other stories concerning their details is not tenable. Aside from the obvious false statements of evil entities, etc., every inspired historical narrative in the Bible is 100% factual, historically true information about actual events that actually happened as the Spirit has inspired them to be recorded.
As such, every detail attests to the fully true historical nature of that information.
Moreover, we can learn profoundly important doctrinal information by paying the closest possible attention to the details of biblical historical narratives.
For example, consider what we learn from Exodus 8:26:
Exodus 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?
This text reveals to us a very important truth about the false worship of the Egyptians--the Egyptians regarded what the Jews sacrificed to Yahweh to be an abomination. It wasn't, therefore, just that the Egyptians worshiped different gods than the One that the Israelites worshiped.
In their worship of their false gods, they offered things in sacrifice to their gods that were not what the Israelites offered to Yahweh. Consequently, Egyptian idolatry was not just sinful because it was worship offered to false gods. It was also sinful because what was offered to those false gods was not what God had ordained was acceptable to Him to offer in sacrifice.
Our theology of false worship must not be one of holding that what makes false worship sinful is only the hearts of the people and the wrong objects to whom they offer worship. False worship also includes offering things in worship that are not acceptable to God for any use in worship.
Without giving proper attention to the fully authentically historical and factual information of passages such as Exodus 8:26, many have come to false notions about what worship God accepts and what worship He does not.
Can we learn things unrelated to the narrative? Sure.
- Carts are one way things can be moved from place to place.
- Carts can be unsteady on rough terrain.
- Cargo can be unstable.
Well, these are all ‘evident’ as assumptions in the narrative, but again, why would we need to learn these things?
What is claimed to be "'evident' as assumptions" is highly debatable concerning many things about what the Bible reveals about music. In fact, unbiblical and false presuppositions, assertions, and assumptions about music and human musical activity is one of the root causes of faulty views about music and worship.
I find it perplexing that you consider paying the closest possible attention to what the Spirit in His wisdom has inspired to be in His Word as somehow insulting to the text.
Where did I say paying attention was insulting? You are conflating categories. These are two different things:
- Paying attention every minute detail the Spirit inspired.
- Taking the detail the Spirit inspired in a direction contrary to what He intended.
Item one is handling accurately the Word of Truth. The latter is the insult to the text.
I think that holding that the details of narratives a priori are mere story details
Where did I say a priori or “mere”?
Again, these are two different claims:
- The narrative details are “mere story detail.”
- The narrative details have dubious meaning apart from the persons, events, etc. of the story.
I reject that there is anything “mere” about any of the details. I’ve been absolutely clear on that point. This is different from saying we’re free to run wild with our imagination in finding meaning in the details unrelated to the context.
I also think that your asserting that biblical historical narratives are no different than any other stories concerning their details is not tenable. Aside from the obvious false statements of evil entities, etc., every inspired historical narrative in the Bible is 100% factual, historically true information about actual events that actually happened as the Spirit has inspired them to be recorded.
You don’t seem to be reading what I’ve written. I absolutely agree with all of the above. Biblical narrative is indeed different in that particular way.
As such, every detail attests to the fully true historical nature of that information.
Moreover, we can learn profoundly important doctrinal information by paying the closest possible attention to the details of biblical historical narratives.
The first sentence of these two is quite correct. The second has no relationship to the first. You made a leap there. I’ve explained why it can’t really work that way. In what way(s) are my evidence and reasoning faulty?
In their worship of their false gods, they offered things in sacrifice to their gods that were not what the Israelites offered to Yahweh. Consequently, Egyptian idolatry was not just sinful because it was worship offered to false gods. It was also sinful because what was offered to those false gods was not what God had ordained was acceptable to Him to offer in sacrifice.
I think you have misunderstood the passage.
Since what you’re doing with the details is directly related to the people and events, it’s not a case of finding meaning unrelated to the narrative.
But all interpretations need to be justified, and in this case, it’s just not possible to read it that way given the context.
25 Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God within the land.” 26 But Moses said, “It would not be right to do so, for the offerings we shall sacrifice to the LORD our God are an abomination to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice offerings abominable to the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us? 27 We must go three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the LORD our God as he tells us.”
The “what” they would offer there would have been fine in God’s eyes. It just would have been abhorrent to the Egyptians. (‘Abomination’ does not mean what it is often understood to mean, by way.) Looking at the larger context, it’s evident that Moses is just trying to find a reason Pharaoh’s suggestion isn’t good enough—because the goal is to get out of Egypt.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
In their worship of their false gods, they offered things in sacrifice to their gods that were not what the Israelites offered to Yahweh. Consequently, Egyptian idolatry was not just sinful because it was worship offered to false gods. It was also sinful because what was offered to those false gods was not what God had ordained was acceptable to Him to offer in sacrifice.
I think you have misunderstood the passage.
Since what you’re doing with the details is directly related to the people and events, it’s not a case of finding meaning unrelated to the narrative.
But all interpretations need to be justified, and in this case, it’s just not possible to read it that way given the context.
25 Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God within the land.” 26 But Moses said, “It would not be right to do so, for the offerings we shall sacrifice to the LORD our God are an abomination to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice offerings abominable to the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us? 27 We must go three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the LORD our God as he tells us.”
The “what” they would offer there would have been fine in God’s eyes. It just would have been abhorrent to the Egyptians. (‘Abomination’ does not mean what it is often understood to mean, by way.) Looking at the larger context, it’s evident that Moses is just trying to find a reason Pharaoh’s suggestion isn’t good enough—because the goal is to get out of Egypt.
Actually, no, you misunderstood what I am saying. Let me try again.
The Israelites wanted to offer what they knew was acceptable to God.
The Egyptians regarded what the Israelites offered to God as abominations.
What, then, do we learn about what the Egyptians offered to their gods?
Because the Egyptians regarded what the Israelites offered to Yahweh as abominations, they would not offer those things (that were acceptable to Yahweh but abominations to the Egyptians) to their gods. Instead, they would offer other things--that were different from the acceptable sacrifices that the Israelites offered to Yahweh--to their false gods.
Thus, we have certainty that what the Egyptians offered to their gods was not acceptable to Yahweh because the Egyptians regarded what was acceptable to Yahweh as abominations.
Clearly, the "main point" of Daniel 10 is not to teach about what demons are doing with reference to groups of people. Daniel 10, however, reveals truth about demonic princes over entire empires that is truth that is nowhere else in the Bible revealed specifically:
Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
Daniel 10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.
Based on Daniel 10:13 and 10:20, we have absolute certainty that there were demonic princes over those two empires.
Someone could try to argue that we should stick to inferring this truth from other teaching that is not in a narrative. I reject that notion categorically. There is no biblical basis for someone to say that this truth is not doctrinally important for our doctrine of demonology (and other doctrines) simply because it is in a narrative where demonology is not the "main point."
>>Thus, we have certainty that what the Egyptians offered to their gods was not acceptable to Yahweh because the Egyptians regarded what was acceptable to Yahweh as abominations.<<
OK, assuming we know from this that the Egyptians did not offer to their gods something that’s acceptable to God, I still think that’s not really important to the passage for a couple reasons.
- We still don’t know what was being offered, just that it wasn’t the same as Israelite sacrifices.
- #1 is really unimportant to us anyway, because even if the Egyptians had had an exact copy of the Pentateuch (which of course didn’t exist yet) and followed the rules on what to offer to the letter, except that they offered them to Ra instead of God, it still would be an abomination to God.
So I contend that what they offered was mostly unimportant to us (maybe not completely an incidental detail, but mostly), since they weren’t worshipping the true God. Sure, it’s a detail, and one we can note, but not one of any significance to us. (It might help some biblical historians trying to track differences in the cultures mentioned in the Bible.) Since we know worshipping a false god is already wrong, we don’t really need the details of their worship, any more than we need details of what happened in the temple of Aphrodite.
Dave Barnhart
The Egyptians regarded what the Israelites offered to God as abominations.
What, then, do we learn about what the Egyptians offered to their gods?
Nothing. The text doesn’t even say the Egyptians offered sacrifices.
Because the Egyptians regarded what the Israelites offered to Yahweh as abominations, they would not offer those things (that were acceptable to Yahweh but abominations to the Egyptians) to their gods.
Well, it’s reasonable to surmise that the Egyptians would not do what they thought was abominable, and that their worship was not acceptable to God. We are not told this is specifically because of what they offered.
Thus, we have certainty that what the Egyptians offered to their gods was not acceptable to Yahweh because the Egyptians regarded what was acceptable to Yahweh as abominations.
No, we have a situation where what is said about the Egyptians is consistent with the idea that their offerings were of the wrong stuff. But nothing in the text says so.
If the goal is to make the point that what we offer to God is important in worship, not just why and Whom we offer it to, there are passages that are actually clear on that point and we should use those.
Clearly, the “main point” of Daniel 10 is not to teach about what demons are doing with reference to groups of people.
Demons are characters in the narrative, so there are some entirely valid ways to learn about them from the details of the narrative.
Where we get into trouble is (a) when we try to extract meaning that is independent of the narrative (not about the persons, events, places, etc.) or (b) reason in invalid ways from what is there.
In the first case, we’re either limited to making a very small claim with high certainty or a larger claim with very low certainty. In the second case, well we’re just not really proving what we think we’re proving. People are not going to find us persuasive, unless they’ve already decided (in which case, they still aren’t really find us persuasive).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
A point that might get lost in the back and forth, so I want to make it before I forget: Part of holding the work of the Spirit and the principle of verbal inspiration in high regard is using the best texts to make points.
In preaching, we’re not usually doing systematic theology, though sometimes we do a little mini-systematic study to strengthen a point we’ve come to in the text. But if we’re preaching a topic, we ought to prioritize where God has most clearly and directly spoken on that topic.
When doing systematic theology as a study, we cast the net a lot wider, to pull in internal evidence. Still, we prioritize passages that speak most clearly to the questions/topics in focus. And having clearly established a truth, we don’t dig for more weaker evidence to accumulate. If you have strong evidence and you’ve used it in your argument, there is no point in gathering weak evidence to add to it.
And if weak evidence is all there is… well, is it worth doing? It might be. But we should adjust our expectations. We’re not going to end the process with something really meaty and high-confidence. It could be “food for thought” though.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
A point that might get lost in the back and forth, so I want to make it before I forget: Part of holding the work of the Spirit and the principle of verbal inspiration in high regard is using the best texts to make points.
In preaching, we’re not usually doing systematic theology, though sometimes we do a little mini-systematic study to strengthen a point we’ve come to in the text. But if we’re preaching a topic, we ought to prioritize where God has most clearly and directly spoken on that topic.
When doing systematic theology as a study, we cast the net a lot wider, to pull in internal evidence. Still, we prioritize passages that speak most clearly to the questions/topics in focus. And having clearly established a truth, we don’t dig for more weaker evidence to accumulate. If you have strong evidence and you’ve used it in your argument, there is no point in gathering weak evidence to add to it.
And if weak evidence is all there is… well, is it worth doing? It might be. But we should adjust our expectations. We’re not going to end the process with something really meaty and high-confidence. It could be “food for thought” though.
There are no so-called "best" texts that are comprehensive treatments of all truth that God has revealed about a subject. Claiming, therefore, in effect that we should limit ourselves to using so-called "best" texts deprives us of the God-intended profit from other passages about that subject.
This discussion is not about preaching and what should be done in preaching. ST concerns itself with determining what is true, regardless of where the information is found in Scripture.
Demons are characters in the narrative, so there are some entirely valid ways to learn about them from the details of the narrative.
Where we get into trouble is (a) when we try to extract meaning that is independent of the narrative (not about the persons, events, places, etc.) or (b) reason in invalid ways from what is there.
In the first case, we’re either limited to making a very small claim with high certainty or a larger claim with very low certainty. In the second case, well we’re just not really proving what we think we’re proving. People are not going to find us persuasive, unless they’ve already decided (in which case, they still aren’t really find us persuasive).
Learning from Daniel 10 that there are demonic princes over entire empires and that they fight against godly angels in connection with what is taking place in the lives of important people in empires is not a small claim. It has profound implications for our understanding of world events, governments, etc.
Discussion