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.)
And as you note in this sentence--"bottom line for me is that there are musical "genres" or "styles" that are unacceptable to God because they are of demonic origin."--your argument is, in a nutshell, that we must work from guilt by association. Since that is a basic logical fallacy, and moreover would implicate basically any type of music, that claim is "dead on arrival" for me.
Bert, you beat this drum constantly, usually when attempting to shut down someone else's argument. I am not sure you really understand logical fallacies.
It is true that there is a fallacy of guilt by association, and it might be true that Rajesh is using it.
However, mere association can be a valid reason for dissassociating ourselves from something. Otherwise, why would all those Christian book stores, Masters University, etc., have suddenly dropped Steve Lawson's material?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Neither the discussion about the GCI or arguing about things like skull drums is accomplishing that with respect to music. I’ve been reading authors on this topic for more than 40 years, beginning with Garlock (I was a teenager when I first heard him speak, so I wanted to see if he had good arguments for what I had heard preached all my life) and moving on to others most recently including Aniol, and I’m yet to be convinced, on this forum or elsewhere.
More than forty years is a long time to be reading about a subject and not be convinced so as to have firmly held positions. It seems to me that you, like many, may have underlying presuppositions or assumptions that need to be scrutinized for validity.
It's mind-boggling to me that so many people have a hard time accepting or even flat out reject that demons can and have directed humans to engage in musical activity such that the music played on the instruments used was entirely and permanently unacceptable to God. Apparently, there is a huge disconnect between our thinking on some foundational matters such as demonology and human sinfulness.
>>It’s mind-boggling to me that so many people have a hard time accepting or even flat out reject that demons can and have directed humans to engage in musical activity such that the music played on the instruments used was entirely and permanently unacceptable to God.<<
So if I understand what you have said in different threads, I take the following from your arguments:
- Demons direct humans to do unholy things, including making unholy music.
- This worship may include lyrics we cannot humanly understand.
- We aren’t to study too closely these aspects of demons and false worship.
- We still need to know that whatever humans do under the influence of demons is something we cannot do or use ourselves.
- Because of how some humans use music in worship of demons, music in those styles or with the same instruments (or maybe with other similarities I’m not currently thinking of) is something Christians cannot use.
- Humans are not in a position to evaluate musicological aspects of music that may or may not make it acceptable to God.
If I haven’t misrepresented you above, then with your way of approaching this topic, I have no way to know what music I can or cannot use based on music made from demonic activity. If I can’t study or listen to such music, or evaluate it in any way, then I have no way to know if music I use is similar enough or not to be unacceptable, beyond the obvious (like using instruments made out of humans or with demonic inscriptions, or unholy lyrics).
If, as most of us do, we stay completely away from anything to do with the occult, how do we have any way of knowing that music we are making is similar enough to such music to be unacceptable? What lines can be drawn that get us there?
Of course there is demonic activity, and of course humans are sinful. But taking the arguments above to their logical conclusion, we can’t use anything (including music) made by humans, because it might be similar to what humans worshipping demons are doing.
If you can’t show me how to use all of our tools from scripture, knowledge, experience, and logic to evaluate something like music, then I submit the whole process is incorrect, because scripture commands us to make judgments, and specifically, righteous judgments. Guessing doesn’t meet that criteria, and neither does just listening to a supposed expert telling me what is good and what is evil.
Dave Barnhart
So if I understand what you have said in different threads, I take the following from your arguments:
- Demons direct humans to do unholy things, including making unholy music.
- This worship may include lyrics we cannot humanly understand.
- We aren’t to study too closely these aspects of demons and false worship.
- We still need to know that whatever humans do under the influence of demons is something we cannot do or use ourselves.
- Because of how some humans use music in worship of demons, music in those styles or with the same instruments (or maybe with other similarities I’m not currently thinking of) is something Christians cannot use.
- Humans are not in a position to evaluate musicological aspects of music that may or may not make it acceptable to God.
Points 2, 3, and 5 are faulty because it appears that you either conflate or reduce all demonic practices and activity as worship of demons. That simply is not true and not what the Bible teaches.
This is a very important correction that you need to make in your demonology. Scripture does speak of the worship of demons, but that is far from everything that the Bible has to say about the occult, etc.
More later when I have more time, DV.
If you can’t show me how to use all of our tools from scripture, knowledge, experience, and logic to evaluate something like music, then I submit the whole process is incorrect, because scripture commands us to make judgments, and specifically, righteous judgments. Guessing doesn’t meet that criteria, and neither does just listening to a supposed expert telling me what is good and what is evil.
For now, my entire focus is on using "all of our tools from Scripture" to address the music issues. So many believers have espoused unsound doctrine about music. As much as is possible, it is necessary to answer those wrong views by showing from Scripture why they are wrong.
All of my music threads have had in form or another the goal of treating Scripture to address one or more false views that many believers hold either about what the Bible teaches about music or what is true about music based on their wrong use of the Bible.
Humans are not in a position to evaluate musicological aspects of music that may or may not make it acceptable to God.
This certainly is not my view except that I do hold that God has not authorized Christians to go to occultists and other evildoers and listen to their music to analyze it musicologically according to their own man-made notions about music.
On the other hand, my view is that humans must do this regarding music that is not from or derived from the occult, but their musicological understanding in doing so must still come foremost from the Bible--it must not be foremost the musicological claims of music "experts" who assert things that are contrary to the true teachings of the Bible.
For example, whether or not acceptable music for corporate worship can be "rhythmically dominant" music or poundingly percussive music is something that must be established from the Bible itself.
In that regard, I find zero evidence in Scripture that any music that is rhythmically dominant or poundingly percussive is acceptable to God for use in corporate worship. Rather, Scripture abundantly and profoundly teaches that stringed instruments are to be the primary instruments used in acceptable music for corporate worship.
Evidently you've never heard of the last two Psalms, Rajesh? Let's be blunt; you don't get danceable music for a large gathering before electronic amplification without percussive help, and Middle Eastern music still features a good strong beat to this day. That's why they command cymbals and other percussive instruments.
Again, it was commanded in Scripture. Please stop telling God's people to ignore God's word, Rajesh.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
First of all, here's a definition.
To the topic, the key question here is how, or if, one can bridge the gap between what everyone agrees on--if you need to sin to create an instrument or use a genre, it is out--and the kind of cases that Rajesh notes, like music with heavy percussion, or a generic rock/rap/whatever genre.
And since drum sets, the 12 bar blues, harmonization, and a lot more were unknown in Bible times, we're left doing what Rajesh has done here; allege that a given technique, instrument, or genre is corrupted.
The trouble with that is linked above; it's textbook guilt by association, and logical fallacies should never be part of our discourse. Yes, I'm trying to shut this down, as should anyone who understands the logical principles at stake.
A side note; many times, we won't notice this because GBA is so darned pervasive in our society and even in our circles. For example, KJVO is built on GBA, as is our political discourse--"Candidate Bob was seen with Jeff, who once wandered into a white pride event." So there will be a great deal of repentance needed from this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
My point, Bert, is that it seems to me you trot out these fallacies as a trump card, implying that the argument is over. Further, I don’t think you really understand the fallacies. And there are certainly times when association is guilt.
Finally, unless you actually engage the argument point by point, your argumentation is as much noise as you say your opponent’s is.
It’s too easy to claim “Fallacy” and declare victory
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, you are free to point out, with evidence, if you believe that I'm not using the fallacy correctly. That requires, however, an adherence to Deming's Law; "In God we trust, all others must provide data."
Put gently, throwing bombs without evidence like that is one of the banes of our circles, and it should be stopped. Don't throw the accusation, Don, unless you're willing and able to back it up.
And yes, if I'm correct that this is indeed guilt by association, it should end the argument in the same way that the yellow flag ends debate over the play. Going through things point by point is a waste of time, akin to a football commentator addressing the movements of the other 21 players when the key issue is the player deliberately grabbing the face mask of another.
Really, we fundamentalists cause a lot of our own problems by refusing to throw these yellow flags. We debate all the other issues, not realizing that we do indeed have a central issue that must be addressed first. In this area, KJVO, and others, the unfortunate reality is that fundamentalists have tolerated guilt by association fallacies far too much. It's time to stop.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Evidently you've never heard of the last two Psalms, Rajesh? Let's be blunt; you don't get danceable music for a large gathering before electronic amplification without percussive help, and Middle Eastern music still features a good strong beat to this day. That's why they command cymbals and other percussive instruments.
Again, it was commanded in Scripture. Please stop telling God's people to ignore God's word, Rajesh.
I have never told anyone to ignore God's Word. You misuse Psalms 149-150 to claim that they support things that they do not.
Don, you are free to point out, with evidence, if you believe that I'm not using the fallacy correctly. That requires, however, an adherence to Deming's Law; "In God we trust, all others must provide data."
Bert, you are arguing with Rajesh over a point that seems to be "guilt by association" - here is how I see the argument going.
Rajesh: Certain demonic activities produce certain styles of music, therefore these styles are evil and should be avoided.
Bert: Guilt by association, you are using a fallacy.
The thing is, I think you would agree that if demonic activities definitely produced a style of music (or a piece of music), you would say that there is a problem with that. Paul in 1 Cor 10 makes it clear that if you know a piece of meat comes from an idol temple, you shouldn't use it because of demons. (If you don't know, the implication is it is just meat.)
So the problem as I see it is that Rajesh (as several have said), doesn't show his work. He doesn't show:
- Evidence that demons produce such music
- Evidence that "skull drums" produce a distinctive style of music clearly produced by demons
- Evidence that music from sources like has infiltrated general culture or church culture
I suppose the argument that the use of "skull drums" to produce any music is guilt by association, because you could theoretically play such music on non-problematic instruments and the association would not exist.
Anyway, I am simply objecting to "throwing the fallacy flag" in the argument. Just as Rajesh doesn't convince me of his views, your use of this approach doesn't convince me either. That's all I am saying to you. You have done this in other threads, I don't need to go back and dig them out.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
In this thread, Bert Perry has repeatedly faultily argued from silence. Even after I have pointed this out earlier in this thread, he did it again when he said the following:
Note how he again argues from silence: "does not tell those so commanded to eschew certain instruments and genre."
What Bert Perry actually does is to explain away all biblical prohibitions that would apply by claiming that they do not apply to eschewing such things.
In spite of much unwarranted opposition to my doing so, by my persisting in pointing much needed attention to the wickedness of human skull drums, I have refuted his false claims about what is true concerning musical instruments and what Scripture teaches that applies to them. Divine prohibitions such as Ephesians 5:11 absolutely do apply to the necessity of eschewing certain musical instruments.
Because we know with certainty that prohibitions such as Ephesians 5:11 do apply to certain musical instruments, we have no basis to hold that they do not and cannot apply to any musical "genres" or "styles."
Earlier in this thread, I meant to challenge these statements but did not get to them.
These statements by Bert Perry are not true because Daniel 3 does not list any percussion instruments among the list of instruments that are mentioned 4x in that account of "Nebuchadnezzar's orchestra for his idol."
Daniel 3 thus does not list "the same basic classifications of instruments" as the Psalms do.
This is yet another instance where he has made a faulty claim about Scripture and then used that faulty claim to support his faulty positions about music.
Eleven pages in and I still have no clear picture of what your point is, Rajesh.
It may be true that Daniel 3 does not list percussion instruments in regard to worship of an idol, but the Psalms does list percussion instruments in regard to worship of God.
Since Daniel 3 lists both wind and string instruments being used in idol worship, does it follow that trumpets, flutes, and harps cannot today be used in worshipping God? (I rather think that conclusion would gain about zero traction in our Baptist churches of today.)
Since Daniel 3 lists both wind and string instruments being used in idol worship, does it follow that trumpets, flutes, and harps cannot today be used in worshipping God? (I rather think that conclusion would gain about zero traction in our Baptist churches of today.)
The point of my most recent comment was to show that Bert Perry has once again made comments claiming that Scripture says something when in fact it does not. Correcting such false statements is important because he uses those false claims to support his false positions.
The instruments used in Daniel 3 do not establish that those categories of instruments cannot be used today; we know that, not by reasoning that has anything to do with Daniel 3, but with many other passages in Scripture where God authorized the use of such instruments.
His authorization of the use of those instruments, however, does not establish that all kinds and ways of using all those same instruments are acceptable to God.
The key point that is under dispute in this thread is what does the Bible teach about and what is true about all musical "genres" or "styles." If they are all acceptable to Him, legitimate proof must be provided to show that is true.
Arguing that Daniel 3 has all the same basic classifications of instruments as the Psalms do is not factually true, and even if were true, that would not prove that all "genres" and "styles" of instrumental music are acceptable to God.
Because we know with certainty that prohibitions such as Ephesians 5:11 do apply to certain musical instruments, we have no basis to hold that they do not and cannot apply to any musical "genres" or "styles."
Ironically, this appears to be another faulty argument from silence.
Don, glad to see you concede that Rajesh's tactic is indeed fallacious, but you really shouldn't object. Genetic fallacies are in general the rhetorical equivalent of personal fouls in football, where the ad hominem is 15 yards and loss of down because it directly attacks another person, and I'd argue that guilt by association, being an indirect attack, is at least worth the rhetorical equivalent of "five yards".
One of the chief issues with refusing to throw the flag is that it enables verbal assaults, and thus makes our arguments into donnybrooks. Witness this thread, really. Throw the flag cheerfully when you see the violation, unless you want to see the forum look like the NHL of the 1970s.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I’ve said all I need to say on this point, but one follow up.
I would LOVE to see the NHL get back to 70s hockey. Bring it on!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Rajesh, it's not exactly an argument from silence, but a basic technique of inductive logic and exegesis, that I'm getting at here. Confronted with a text from a culture different than our own, we may be tempted to insert our own biases into the text, and one of the key checks is a basic question:
Does the text have obvious places where my logic could have been applied, and does it do so in these cases?
If the answers are "yes, there are obvious places" and "no", then you've got to entertain the notion that the culture simply didn't think the way we did, and hence your initial analysis is incorrect.
And that's exactly the case. Despite Israel hearing just about every kind of music due to being on the trade routes, and despite the Church quickly including people from many nations (e.g. slaves), no Bible author ever warns God's people about any instrument or genre that they might have used to fulfill Ephesians 5:19.
So I conclude that, absent significant additional information, you're simply reading your own culture into the text of Scripture.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
One disagreement with you Don. I love that the 2-line pass rule has been discarded. I enjoy the way the game flows much more now that that is gone.
Dave Barnhart
Because we know with certainty that prohibitions such as Ephesians 5:11 do apply to certain musical instruments, we have no basis to hold that they do not and cannot apply to any musical "genres" or "styles."
Ironically, this appears to be another faulty argument from silence.
Not true. Ephesians 5:11-12 states,
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
To claim that "unfruitful works of darkness" applies to occult activities but not to the music used in such activities has no biblical warrant whatever. Those who try to say that since occult music is not mentioned in the passage means that it does not apply to the music of the occult argue from silence to do so.
To claim that "unfruitful works of darkness" applies to occult activities but not to the music used in such activities has no biblical warrant whatever.
You continue to argue against a position no one here is defending. Can you just give us one example of a musical genre or style that is commonly used in Christian worship today that is an unfruitful work of darkness? If you can't or won't, then what on earth is the point of this?
You continue to argue against a position no one here is defending. Can you just give us one example of a musical genre or style that is commonly used in Christian worship today that is an unfruitful work of darkness? If you can't or won't, then what on earth is the point of this?
It's no secret that I reject all rock music, rock-based music, rock-influenced music, etc. as occult music that has no place in Christian anything.
No, by saying this, I am not signaling that I am interested in any musicological discussions about rock music or its history, etc.
Musics "o," "p," and "q" are special because they are the musics of people "m" who suffered greatly at the hands of people "n."
All Christians who are of people "n" or are in the countries or regions of the world where people "n" are ascendant must accept musics "o," "p," and "q" as fully pleasing and acceptable to God because they are the musics of oppressed and brutally afflicted people "m."
Any attempts to critique or reject musics "o," "p," and "q" on the basis of biblical, musicological, historical, or any other considerations are undeniable evidence of sinful partiality or respect of persons against people "m."
Is this legitimate argumentation, sound reasoning, and sound doctrine?
So what exactly is "rock-based" and "rock-influenced" music? How do we know what songs/instruments/genres are off limits?
It's worth noting that on Rajesh's personal site, he links to a guy who attempts to link rock & roll with animist/voodoo traditions of Africa, and the interesting thing is that if you go that far back, you implicate not just rock & roll, but also blues, jazz, and....spirituals and black gospel.
Please stop, Rajesh. Please.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
So what exactly is "rock-based" and "rock-influenced" music? How do we know what songs/instruments/genres are off limits?
You will have to do your own research into these subjects. Here are some sources to begin with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rock_genres
There are plenty of good sources to consult for such information, including sources written by believers.
This thread began with a discussion of what is the right way to handle details in narrative passages. I hold that many Christians do not profit from the Bible the way that God wants them to because they mishandle various details in narrative passages.
This mishandling has led to what I believe is a very widespread deficiency in understanding and accepting sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology. Acts 13 has a passage that serves as a good test case for my views about this serious problem.
Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Some approach the book of Acts by asserting that we do not get our doctrine from Acts. Having this wrong understanding in mind, they likely have never profited from the vital information that the Spirit has revealed in this passage.
What does this passage teach us about sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology?
Why do you believe that those are the most important questions to answer from that text?
What does this passage teach us about sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology?
pvawter’s question is a good one.
Why do you believe that those are the most important questions to answer from that text?
We all have limited time and energy, so wisdom (a biblical obligation) calls us to prioritize. In addition to that factor, there is the fact that any given passage of Scripture contains ideas that are very clear and prominent. Usually, there are also ideas that are less prominent and less clear in the passage. Often there is information that is not prominent at all and these bits of info also bring a wide range of interpretive possibilities with them.
How do we judge prominence and clarity? Mostly context.
But first we interpreters have to fully embrace the fact that what we have in Scripture is not flat. It is not all equally prominent and clear.
The reality is that we all prioritize as we read. Even those who try to say the text is flat actually select what they are going to focus on.
We do well to select based on what’s there and not there—the real prominence and clarity of the elements of the text.
So I would add a question to pvawter’s: Why would we go to that passage for “sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology” first?
If there are passages where these ideas are more prominent and clear, clarity is good, right? Confident interpretation (because the text has fewer interpretive possibilities) is good, right? Interpretation people can understand and follow is good, right?
So, since Scripture is not flat, we go to the best passages first. Then when we get to Acts 13 we ask the best question:
What is this passage mainly there to teach us? What is prominent and most clear here?
After we’ve exhausted the most prominent and clear passages on “sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology” and also, separately, exhausted what is most prominent clear in Acts 13, we could go ahead and see if there is anything more we can draw from Acts 13, with confidence, on “sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology.”
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.
Why do you believe that those are the most important questions to answer from that text?
I made no claim about what "are the most important questions" to answer from that text.
These questions are relevant because they pertain to what has been under discussion about music in this thread.
In addition, Scripture reveals truth about anthropology from Gen. 1-Rev. 22, about demonology from Gen. 3-Rev. 20, and about hamartiology from Gen. 3-Rev. 22. Determining what, if anything, a passage teaches about these doctrines is always relevant to examine.
So, what does Acts 13:6-12 teach us about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology?
So I would add a question to pvawter’s: Why would we go to that passage for “sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology” first?
Who said anything about going to that passage first about those doctrines?
There is doctrinally important information that we can clearly get out of Acts 13:6-12 that we do not get either as directly or at all from the passages that are typically treated about these doctrines.
So, what does Acts 13:6-12 teach us about these doctrines?
I think we have a fundamentally different approach to Scripture. In general, I do not approach the Bible with the goal of forming a systematic theology. That is why I continue to find your questions and methods puzzling.
I think we have a fundamentally different approach to Scripture. In general, I do not approach the Bible with the goal of forming a systematic theology. That is why I continue to find your questions and methods puzzling.
If you do not thoroughly examine what the Spirit has said in a passage for what it actually teaches, you are not going to profit from the passage the way that the Spirit wants you to profit from it.
Acts 13:6-12 reveals information about four people; one of those people is conspicuously an evil person who engages in an evil activity. Who is that person and what does the Spirit reveal to us about what kind of evil person he was and what his evil activities were and what was the extent of his wickedness?
If you do not answer these questions carefully and thoroughly, there is no way that you are going to profit from the passage the way that God wants you to profit from it.
If you choose to answer these questions correctly, you will learn important information about the doctrines of man (anthropology), demons (demonology), and sin (hamartiology). Doing so is not inherently a systematic theology approach to the study of the Bible--we must examine all that the Spirit has actually said in a passage for what it teaches us.
If you choose to answer these questions correctly, you will learn important information about the doctrines of man (anthropology), demons (demonology), and sin (hamartiology). Doing so is not inherently a systematic theology approach to the study of the Bible--we must examine all that the Spirit has actually said in a passage for what it teaches us.
Is Luke's intention to teach us about demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology in Acts 13? Or is he writing with another purpose in mind? How do you know?
I made no claim about what “are the most important questions” to answer from that text.
These questions are relevant because they pertain to what has been under discussion about music in this thread.
Who said anything about going to that passage first about those doctrines?
Fair enough, but the question remains, why would we be looking for demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology there? I guess we need more context on your study process. Without knowing how you studied demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology etc. before looking at Acts 13, it seems arbitrary.
But, as I’ve noted before, with a lot of topics, once we have worked through the texts where that topic is most prominent and clear, we often find that other passages with a different focus don’t add much, if anything to our understanding. And as we work down the list (assuming we’re working from most prominent and clear passages down to least prominent and clear ones) there is increasingly nothing there that we didn’t already know.
So, though some have probably overstated their own view on this, the core of it is, again, whether the Bible is topically flat or not. It is not. Since Scripture varies on how prominent and clear a topic is (and it even notes this about itself in 2 Pet 3.16), that reality has to drive our interpretive process.
The way I heard it nutshelled often as a kid was “the clear interprets the unclear.” It’s a good rule of thumb, though using it can sometimes be complex.
So the principle that Scripture is not topically flat—let’s just say, for simplicity, that it has depth—a lot of interpretive method flows from that.
If we ignore the degree of prominence and clarity of a topic in the text we’re looking at, we’re likely to engage in the worst sort of proof-texting. If we’ve actually already exhausted all of the best passages (those where the topic of interest is most prominent and clear) and we don’t provide that as context, people get the impression we’re just cherry picking texts to suit a view we’ve already chosen.
Understandably.
So, to sum up, if the Bible is not flat, then method should reflect that and also communication with audiences should reflect that—if we want to be understood and heeded.
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.
Fair enough, but the question remains, why would we be looking for demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology there? I guess we need more context on your study process. Without knowing how you studied demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology etc. before looking at Acts 13, it seems arbitrary.
I did not arbitrarily go to Acts 13 to study those doctrines there.
Rather, if I am remembering correctly what happened, in the process of reading through the book of Acts several years ago, as part of my yearly practice of reading through the whole Bible at least once, I read that passage again, but this time the Spirit illumined my mind to see truth that had always been there but was not perceived by me in the past.
Alternatively, since it has been a number of years ago when I first perceived what was in the passage, it may have been that I was examining all the passages that mention anything about a specific subject and came to that passage to study that subject. This is a method that I have used numerous times to study what the Bible teaches about specific subjects.
Regardless, there is only one right way to examine what is being communicated in that passage. In English, words have meanings when they are used in combinations with other specific words in specific word orders, etc.
Using plain and invariable techniques of proper reading comprehension, there is no denying what the text says unless you come to the passage with an intent to reject any teaching about anything that might be in the passage because you have wrongly predetermined that the book of Acts or that passage is not "about" such and such . . .
Is Luke's intention to teach us about demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology in Acts 13? Or is he writing with another purpose in mind? How do you know?
You cannot predetermine what Luke's purpose is until you have read the passage itself in a normal reading of the book. When you read the passage carefully and pay attention to what the words say as the Spirit inspired Luke to write them, you can plainly see truths in that passage that teach you about those doctrines.
As I related to Aaron above in my comment previous to this one, it was not that I arbitrarily went to the passage looking for content about those doctrines, etc. Either I studied it again as part of my normal reading through the Bible every year or I studied it again as part of my studying one or more specific subjects (I do not know for sure which one it was because it has been quite a number of years since I first understood the relevance of what is in that passage).
Regardless, a proper reading of that passage that does not wrongly predetermine that the passage is only "about" such and such, etc., shows that it teaches things about those doctrines.
You cannot predetermine what Luke's purpose is until you have read the passage itself in a normal reading of the book.
Right, and reading Acts 1:1-11 would strongly suggest that Luke's purpose is to record the history of the early church and initial fulfillment of the great commission. While we can certainly draw data from the book for building our systematic theologies, it is somewhere down the list of priorities when reading the book (or at least it should be, imo.)
As I said before, your approach to Scripture is sufficiently different from mine, that I find it difficult to accept many of your conclusions and emphases.
As I said before, your approach to Scripture is sufficiently different from mine, that I find it difficult to accept many of your conclusions and emphases.
There is not anything difficult about knowing what Acts 13:6-12 shows. It seems that you do not want to actually engage with the text because it reveals truths that you really do not want to accept or deal with because of their implications for the discussion about music in this thread.
Rajesh, there is everything difficult about extrapolating from Scripture to begin with, as it is inductive, not deductive, logic, and hence you've got to assemble a broad array of texts on the same basic subject to infer a conclusion. This is especially the case with narratives, where we do not always know God's view on what was just related.
Still waiting, by the way, for your explanation of whether spirituals, black gospel, jazz, and blues might "pass muster" in your exegetical scheme. The same factors relate to these genre as would relate to rock & roll, and the predecessors of Frank Garlock made that very clear in their writings.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It seems that you do not want to actually engage with the text because it reveals truths that you really do not want to accept or deal with because of their implications for the discussion about music in this thread.
If you would just be up front and tell me what precise implications that passage has about worship music and how they are derived directly from it, I could tell you whether I accept them. I get tired of constantly being told you're not ready to draw conclusions. If the implications follow, then let's hear them.
If you would just be up front and tell me what precise implications that passage has about worship music and how they are derived directly from it, I could tell you whether I accept them. I get tired of constantly being told you're not ready to draw conclusions. If the implications follow, then let's hear them.
How can we properly discuss implications if you are not even willing to state what you believe the passage actually teaches (not its implications, but what is directly seen in the passage itself)? You believe that your hermeneutics are sound. So, based on your sound handling of the passage, what does it reveal about those doctrines?
I don’t think I’ll be back to this particular discussion.
I’m not seeing any evidence that I’m even being understood, and mostly I’m just rephrasing things I’ve already said.
So one last time…
- An interpretation has to be supported. If you want to be persuasive, people need to be able to understand how you got there.
- With respect to topics, Scripture is not flat. Some passages are more clear than others and the topic is more prominent there.
- It is sound method to use the passages where the topic is most prominent and clear first, and work to less prominent and clear passages after that. Given the limits of time and energy, you might not get to the bottom of that process to the least clear and least prominent passages. That’s probably OK. 24 hrs in a day and all that.
- If we go to passages near the bottom of that chain without providing people with context, our choice of that text is going to seem (note I use the word ‘seem’ here and I also used it previously) arbitrary. It may well not be arbitrary, but the reality is that people we are communicating with are not inside our heads.
That’s all I’ve got on this, I think.
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.
I’m not seeing any evidence that I’m even being understood, and mostly I’m just rephrasing things I’ve already said.
So one last time…
- An interpretation has to be supported. If you want to be persuasive, people need to be able to understand how you got there.
- With respect to topics, Scripture is not flat. Some passages are more clear than others and the topic is more prominent there.
- It is sound method to use the passages where the topic is most prominent and clear first, and work to less prominent and clear passages after that. Given the limits of time and energy, you might not get to the bottom of that process to the least clear and least prominent passages. That’s probably OK. 24 hrs in a day and all that.
- If we go to passages near the bottom of that chain without providing people with context, our choice of that text is going to seem (note I use the word ‘seem’ here and I also used it previously) arbitrary. It may well not be arbitrary, but the reality is that people we are communicating with are not inside our heads.
That’s all I’ve got on this, I think.
You cannot predetermine which passages are the ones where "the topic is most prominent and clear" until you have done proper exegesis of all the passages that pertain to a subject.
I chose Acts 13:6-12 as a test case because it reveals the faultiness of a method that predetermines that the "best" passages to teach a truth will not be in narratives. You cannot know that until you first handle the passage properly to see what is says.
You cannot predetermine on any objective basis that Acts 13:6-12 is at the "bottom of [some] chain" until you have examined the passage thoroughly for what it actually says.
If you really want to have a profitable discussion, I encourage you to interact with the text and set forth what you believe Acts 13:6-12 is teaching.
If, however, that is not something that you and others are willing to do, I am fine with ending this discussion here.
Well, I guess I’m not really out of things to say. 😀
You cannot predetermine which passages are the ones where “the topic is most prominent and clear” until you have done proper exegesis of all the passages that pertain to a subject.
Fortunately, we absolutely can. Even for those who completely reject “genre criticism,” you don’t have to read the Bible for very long before you start to recognize that there are different kinds of writing and that pieces and sections have themes and main topics and secondary topics and so on.
Jesus himself repeatedly referred to the Old Testament as “the law and prophets.” This was a common term at the time, but still, He did not choose to challenge the idea that the OT had sections with different characteristics.
As for the NT, it’s noticeable to readers pretty quickly that we have history sections and direct teaching sections. It should go without saying that a passage that is directly teaching on a topic is one where that topic is more clear and prominent than it would be in a teaching passage about something else or a story far more focused on people than on ideas.
Plus, you seem to be forgetting about historical theology and the role of the church. None of us has to start from scratch studying anything. In fact, it’s impossible to really do that, because we did not come to the faith in a vacuum. We came to know Christ through the church.
So, when we approach a topic, we have a vast history and lots of faithful, though fallible, predecessors to guide us.
In my case, I grew up knowing that the Bible had history, poetry, and direct teaching sections. I knew that because the Body of Christ passed that truth down.
Of course there is often merit in starting with as blank a slate as possible and restudying a topic. But doing that as though all sections of Scripture are equally clear on the topic or that the topic is equally prominent everywhere would be not only reinventing the wheel, but reinventing geometry.
I see that as not only unnecessary but improper. Are we supposed to set aside the reasoning abilities God made us with? Are we better humans than those who came before us? Are we better Christians? Are we better students of the Word?
So, no, that is not the right road. That is not 2 Tim. 3:16, or 2 Tim 1:5, or 2 Tim 3:14 and many others.
About Acts 13
If you really want to have a profitable discussion, I encourage you to interact with the text and set forth what you believe Acts 13:6-12 is teaching.
This is off topic, especially if we’re not approaching the Bible in a sound way to begin with. That’s more foundational.
But the passage is not difficult… and it’s also really cool. I’ll try to summarize.
Acts 13 is relating the history of Paul and Barnabas’ church planting journey and showing us the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise/mandate in Acts 1:8. As it unfolds, the history—the whole book of Acts—shows us how various kinds of opposition (some of it from inside the Church) arose but, to use Jesus’ language (Matt 16:18) Hell did not prevail.
So the chronicle of the spread of the gospel and the church is full of challenges but ultimate triumphs. In Acts 13, the missionaries encounter a new and special kind of opposition from the “magician” Bar Jesus, aka, Elymas
The histories have a lot of ambiguities. One of them is whether we’re being told what a person really was or what everyone knew him as, so we have “for that is the meaning of his name” in Acts 13:8. I don’t want to get deep into the weeds on that question, but it’s a question. I did take a quick look at Toussaint in Bible Knowledge Commentary…
The word “sorcerer” (magos) could describe a counselor or honorable gentleman (e.g., the “Magi” in Matt. 2:1, 7, 16) or it could refer to a fraudulent wizard, as here. It is related to the verb “practice sorcery” (mageuō) used of Simon (Acts 8:9). BKC, Walvoord and Zuck, 1985.
- I’m not convinced, off-hand, that Elymas was a fake. Toussaint doesn’t explain how he arrived at that conclusion, so I’d have to study it further. But it’s of secondary importance.
The most solid point there (because it’s clear) is that Elymas was revered and feared as a man of supernatural power.
But Paul is not intimidated and rebukes him to his face in Acts 13:9-10. He calls him a child of the devil. (We all are, before we come to Christ (1 John 3:10, 2 Cor 4:4, Eph 2:3, Col 1:13), but Paul seems to mean that Elymas is more devilish than average. The emphasis is on his nature as a deceiver (Acts 6:10), which makes total sense (John 8:44).
I’m getting pulled into the details again. Summarizing is challenging, because the details are so interesting, but summarizing is a great Bible study exercise because it forces us to see context and note the overall flow. It makes us see the forest and then the trees, so that the trees don’t blind us to the forest.
Paul not only rebukes Elymas but demonstrates to all present that the power of God is superior and that the Apostles truly posses that power, blinding Elymas in front of everyone (13:11). In keeping with long-established protocol, so to speak (Deut 18:21-22), the truth of the prophets’ message is confirmed with signs of God’s power.
So Christ and His church win the day and the gospel continues to triumph (Ac 13:12). It seems that the proconsul would not have come to faith without Elymas’ opposition first, so the faith is more triumphant amid opposition than it would have been unopposed.
What a great message for our times!! (I find myself wanting to preach.) That power is still here (though I believe the apostles and prophets are not) and the gospel is often more compelling opposed than unopposed.
… which we would not even preach if we focused on the magician and “the occult.”
So, I’m not saying there is nothing to learn about supernatural power in opposition to God in Acts 13. But there is always opportunity-cost with preaching and teaching. If we choose to focus on one thing in a passage in our 40 minute opportunity, we will not be focusing on other things in that 40 minutes.
And the strongest, most compelling message in a text is often lost when decide to handle a passage as though it were flat, favoring our own emphasis over the emphasis God put there… or, to put it less dramatically, favoring a secondary or tertiary detail over the central theme of the passage.
Though other truths are in a text, there is a cost when we focus on what is secondary. There is a time and place to do that, but it should always be done in the context of giving weightier matters their due (and I’m reminded again that Jesus validated the idea that there are weightier matters—Matt 23:23).
(So, to touch on the secondary or tertiary question… do we learn anything about ‘magicians’ from the passage? Nothing we didn’t already know from the OT or other passages: There are both real and fake wielders of supernatural power; they are one of the many ways people are deceived by the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor 4.4); God’s power is superior and Holy Spirit is not hindered by these ‘magicians.’)
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.
Of course there is often merit in starting with as blank a slate as possible and restudying a topic. But doing that as though all sections of Scripture are equally clear on the topic or that the topic is equally prominent everywhere would be not only reinventing the wheel, but reinventing geometry.
I see that as not only unnecessary but improper. Are we supposed to set aside the reasoning abilities God made us with? Are we better humans than those who came before us? Are we better Christians? Are we better students of the Word?
So, no, that is not the right road. That is not 2 Tim. 3:16, or 2 Tim 1:5, or 2 Tim 3:14 and many others.
These remarks are not legitimate comments concerning me, my approach to Scripture, and my 35 years of intense immersion in Scripture. They do not deserve further response.
As for the second part of your response, I appreciate your efforts to engage with the text. I have much to say in response. This is the busiest week of the year at work, so I'll get back to you when I have more time to do so.
These remarks are not legitimate comments concerning me, my approach to Scripture, and my 35 years of intense immersion in Scripture. They do not deserve further response.
Rajesh,
From my perspective as someone who has read many of your posts and comments here on SI over the past several years, it appears as though Aaron had accurately characterized your approach to Scripture. This is one of the reasons why I find your threads and comments very frustrating to engage with.
While you may feel that his description is inaccurate and therefore unworthy of a response, our future interactions on this site would likely be much more beneficial if you did. And you might start by asking yourself why your hermeneutics appear this way to other. Just a thought.
From my perspective as someone who has read many of your posts and comments here on SI over the past several years, it appears as though Aaron had accurately characterized your approach to Scripture. This is one of the reasons why I find your threads and comments very frustrating to engage with.
While you may feel that his description is inaccurate and therefore unworthy of a response, our future interactions on this site would likely be much more beneficial if you did. And you might start by asking yourself why your hermeneutics appear this way to other. Just a thought.
His remarks are untrue and unfair. They strike me as being similar to asking somebody about whether he has stopped beating his wife:
Are we supposed to set aside the reasoning abilities God made us with? Are we better humans than those who came before us? Are we better Christians? Are we better students of the Word?
I have never, ever said anything about setting aside the reasoning abilities God made us with. That is a ridiculous question to ask. As for the other questions, they are even worse because they implicitly attribute mindsets and perspectives to me that are completely false. Yes, they are phrased as questions, but they serve nonetheless as statements.
The histories have a lot of ambiguities. One of them is whether we’re being told what a person really was or what everyone knew him as, so we have “for that is the meaning of his name” in Acts 13:8. I don’t want to get deep into the weeds on that question, but it’s a question. I did take a quick look at Toussaint in Bible Knowledge Commentary…
The word “sorcerer” (magos) could describe a counselor or honorable gentleman (e.g., the “Magi” in Matt. 2:1, 7, 16) or it could refer to a fraudulent wizard, as here. It is related to the verb “practice sorcery” (mageuō) used of Simon (Acts 8:9). BKC, Walvoord and Zuck, 1985.
- I’m not convinced, off-hand, that Elymas was a fake. Toussaint doesn’t explain how he arrived at that conclusion, so I’d have to study it further. But it’s of secondary importance.
The most solid point there (because it’s clear) is that Elymas was revered and feared as a man of supernatural power.
I strongly disagree with your take on this point. You are reading into the passage the notion that we cannot know whether he was a fake or he was a real professional occultist. There isn't anything in the text that even remotely supports approaching the text that way.
This points to what I believe is a very serious, faulty, widespread, contemporary skepticism among believers today that holds that authentic occult activity is rare or hardly even exists. The only way to know that is true would be to have supernatural abilities to examine all occult activities around the whole world and somehow know that there isn't any real demonic activity going on.
Neither you nor anyone else has such ability. Holding such a viewpoint (that authentic occult activity is rare or hardly even exists) is a totally unwarranted notion that has no merit.
Your own life experience is not any legitimate basis to establish the validity of such a view. The life experiences of everybody that you know or have ever known are not a legitimate basis to establish the validity of such a view.
Only divine revelation could establish the validity of such a view. So, does the Bible teach that the occult is mostly fake, sham, charlatans, etc.? If so, where and how does it teach that is true?
Discussion