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.)
- 2342 views
Here is a complete list of popular and Christian music acts who use skull drums to record and perform their music:
And here's a list of all the acts that I've heard of sacrificing to pagan gods and sprinkling their blood on their instruments:
Rajesh, I think you need to give the straw man a rest. Your soap box is that you dislike CCM and modern music, but the reality is that not too many headhunters and voodoo priests are involved in either. Hence your arguments are entirely irrelevant.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Hence your arguments are entirely irrelevant.
I don’t think it follows that if they aren’t openly identifying as voodoo priests or headhunters there can be no connection whatsoever.
Lots of things are inadvertently connected in a culture. Connections and meaning are complex.
But that really doesn’t help Rajesh’s case either, because it argues that sweeping generalizations about what is tainted by what or connected to what, etc., are really hard to support.
Those who already see it that way, don’t need convincing. Those who don’t are going to need solid reasons to rethink the question.
Which goes back to the hermeneutics, because we all accept that Scripture is the rule, but if there is a novel interpretive approach supporting a conclusion, people are right to question that and want to know why they should accept it (or what it even is).
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.
Here is a complete list of popular and Christian music acts who use skull drums to record and perform their music:
And here's a list of all the acts that I've heard of sacrificing to pagan gods and sprinkling their blood on their instruments:
Rajesh, I think you need to give the straw man a rest. Your soap box is that you dislike CCM and modern music, but the reality is that not too many headhunters and voodoo priests are involved in either. Hence your arguments are entirely irrelevant.
My arguments refute your faulty handling of Scripture and faulty claims about music based on that faulty handling of Scripture.
In addition, your knowledge of what at least some popular musicians have done in regard to occult musical instruments, etc. is factually incorrect.
OK, Rajesh, name some names and provide some sources. Keep in mind that--e.g. our discussion about Chaim Witz/Gene Simmons--many artists will say they're doing things that they really aren't simply to get publicity. I'm particularly interested in the Christian artists doing this.
My bet is--again, most states prohibit the desecration of a human corpse, and the skull won't make a good soundbox--that your examples are going to be like hen's teeth, even among secular artists.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I am not going to give you yet another opportunity for you to use blatantly dishonest techniques to attack me concerning such matters. You have repeatedly said what you have to say in several previous threads, and I have said what I am going to say. It's time for you to move on.
[RajeshG:]I use the term “occult” to refer to all those practices.
[Aaron Blumer:]That’s probably how most understand the term. I don’t feel strongly about it, but in this case, I prefer to just use the biblical terminology. There doesn’t seem to be any advantage to using a different term. And “the occult,” in my experience, comes with a lot of baggage in the area of superstition.
There are good biblical reasons for using a different term. Here is one of them.
Paul teaches us that he did not give us an exhaustive list of the works of the flesh:
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
By saying "and such like," Paul instructs us that there are other demonic practices besides witchcraft that are also works of the flesh, and he chose not to provide an exhaustive biblical list of all such demonic practices.
Using a broad term like "the occult" to characterize all such demonic practices is biblically warranted in part because we do not have anywhere in Scripture or even in its totality direct mention of all such demonic practices by name.
Edit: I originally had a refutation written out but I think this thread may have the most hope of actually getting to the real difference i.e. Rajesh’s fantastical hermeneutic.
Bert, I know it’s hard but I would like to kindly ask you to step aside and allow the conversation to center around hermeneutics. Let’s see if this can progress.
Edit: I originally had a refutation written out but I think this thread may have the most hope of actually getting to the real difference i.e. Rajesh’s fantastical hermeneutic.
Bert, I know it’s hard but I would like to kindly ask you to step aside and allow the conversation to center around hermeneutics. Let’s see if this can progress.
There is no guarantee how much longer this thread will go or how much longer I will choose to participate. Why not go ahead and present that refutation now instead of waiting?
Josh, my take is that Rajesh's appeal to apparently nonexistent factors in modern music is part and parcel of his "hermeneutics"--it's how he extends eisegesis through guilt by association fallacies and straw men to come towards his conclusions.
I wish you well in seeing of you can make progress with Rajesh, but a bunch of people on this forum have been trying for six years. I'm not going to be holding my breath.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
My take is that Rajesh's appeal to apparently nonexistent factors in modern music is part and parcel of his "hermeneutics"--it's how he extends eisegesis through guilt by association fallacies and straw men to come towards his conclusions.
I wish you well in seeing of you can make progress with Rajesh, but a bunch of people on this forum have been trying for six years. I'm not going to be holding my breath.
For nearly six years, I have endeavored in the face of immense, unjust opposition from the likes of Bert Perry to direct the attention of brethren to sound doctrine concerning music that is acceptable to God. In spite of blatant, repeated intellectual misrepresentation of me and my views by Bert Perry, and his repeated use of fallacious guilt-by-association to link me wrongly to certain other people's views about music, I have continued to direct people's attention to truth from God's Word.
I am doing the same things in this thread. In an earlier comment, I showed that skull drums refute his claims about what the Bible does and does not teach about music. He has repeatedly and wrongly used arguments from silence, etc. to claim that there are no musical instruments that are off-limits to God's people.
I have shown in this thread that simply is not true. There are no righteous musical uses of skull drums--they are categorically off-limits to God's people.
It does not matter whether any Christians have actually been using them or not. By directing attention to issues concerning skull drums, we know with certainty that there are musical instruments that cannot be used legitimately by God's people, and we know that is true without the Bible's having said anything directly to that effect.
Sound doctrine about music does not teach that there are no musical instruments that are unacceptable to God for use in corporate worship.
Granting that the use of any instrument made from human bones is defiled and inappropriate for use in worshiping the true God is like agreeing that premarital sex or drunkenness is sin. No one is arguing otherwise.
But does the prohibition of premarital sex make kissing before marriage sinful? Or does the prohibition of drunkenness make moderate alcoholic consumption sinful? No more than the existence of skull drums makes a 2/4 beat sinful (or whatever other claim one might make about Christian worship music).
Granting that the use of any instrument made from human bones is defiled and inappropriate for use in worshiping the true God is like agreeing that premarital sex or drunkenness is sin.
Actually, it is not. The Bible directly teaches us that premarital sex and drunkenness are sin, but the Bible itself does not say anything directly about the unacceptability of the use of any instrument made from human skulls.
Nonetheless, we know with certainty that any use of human skull drums in corporate worship is utterly unacceptable to God.
This difference is a crucial difference that must be acknowledged.
Some Christians argue that passages such as John 1:1-3 prove that all musical "genres" or "styles" were made by God and are therefore fully acceptable to Him for use in corporate worship because the passage says, "All things were made by Him":
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
According to this line of reasoning, the truth taught by this passage that God made all things must mean that He made all musical "genres" or "styles."
The existence and use of human skull drums shows that this argument is false.
If the statement, "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made" shows that God made all musical "styles" or "genres", it must also show that God made all musical instruments, etc. We would then have to hold that God created human skull drums.
We would also then have to hold that human skull drums are acceptable to God because He made them, or we would have to explain why they are not acceptable to Him even though we say that He made them. Plainly, both positions are untenable.
The existence of skull drums and their categorical unacceptability to God for any use in corporate worship shows that it is unsound doctrine to claim that passages such as John 1:1-3 establish that God accepts all musical "genres" or "styles" in worship because He made them.
The Bible never teaches that God made all musical "styles" or "genres," and there is no biblical basis to hold that He accepts all of them in corporate worship because He supposedly made them.
This difference is a crucial difference that must be acknowledged.
Prove it. What makes this particular difference significant. Connect the dots for me.
Prove it. What makes this particular difference significant. Connect the dots for me.
The Bible does not say anything about human skull drums being unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
Skull drums, however, certainly are not acceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
The Bible, therefore, does not have to say that something concerning instrumental music is unacceptable to God in order for it to be not acceptable to Him for any use in corporate worship.
Put differently, we can know that something to do with instrumental music is not acceptable to God without having to have a direct biblical statement to that effect.
Again, there are many believers who, like Bert Perry, hold that there are no musical instruments that are proscribed for Christians because the Bible does not say that there are any such instruments. We know that understanding about musical instruments is false because human skull drums are musical instruments that are off-limits to believers.
Discussion