How does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?

Forum category

We know from 2 Tim. 3:15-17 that God wants Christians to profit from everything that He has inspired in the Bible. How does God want Christians to profit concerning their understanding of proper worship, especially of proper worship music, from the mention of singing and dancing in the following key passage about idolatrous worship:

Exodus 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. 19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. 20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.

Discussion

[dcbii]

Your language alone (“not so sure”, “tend to think”) make my point for me. I know you and how careful you are. If you were sure from the text that the dancing mentioned there must have been immoral, you wouldn’t hesitate to say so. I’ve admitted that it’s possible you and Rajesh are correct about the dancing. However, “possible” is not “likely,” and “likely” is not “must be.”

I could also just being trying to soften my disagreement with what you said earlier. Let’s look at another data point. I find it very interesting that singing and dancing was actually done, with no disapproval, back when the Children of Israel first crossed the Red Sea (Ex 15:20-21). I can’t fathom the idea that the singing and dancing was the same in both instances, especially since Moses says it was not a sound of victory (32:18) and Ex 15 says it was (“for he has triumphed gloriously”). Anyway, I view it as nearly certain that the singing and dancing was immoral.

[dcbii] Let’s say I accept your interpretation, and say even that it’s very likely the dancing was immoral. That’s still not the same as “must have been.” That’s all I’m pointing out. We can’t make an implied biblical command out of something based on “very likely.”
I think it depends on how certain the interpretation is. It’s one thing if it’s a toss-up and quite another if it’s quite likely. At the very least, this lends credence to the idea that there is music and dancing that is immoral.

[dcbii]…but the reality is that even if I accept your view, this text doesn’t really help me know what good dancing would look like as opposed to the dancing in Exodus 32, assuming they are, in fact, actually different.
Are you 100% sure? That was a joke. :) One thing it does do, and perhaps we can agree on this, is teach us that worshiping the one true God in the wrong way is a very serious issue in the sight of God. The calf was a misrepresentation of the the one true God and a violation of the 2nd commandment. I think it is very likely that the singing and dancing was also a misrepresentation of the one true God and I think one of the things RajeshG may want us to see is that 1 Cor 10:7 is further confirmation of that, because what Paul identifies as the idolatry is not the calf but the associated revelry.

Maybe to try to find that “Biblical” smoking-gun that will finally end any debate or any diversity of thought among Fundamentalists to what constitutes worldly and sensual music.

Joel, I can’t speak for others, but I have no desire to end debate or diversity of thought. I would simply like there to be some thought. That’s hard to come by sometimes.

[AndyE]

At the very least, this lends credence to the idea that there is music and dancing that is immoral.

[…]

One thing it does do, and perhaps we can agree on this, is teach us that worshiping the one true God in the wrong way is a very serious issue in the sight of God. The calf was a misrepresentation of the the one true God and a violation of the 2nd commandment. I think it is very likely that the singing and dancing was also a misrepresentation of the one true God and I think one of the things RajeshG may want us to see is that 1 Cor 10:7 is further confirmation of that, because what Paul identifies as the idolatry is not the calf but the associated revelry.

I do believe that immoral dancing exists, and although I’m not completely convinced, I’m open to the idea of the existence of immoral music, if we are able to show in some way what makes the music immoral (and I mean something more than “it just seems like it is”). I’ve already mentioned that, e.g. I want to believe that there is no such thing as “holy hip hop.” However, at this point, I remain unconvinced that scripture gives me the tools to make an absolute declaration about it, no matter my personal thinking.

I certainly do agree with you that “worshiping the one true God in the wrong way is a very serious issue in the sight of God.” That’s why I want to know what the wrong ways to do it actually are, and not just assume or surmise.

Dave Barnhart

Are we straining gnats?

[AndyE]

Are you 100% sure? That was a joke. :) One thing it does do, and perhaps we can agree on this, is teach us that worshiping the one true God in the wrong way is a very serious issue in the sight of God. The calf was a misrepresentation of the the one true God and a violation of the 2nd commandment. I think it is very likely that the singing and dancing was also a misrepresentation of the one true God and I think one of the things RajeshG may want us to see is that 1 Cor 10:7 is further confirmation of that, because what Paul identifies as the idolatry is not the calf but the associated revelry.

Yes, it is vital that we understand that 1 Cor. 10:7 is not just a generic command stressing that we not be idolaters. The text specifies two key aspects of the people’s idolatry in the GCI, both of which are keys to understanding the full significance of the passage.

That being said, when 1 Cor. 10:7 says “Do not be idolaters, as they were…” there isn’t exactly a ton of room for ambiguity or confusion. Adding things to it by pulling apart the music, dance, eating, and drinking - especially when we have no other details about those activities - is wrong from an exegetical and hermeneutical standpoint.

On what basis did you decide that music, dance, eating, and drinking were added to idolatry? You cite vs 7 which says “Do not be idolaters as they were” and then cites the OT as evidence for their idolatry that identifies those very things as expressions of idolatry. I don’t get how you skipped the second half of the verse that describes the very idolatry that we are to avoid. Exegesis requires that you actually read the whole verse and deal with it, in addition to its context. There is plenty of evidence from antiquity (both in the Bible and outside of it) of how those activities functioned in worship. I don’t understand your comments here at all. Why does Paul mention these things as applications of “do not be idolaters” unless they were connected with idolatry?

We don’t do this with any other passages (that I’m aware of), and that’s why TylerR’s post from Mark was spot on, although I expect many to just ignore what he’s said. We certainly don’t spiritualize texts like Exodus 32, so at least there is that.

I think Tyler’s post on Mark was intended to be silly and came across exactly that way. As I pointed out, he (probably unwittingly) made the point: You can’t talk about unleavened bread until you know what the passage is saying. It seems that people here want to apply Exod 32 in their own particular way before actually doing the work it the text. Nobody should just assert their way is right. First do the work in the text; then make the application.

Rajesh (and others) are creating confusions and doubts by pulling principles out of it that the text doesn’t give us. That’s why I feel strongly about this. We don’t know what the sound of war was, and the sound of war in Moses’ day is a lot different from the sound of war in our day. So why are we even eisegeting that into Exodus?

I don’t get it.

This is why teaching is necessary. It ties the principles to the text and provides an avenue for evaluation. As of now, we have no way to really evaluate your view.

You say there are principles being pulled out that the text doesn’t give us, and yet when I ask for people to read and interact with the text, almost everybody refuses. Why is that? How do we know if the principles are in the text or not? We can’t even get people to look at the text. I can’t help but wonder if the confusion is not sown by you and others like you.

How do you know sound of singing about war is different then than it is now? And why is exegeting the various sounds called eisogesis? Jay, it’s in the text. The words are right there in black and white. How can you say it is eisogesis to try to understand what it means?

[dcbii]

Are you saying that Moses’s anger would not have grown hotter if he had seen the people using a dance they used to the LORD to dance to a golden calf? Again, their dancing would have been immoral in context when dancing to the golden calf, regardless of how good that dancing may have been in other circumstances. That’s why I believe Moses’ anger at their dancing does not tell us unambiguously that the dancing itself was immoral. Since the object of their worship was false, anything done in worship to it would have been wrong, and, I would argue, would make Moses angry.

So no, I don’t see how the dancing must be understood as “immorally sensual” on its face… .

I’ve not said that the dancing in Exodus 32 must have been good and moral. It may have been as you say. I’m simply pointing out how the context does not insist that either the dancing or music were immoral, even though the false worship clearly was.

The passage says that they were playing after they had consumed what had been offered to the idol. What do you understand that playing to have been?

[RajeshG]

The passage says that they were playing after they had consumed what had been offered to the idol. What do you understand that playing to have been?

This is a classic example of bringing your preconceived ideas and pressing them onto Scripture. Come on…it isn’t this difficult! There is nothing here that teaches us anything about the style of music! God doesn’t expect us, nor does He want us to read between the lines to gain some mystical meaning of a text!

[RickyHorton]

RajeshG wrote:

The passage says that they were playing after they had consumed what had been offered to the idol. What do you understand that playing to have been?

This is a classic example of bringing your preconceived ideas and pressing them onto Scripture. Come on…it isn’t this difficult! There is nothing here that teaches us anything about the style of music! God doesn’t expect us, nor does He want us to read between the lines to gain some mystical meaning of a text!

This is a classic example of a comment that says nothing other than that you have an opinion. I asked another person a legitimate exegetical question about what he believes the playing on this occasion was.

I’ll respond to Larry a little later this week.

Rajesh asked this:

I asked another person a legitimate exegetical question about what he believes the playing on this occasion was.

There. Is. Not. Enough. Information. In. The. Text. To. Say. Anything. About. This.

Full stop.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Jay]

I’ll respond to Larry a little later this week.

Rajesh asked this:

I asked another person a legitimate exegetical question about what he believes the playing on this occasion was.

There. Is. Not. Enough. Information. In. The. Text. To. Say. Anything. About. This.

Full stop.

That. Is. Your. Opinion. I. Did. Not. Ask. You. I. Already. Know. What. You. Think.

[RajeshG]

Jay wrote:

I’ll respond to Larry a little later this week.

Rajesh asked this:

I asked another person a legitimate exegetical question about what he believes the playing on this occasion was.

There. Is. Not. Enough. Information. In. The. Text. To. Say. Anything. About. This.

Full stop.

That. Is. Your. Opinion. I. Did. Not. Ask. You. I. Already. Know. What. You. Think.

Well, DOES the text contain more information specifically about what the “playing” was? I could guess that “dancing” must be included in playing, but does the text specifically say that dancing is part of the “playing”? Should my guesses be treated like Scriptural fact? By worshipping the idol, the people were making a mockery of God. Perhaps “playing” is simply mocking God. Would you be able to prove “mocking God’ is a wrong understanding of “playing”?

[Kevin Miller]

Well, DOES the text contain more information specifically about what the “playing” was? I could guess that “dancing” must be included in playing, but does the text specifically say that dancing is part of the “playing”? Should my guesses be treated like Scriptural fact? By worshipping the idol, the people were making a mockery of God. Perhaps “playing” is simply mocking God. Would you be able to prove “mocking God’ is a wrong understanding of “playing”?

Perhaps “playing” is simply mocking God. Would you be able to prove “mocking God’ is a wrong understanding of “playing”? Can you provide some Bible that teaches that worshipping the idol was “making a mockery of God” or is that just your guess?

Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies).
What does this verse show to us about the nature of these people’s playing after they ate and drank what was sacrificed to the idol?

[RajeshG]

Kevin Miller wrote:

Well, DOES the text contain more information specifically about what the “playing” was? I could guess that “dancing” must be included in playing, but does the text specifically say that dancing is part of the “playing”? Should my guesses be treated like Scriptural fact? By worshipping the idol, the people were making a mockery of God. Perhaps “playing” is simply mocking God. Would you be able to prove “mocking God’ is a wrong understanding of “playing”?

Perhaps “playing” is simply mocking God. Would you be able to prove “mocking God’ is a wrong understanding of “playing”? Can you provide some Bible that teaches that worshipping the idol was “making a mockery of God” or is that just your guess?

I told you I was guessing. Are you able to prove it wrong, though? I don’t see any reason to not believe it to be so.

[RajeshG]

Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies).

What does this verse show to us about the nature of these people’s playing after they ate and drank what was sacrificed to the idol?

The NIV translates the phrase as “the people were running wild’ and the ESV translates it as “the people had broken loose”. What this tells us is that there is a variety of understanding regarding what the people were actually doing based on the Hebrew wording. They were certainly showing a lack of self-control and were not willing to be controlled by God or to be obedient to God’s commands. But the wording of the text does NOT specifically say that this was “playing.”

That. Is. Your. Opinion. I. Did. Not. Ask. You. I. Already. Know. What. You. Think.

You can ignore or mock me, but you’ll still have to give an account to God for how you handled His word, Dr. Gandhi.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[RajeshG]

Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies).

What does this verse show to us about the nature of these people’s playing after they ate and drank what was sacrificed to the idol?

Probably about …:

  • Casual dress in church
  • Short skirts
  • Pants on women
  • Preachers not wearing ties

Tip: Always good to consider other translations!

Below is the the NET Bible Iphone App

[Jay]

That. Is. Your. Opinion. I. Did. Not. Ask. You. I. Already. Know. What. You. Think.

You can ignore or mock me, but you’ll still have to give an account to God for how you handled His word, Dr. Gandhi.

I understand that very well, Jay, and have the utmost desire not to mishandle God’s truth in any way. Early on in this thread, you made a factually wrong statement about there being a Hebrew word in Numbers 25:2 that you said supported your handling of this text. When you did so, you did not display carefulness either in your handling of the Bible or in the use of other resources or both.
Please practice what you are urging me to do and please refrain from further comments that are not helpful in furthering a detailed, exegetical study of this passage.
You have a strong opinion about this passage. You are entitled to express your opinion. Because there are at least a few other people on this thread who are interested in further discussion of the passage itself instead of making me and my supposedly egregious mishandling of the text the focus of the thread, please consider their wishes and kindly allow us to have a more profitable discussion that is focused on the Bible going forward.

[Jim]

Below is the the NET Bible Iphone App

Great tip. Here is some relevant data, which I already considered prior to your comment:
KJV Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)

NAU Exodus 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control— for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies—

NET Exodus 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild, for Aaron had let them get completely out of control, causing derision from their enemies.

NKJ Exodus 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (for Aaron had not restrained them, to their shame among their enemies),

CSB Exodus 32:25 Moses saw that the people were out of control, for Aaron had let them get out of control, resulting in weakness before their enemies.

ESV Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies),

NIV Exodus 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies.
It is pretty clear that all or nearly all of these translators are seeing something in common.

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies).

What does this verse show to us about the nature of these people’s playing after they ate and drank what was sacrificed to the idol?

The NIV translates the phrase as “the people were running wild’ and the ESV translates it as “the people had broken loose”. What this tells us is that there is a variety of understanding regarding what the people were actually doing based on the Hebrew wording. They were certainly showing a lack of self-control and were not willing to be controlled by God or to be obedient to God’s commands. But the wording of the text does NOT specifically say that this was “playing.”

So what if the text does not specifically say that this was the “playing.” If it was not the “playing,” what was it and how does that affect our overall understanding of the passage?

I see no practical relevance for the passage to worship, beyond the generic statement you made.

Isn’t the whole passage about worship? (I thought you already admitted that, didn’t you?) How is there no practical relevance if that is what the passage is about? If it’s not at least in part about worship, what is it about? What would you preach out of this passage? How is it profitable to us?

This passage clearly describes a wrong way to worship God and includes various things. Why is it not legitimate to ask how those various things contribute to false worship?

I truly don’t see what you want from these verses

What is it that you think I want from these verses? (I think you might be seriously mistaken here, unless I misunderstand your statement.)

I am asking you to tell us what the Scripture means when it describes these sounds of singing. The Hebrew here is interesting in that it uses the exact same phrase all three times (qol anoth) with the first two followed by a modifier and the last one unmodified. In other words the qol anoth is distinguishable to the ear and each qal anoth is appropriate to at least three different occasions. So there is a qal anoth for victory, for defeat, and for celebration and they are not the same qal anoth. How so? How did Moses know that by using your standards?

It seems relevant. Or at least God thought it important enough to include here. Why? Is it directly related to worship? How would we know until we do the work? It surely seems closely connected to it based on the text. To simply discount it seems the wrong way to handle the text.

‎If you can tell me what the singing was (beyond the fact is was loud), then we can get somewhere.

I think we could get somewhere without that. The main thing that jumps out at me in these verses is that there are at least three (and maybe four) sounds that are distinct enough from each other to be identified with certain activities or events or emotions, i.e., the sound of victory and the sound of defeat are different. Doesn’t it seem clear then that the sounds are not neutral, interchangeable with each other with meaning attached only through words, as many here seem to think? It seems that the sounds were connected in some way with the activities or emotions so much so that from afar, Moses could know what was going on. How does that work?

The main problem is see with your approach Tyler is that you are asking for concrete practical implications before dealing with the text. Before we can know how to apply it, we must first know what it means. On this, I think Rajesh is right, though his point is not my point. I think your mocking point about Mark 8 actually supports the point. We don’t know what to do with that passage until we study it and work out the details of what the text says and what it means. Only then can we make any kind of application.

My only desire here is to see us take the text seriously enough to actually listen to what it says. Which brings me back to the question: If you are going to preach this passage, what are you going to say about vv. 17-18? Was the music (whatever it was) connected to the dancing and playing? What part of the worship problem did that play?

Honestly, I don’t think it is as significant as Rajesh seems to think it is. Nor do I think it is as insignificant as you and others seem to think it is. But in preaching this passage, it seems that we must say something about the distinct sounds. So what would that be?

It seems to me that there was a particular sound that was distinct from other sounds that lent itself well to an atmosphere of sexual debauchery around an image representing YHWH, and in the text these are all connected with false worship. How and why?

After some other key aspects of the passage have been discussed that directly affect how these verses are to be interpreted, I look forward to interacting with you in detail about the specifics of the sounds, etc. in this passage.

Good! After only 7 pages of posts…

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Larry]

I am asking you to tell us what the Scripture means when it describes these sounds of singing. The Hebrew here is interesting in that it uses the exact same phrase all three times (qol anoth) with the first two followed by a modifier and the last one unmodified. In other words the qol anoth is distinguishable to the ear and each qal anoth is appropriate to at least three different occasions. So there is a qal anoth for victory, for defeat, and for celebration and they are not the same qal anoth. How so? How did Moses know that by using your standards?

As I continue to study the passage, a closer look at the Hebrew text shows that it does not quite use the exact same phrase all three times …
WTT Exodus 32:18 וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֵ֥ין קוֹל֙ עֲנ֣וֹת גְּבוּרָ֔ה וְאֵ֥ין ק֖וֹל עֲנ֣וֹת חֲלוּשָׁ֑ה ק֣וֹל עַנּ֔וֹת אָנֹכִ֖י שֹׁמֵֽעַ׃

KJV Exodus 32:18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.
NAU Exodus 32:18 But he said, “It is not the sound of the cry of triumph, Nor is it the sound of the cry of defeat; But the sound of singing I hear.”
The first two occurrences of the verb ענה are in the qal theme (rendered “shout” and “cry,” respectively), but the third occurrence is in the piel theme (rendered “sing”).

The third is a piel form of the infinitive construct (which I didn’t pick up on my screen because they are very similar and the font size was small). However, there doesn’t seem to be a substantive difference in meaning in the lexicons that I can see. HALOT suggests that there is a word that has been omitted or dropped out which makes sense. LXX reads “φωνὴν ἐξαρχόντων οἴνου.” The parallelism would lead us to expect something there and it is missing. In any event, the point remains the same, that the sound can be identified with a particular event or emotion. There is something about the sound that tells Moses what is going on and what is not going on. There is nothing distinctive in the text about the third sound that makes it different than the first two. It is a sound just like the other two, yet it, like the other two, can be identified with something.

Having grown up in Pharaoh’s household and being learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22), Moses certainly would have had at least some firsthand exposure to and education about Egyptian worship music. He was a man who had the Spirit on him (cf. Num. 11:25) and who had led God’s people in musical worship that pleased God prior to the GCI (Exod. 15:1). [He also wrote at least one psalm (Ps. 90) at some point in his life and (later) taught God’s people to sing a key divinely given song (Deut. 31:30).]
At the GCI, his prior musical background coupled with his being filled with the Spirit gave him the musical training, experience, and divinely empowered ability to discern correctly the nature of the composite musical sound (singing plus at least the playing of timbrels that was heard from a distance that they would not have been able to hear any of the lyrics being sung) that they were hearing.
The first mention of Joshua is in Ex. 17:9, which means that he would have heard and participated in the godly musical worship recorded in Exodus 15. We know, therefore, that Joshua knew what godly worship sounded like.
Joshua did not know what had taken place among the Israelites in the camp and yet he heard a composite sound emanating from the camp. Because he was not able to discern correctly as singing the sound that he heard from a distance, we have grounds to hold that the sound of what was emanating from the camp was not similar to the sounds that he had heard in Exodus 15. This observation points to the ungodly nature of the music that was emanating from the camp.
Because Moses had previously heard what both godly worship music and ungodly worship music sounded like, he had the experience, training, and Spirit-empowered ability to discern that what he was hearing was the sound of ungodly worship music.

How about this? Maybe Joshua just misunderstood what he heard. My reasons for seeing it this way:

1) Moses already knows what is going on in the camp. God had told him (and not Joshua) to what was going on in the camp - vv. 7-9. (Please note: in these verses, God is silent about their music - His anger is at their idolatry.)

2) Joshua, who was a military leader, would naturally assume he was hearing noise of war. He, not having Moses’ information (point #1), is right to think that the people are under attack. Any other response from a military leader in that situation would be dereliction of duty. His first reaction must be to get to the camp, raise the army, and lead the defense of his people.

Trying to make this about Moses’ musical training, is just wrong. Moses already knows what is going on in the camp. Joshua doesn’t. We have no need to try to make this about musical styles.

I’ll continue: It isn’t about the music at all. The people of Israel just made a golden calf and are worshipping it! God says He is going to wipe them out and and start again with Moses because of this idolatry! Moses, who has and knows the commands of God and who hasn’t sinned like the rest, intercedes for them, saving them from the wrath of God! The one who is to give the Law to the people, becomes the one who pleads for his people who can’t keep the Law he is about to give them. And the amazing truth is this: God listens to Moses!

God listened to Moses. In His wrath, God listened to Moses. Gods judgment was removed from the people because God listened to Moses. That’s jaw-dropping amazing.

Further, it looks to me that Aaron, like every-other priest, is not capable of keeping the Law of God. Just like the other leaders in Scripture, he fails in a major way. We don’t need another human priest, human king, human prophet. As good as they are, they are sinful humans just like the rest of us. Aaron’s priesthood is tainted by Aaron’s own sinfulness. We need a Law-giving Priest who isn’t stained by his own sinfulness.

Brothers, this looks to me like a text that points to the importance of having a human High Priest who intercedes for his sinful people, a people who clearly deserve God’s wrath. It looks to me like the people of God, who have just experienced His goodness, mercy, and deliverance, are so very quick to turn from Him. It looks to me like God raised up a human priest who would meet with God, receive the perfect Law of God, and convince God to be merciful to his sinful and rebellious people.

It looks to me like this passage says the people needed a better priest than Aaron. It looks to me like this passage says the people can’t keep the Law of God and are guilty sinners before it. It looks to me like this is about the wrath of God against sinful people. It looks to me like this is about God’s supplying a human priest, other than Aaron, who can stand before Him and have Him remove His wrath from the people.

It looks to me like this passage is not about music. It is about the peoples’ need for a human priest who removed God’s wrath. It is about our need for a human, perfect, sinless, Law-keeping High Priest, Law-giving Priest who removed God’s judgment from us. A human priest to whom God listens. A willing human priest who stands between God and the deserving-wrath people.

I submit to you: This passage is about our need for Jesus Christ.

[Joe Whalen]

How about this? Maybe Joshua just misunderstood what he heard. My reasons for seeing it this way:

1) Moses already knows what is going on in the camp. God had told him (and not Joshua) to what was going on in the camp - vv. 7-9. (Please note: in these verses, God is silent about their music - His anger is at their idolatry.)

2) Joshua, who was a military leader, would naturally assume he was hearing noise of war. He, not having Moses’ information (point #1), is right to think that the people are under attack. Any other response from a military leader in that situation would be dereliction of duty. His first reaction must be to get to the camp, raise the army, and lead the defense of his people.

Trying to make this about Moses’ musical training, is just wrong. Moses already knows what is going on in the camp. Joshua doesn’t. We have no need to try to make this about musical styles.

I’ll continue: It isn’t about the music at all.

Problems with your analysis:
1. “Moses already knows what is going on in the camp.”
You have provided no evidence from the passage that Moses already knew that there was singing going on among the people because of what God told him. In fact, you actually say as much: “Please note: in these verses, God is silent about their music - His anger is at their idolatry.)”
2. “Trying to make this about Moses’ musical training, is just wrong. Moses already knows what is going on in the camp. Joshua doesn’t.”
Because God was silent about their music in what He said to Moses, then Moses did not already know anything about their singing from what God had told him.
3. “It isn’t about the music at all.”
Your analysis asserts that what the Spirit explicitly says in verse 18 about the music on this occasion is as if it were just superfluous, filler material. That is not a right way to handle the Bible.
I have never claimed that the passage is only or even mainly about music, etc. It is clearly a passage about false worship among God’s people and much more. God gave us details about that false worship because He wanted us to know those details and profit from them.

[Larry]

The third is a piel form of the infinitive construct (which I didn’t pick up on my screen because they are very similar and the font size was small). However, there doesn’t seem to be a substantive difference in meaning in the lexicons that I can see. HALOT suggests that there is a word that has been omitted or dropped out which makes sense. LXX reads “φωνὴν ἐξαρχόντων οἴνου.” The parallelism would lead us to expect something there and it is missing. In any event, the point remains the same, that the sound can be identified with a particular event or emotion. There is something about the sound that tells Moses what is going on and what is not going on. There is nothing distinctive in the text about the third sound that makes it different than the first two. It is a sound just like the other two, yet it, like the other two, can be identified with something.

Have you found any other evidence besides the LXX reading to support the interpretation that the sound was one of people who have become drunk on wine and were singing in an intoxicated state? People involved in drunken partying would provide one explanation for their being wildly out of control in their immoral playing, singing, and dancing.

[RajeshG]

Larry wrote:

The third is a piel form of the infinitive construct (which I didn’t pick up on my screen because they are very similar and the font size was small). However, there doesn’t seem to be a substantive difference in meaning in the lexicons that I can see. HALOT suggests that there is a word that has been omitted or dropped out which makes sense. LXX reads “φωνὴν ἐξαρχόντων οἴνου.” The parallelism would lead us to expect something there and it is missing. In any event, the point remains the same, that the sound can be identified with a particular event or emotion. There is something about the sound that tells Moses what is going on and what is not going on. There is nothing distinctive in the text about the third sound that makes it different than the first two. It is a sound just like the other two, yet it, like the other two, can be identified with something.

Have you found any other evidence besides the LXX reading to support the interpretation that the sound was one of people who have become drunk on wine and were singing in an intoxicated state? People involved in drunken partying would provide one explanation for their being wildly out of control in their immoral playing, singing, and dancing.

If you start adding alcohol into the interpretation of this worship, then can you really claim any more that it is truly worship to the one true God? It seems with alcohol and immorality and being out of control and making a golden calf that is so reminiscent of the pagan gods of the Egyptians, that you have a very strong case for this being worship of a pagan god rather than worship of the true God. Would we even be able to draw applications for our own music if this is really just pagan worship? The music itself seems to be the least of their problems, especially since we can only make guesses about what the actual sound of the music was. Is there a particular “sound” associated with being drunk?

The passage is very complex, and it is hard to put all the details together. Comparing Scripture with Scripture is a key to interpreting any passage properly. I am in the process of studying all 6 passages about the GCI (and other related passages) carefully and am far from being confident that I have an exhaustive understanding of what God wants us to know. Having said, I am certain that glossing over the details is not the right approach.
Aaron did say that on the day after they made the calf that there was a feast to the Lord. I am not comfortable with making light of that statement and saying that it was just pagan worship entirely in every respect.
What I see at this point is that it was in some way worship to the Lord that had been badly perverted in many ways. I never have claimed and do not believe that music was their main problem.
I am not ready to get into further discussion about the sound, etc. because at least one more vital detail about the incident has not been accounted for at all so far. So far, it is clear that they were idolatrous, immoral, and intemperate (wildly out-of-control). They may also have been drunken, but I am not sure that the LXX reading is sufficient basis for holding that position.

Have you found any other evidence besides the LXX reading to support the interpretation that the sound was one of people who have become drunk on wine and were singing in an intoxicated state? People involved in drunken partying would provide one explanation for their being wildly out of control in their immoral playing, singing, and dancing.

No, but I haven’t looked. My only point is that there are three distinct sounds that have three distinct meanings. Why? Because the sounds themselves have meaning quite apart from words.

[Larry]

Have you found any other evidence besides the LXX reading to support the interpretation that the sound was one of people who have become drunk on wine and were singing in an intoxicated state? People involved in drunken partying would provide one explanation for their being wildly out of control in their immoral playing, singing, and dancing.

No, but I haven’t looked. My only point is that there are three distinct sounds that have three distinct meanings. Why? Because the sounds themselves have meaning quite apart from words.

I agree with your understanding that the sounds themselves have meaning quite apart from words. Joshua and Moses were at a distance from the camp such that they would not have been able to hear any of the lyrics so we know that Moses’ correct interpretation of the composite sound emanating from the camp was not based directly on anything that has to do with his hearing and understanding what they were singing, whether they were singing to Yahweh or to one or more pagan gods.
I categorically reject any notion that all music without words is inherently neutral, amoral, or even good and believe that Exodus 32 is one of the key passages that refutes such views.

Although I have studied Exodus 32 at great length on at least two previous occasions, God has directed my present study so that I have appreciated many things about the passage that I have never picked up on before. The passage has three temporal markers that show to us that the account of the GCI in Exodus 32 spanned a 3-day period:
Exodus 32:5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play… .

30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.
Paying close attention to the chronology of the incident is another important step in profiting fully from it.

Many of us are still waiting, some of us for decades, for an actual example of or standard for immoral, bad, and or sinful music (without words) so we can avoid it. Saying that it was similar to what was used in the GCI seems meaningless unless we know what that sounded like.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[Ron Bean]

Many of us are still waiting, some of us for decades, for an actual example of or standard for immoral, bad, and or sinful music (without words) so we can avoid it. Saying that it was similar to what was used in the GCI seems meaningless unless we know what that sounded like.

Until it has been established that the musical sound emanating from the camp was the sound of immoral music, talking about what it sounded like is pointless. To put it differently, there are many Christians who have accepted (without any biblical proof at all) the false philosophical notion that music without words is inherently neutral, amoral, or even good. Because Exodus 32 is an inspired passage that calls our attention to the examination of musical sound in a setting where the words were not able to be heard, it is a passage that directly pertains to what we believe about that notion.
Do you believe that the musical sound that was emanating from the camp was the sound of immoral music, moral music, or neutral music? Why do you believe what you believe about the nature of that musical sound?

You asked:

Do you believe that the musical sound that was emanating from the camp was the sound of immoral music, moral music, or neutral music?

I really don’t know. Honest! Is it “bad” music because it was being performed by bad people? What did it sound like?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[Ron Bean]

You asked:

Do you believe that the musical sound that was emanating from the camp was the sound of immoral music, moral music, or neutral music?

I really don’t know. Honest! Is it “bad” music because it was being performed by bad people? What did it sound like?

Consider the following:
1. It was music being played and sung by people engaged in a spiritually wicked activity (idolatrous worship).
2. It was music being played and sung by people who were engaging in unspecified immoral activity.
3. It was music being played and sung by people who were wildly out of control when they were engaging in their idolatrous immoral activities.
4. It was music being played and sung by people whose hearts and motives were wicked
Do you think that people in that setting who would be engaged in overtly sexually immoral activity would yet be playing music and singing and dancing non-sensually? Do you think that such people who were wildly out of control yet somehow played music, sang, and danced in ways that pleased God?
5. It was music being played and sung by people engaged in wickedness that produced a composite sound that a very godly man (Joshua) who knew from direct personal experience what godly worship music sounded like did not identify even as musical sound.
Does that help you to know whether the musical sound that was emanating from the camp was the sound of immoral music, moral music, or neutral music?

Until it has been established that the musical sound emanating from the camp was the sound of immoral music, talking about what it sounded like is pointless.

And most of us can’t make a judgment call on the morality of something without know what it is first, but don’t let that stop you.

Quick question - is the sound of war in the camp an inherently moral sound? What if it were the sound of righteous Israelites slaughtering the idol worshippers, as is recorded later in the text?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells