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

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

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.

Are we straining gnats?

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?

[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!

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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

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.

[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

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?

Good! After only 7 pages of posts…

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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?