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

I still don’t know what immoral music sounds like. Can you give me a modern example?

You never answer a question; you merely reply with more questions. Did you learn this tactic out of necessity, or does it come naturally to you?

This is not an answer!!!

If you can’t assess the morality of the music in Exodus 32 based on the information provided (I honestly can’t), what makes you think that you can assess any modern music that you would hear? Apparently, you have some criteria that you believe are the right, necessary criteria and that are not provided in the passage. (N0! I don’t!) What are those criteria and how do you know that those criteria are the right criteria?

After weighing the evidence, I have no choice but to conclude thus:

Rajesh clearly isn’t going to answer any questions, much less explain his reasoning. He’s here to preach to the choir and attract disciples. I’d recommend the mods close the thread, but we already tried that, so let’s just ignore him and let this thread die. It won’t be missed.

[RajeshG]

The passage is very complex, and it is hard to put all the details together.

No, it really isn’t that complex! The only reason you see it as complex is because you are trying to push your own beliefs into the text.

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…

Paying close attention to the chronology of the incident is another important step in profiting fully from it.

I can’t wait for this explanation. Anyone have any ideas why the third day is important? And does anyone else out there have these insights?

[Jay]

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…

Paying close attention to the chronology of the incident is another important step in profiting fully from it.

I can’t wait for this explanation. Anyone have any ideas why the third day is important?

Because Third Day is the name of an incredibly popular contemporary Christian group, so it was a foreshadowing of the debauchery that they would spread at their concerts. However, they are disbanding so the immorality will now cease. 8-)

[RajeshG]

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?

1.Their idolatrous worship was sinful. If their sinful activity somehow tainted the music, making the music sinful, then the music would have to have started out as neutral in order for it to be made sinful by the outside circumstances. After all, idolatry does not have a particular sound, but whatever sounds you make while committing idolatry are going to be associated with the idolatry. Even their normal worship-to-the-true-God music would have been unpleasing to God if it was offered to an idol, thereby showing that the sounds themselves were neutral.

2. The unspecified immoral activity was sinful. If this immorality somehow tainted the music, making the music sinful, then the music would have to have started out as neutral in order to be made sinful by outside circumstances. Even their normal worship-to-the-true-God music would have been unpleasing to God if played during the practice of immorality.

3. People who were wildly out of control were being sinful. If the lack of control somehow tainted the music, making the music sinful, the the music would have to have started out as neutral in order to be made sinful by the outside circumstances. Since we don’t know what the music sounded like, we can’t say whether there was “musical control” or not, or even what a lack of “musical control” might sound like. Was it louder than normal or faster than normal? We don’t know. But being louder or faster is not inherently sinful. Volume and temp are neutral and would only be unpleasing to God based on the sinful circumstances under which they might be used.

4.Having wicked hearts and motives is sinful. If a person’s sinful heart can make a sound sinful, then the sound would have to start out as neutral in order to be made sinful by the outside circumstances. Even their normal worship-to-the-true-God music would have been unpleasing to God if performed with wicked hearts and motives. As far as the actual sound is concerned, there isn’t any difference at all be tween the sound of music played with wicked motives and the sound of music played with pure motives. The sound itself is neutral.

5. You are totally guessing about the “composite sound” idea. It might be true, but it’s still a guess and your attempts to pull that guess out of the text are a real stretch. Joshua grew up as a slave in Egypt. He didn’t live in some “Israelite bubble,” having no contact with Egyptian worship. If there was any Egyptian component to the music, he still could have associated it with an Egyptian attack. If was it normal Israelite music played louder and faster and more frenzied, he still could have thought it to be an attack. The fact that Joshua did not at first identify it as “musical sound” only gives credence to the idea that sounds themselves are neutral and have their meanings subjectively set in our minds due to our associations with similar sounds.

Rajesh: This passage tells me upon my careful study that the moon is made of blue cheese.

Someone: The passage says no such thing.

Rajesh: Yes it does. Can you prove Biblically that the moon is not made of blue cheese?

I have not seen such utter nonsense in a long time as I am seeing in this thread.

With all this jawing going on, can we try to focus on at least one issue: There is a distinct sound of war, of triumph, of defeat, and of singing (or whatever the last one is). At least three and perhaps four distinct sounds. Obviously, these are all musical in the context.

Larry, Tyler, Bert, Jay … You guys have been pretty adamant but so far you have been slow to engage in actual discussion. So maybe you can take a stab at this.

For those who think music is neutral and depends only on words for meaning, how would the sound of defeat be distinct from the sound of triumph? Forget identifying the actual sound. Those wanting that are chasing a fool’s errand. Give us (as you like to say) specific standards by which to determine which sound is which. Remember, the Bible says these sounds are distinct, recognizable, and identifiable with a particular thing in way that another sound is not identifiable. So no one is making that up or forcing it on the text; the text says it. So give us some specific standards by which to determine what the Bible says is real.

Would it be appropriate to use the sound of war in peace? Or might the sound of war do something different than the sound of peace? Would it be appropriate to use the sound of victory in the midst of defeat? Why or why not?

Yesterday, I to an interesting podcast/interview with Bobby Braddock, a prolific country songwriter. One of his songs was D-I-V-O-R-C-E, made famous by Tammy Wynette. Braddock told of how in writing it, someone heard it and said it was a problem because it sounded too happy. He suggested a change in the chords that changed it from that happy sound to a sad sound. This guy has no Christian music axe to grind. He simply recognizes that there is meaning in sounds, in chords, and some are appropriate for some things and some are appropriate for other things. This would be entirely in line with Exod 32:17-18.

I imagine we all know this. I have never understood why it is controversial. We all know that there aren’t a lot of nightclubs playing Albinoni’s Adagio in G Minor or Tchaikovsky’s Elegy for Strings and the reason is patently obvious. We need no Bible verses to understand that. All of us also feel free to recognize when we have been disrespected by a voice tone, by our spouse, our children, our coworker, or a police officer. And we need no Bible verses for that either. We have a decent understanding of the concept of propriety. Until someone wants to talk about Christian music and “ain’t nobody knows nothing anymore.”

Don’t we all know that music style is usually chosen because of what it does, or what atmosphere it creates, or what it communicates. That’s why marching band music is different than waltz music and funeral music and easy listening music and all kinds of other stuff. That is to say, music fits the occasion and everyone knows that.

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

Larry, you’re going to need more trains, or larger trains, or something because this thread likely isn’t dying any time soon, no matter how hard we try to put it out of its misery. :)

To Larry: No one disputes that music communicates primary emotions. At least I don’t. For that reason, no one disputes that music can be mismatched with an occasion. Whether it is a sin to mismatch music to an occasion is debatable. It could just be clumsy musicianship. Was setting “Love Lifted Me” to its current tune a sin? I am not ready to say that. Exodus certainly does not help with that question.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no primary emotion that is immoral without context. And, even music conservatives acknowledge that music can at best communicate no more specifically than primary emotions. If you accept that (and I do), music itself cannot be immoral without context.

Truthfully, I find it absurd to try to even get to first base with this passage and claim it addresses the issue of music communicating primary emotions. We have a few snippets where a few people heard music from a long way off and could not tell what was happening and we are ready to create concrete music beliefs from that? Please… Maybe Joshua (or Moses) had impaired hearing for all we know.

As much of a stretch as I think that is though, Rajesh has gone way beyond that and claimed that this passage addresses the morality of music itself. It does no such thing. Not in any shape, form, or fashion. It is careless to treat one’s holy book in such a way. I think Rajesh is trying to twist the passage to say what he wants it to say to match his beliefs about music. He is doing it in such an obvious way that I can’t believe there are eight pages of people actually playing on his turf. He should be ignored. I guess I should ignore it myself. But as others have mentioned, there is a strange entertainment to it.

[Larry]

For those who think music is neutral and depends only on words for meaning, how would the sound of defeat be distinct from the sound of triumph? .

I agree completely with what GregH wrote. Thanks for writing that out!

As much of a stretch as I think that is though, Rajesh has gone way beyond that and claimed that this passage addresses the morality of music itself. It does no such thing. Not in any shape, form, or fashion. It is careless to treat one’s holy book in such a way. I think Rajesh is trying to twist the passage to say what he wants it to say to match his beliefs about music. He is doing it in such an obvious way that I can’t believe there are eight pages of people actually playing on his turf. He should be ignored. I guess I should ignore it myself. But as others have mentioned, there is a strange entertainment to it.

For the record, I’m only challenging this nonsense because I don’t want the bad eisegesis to go unchallenged and unremarked upon. Rajesh has already demonstrated that we can ignore him, but he will just keep stirring the pot and remarking that he finds yet more evidence for his beliefs in the text, as he did last evening, when the thread mercifully began to die out. This type of behavior is typical for people who come ready to ride their hobby horses to death, as Ted Bigelow and so many others have done before.

I really do have far more important and interesting things in my life going on, like writing the sermon for this Sunday and a major business meeting at church tonight. That being said, I’m not ready or interested in yielding the floor to bad teaching, either.

Can you please assign a value to this piece of music?

Ravel’s Bolero

I have but I’m politely asking you to answer first. Please.

[Ron Bean] Can you please assign a value to this piece of music.

Ravel’s Bolero

Sad to say … when I think of this I associate it with …this (and I’ve never even seen it … just heard of it)

Jim, that just goes to show that association changes things drastically. I will pretty much always associate Ravel’s Bolero with Torvill & Dean’s gold-medal ice dance in the 1984 Olympics. Definitely different from your association!

What are the chances that Rajesh uses Dave or Jim to answer my question?

I said that music was neutral, but I didn’t say it depended on the words for meaning.

You can’t have it both ways. If it doesn’t depend on words for meaning, then the music isn’t neutral. The music means something. If it is neutral, then it means nothing and only the words give meaning.

Your contention is that music’s meaning is assocational and cultural. Fine. I think there is a strong argument for that. But it also doesn’t explain why, by and large, the same music creates the same atmosphere in various contexts and cultures.

But at least, as Greg did above, you have conceded the fundamental point.

No one disputes that music communicates primary emotions. At least I don’t. For that reason, no one disputes that music can be mismatched with an occasion.

With this you concede the fundamental point. The question of whether that is inherent or associational or cultural is a secondary point.

Truthfully, I find it absurd to try to even get to first base with this passage and claim it addresses the issue of music communicating primary emotions.

I find it absurd to suggest this passage says nothing about it.

So who wins?

The text.

Does the text say something about sound and communication? The answer is yes. So it is not absurd to try to understand that.

[Larry]

No one disputes that music communicates primary emotions. At least I don’t. For that reason, no one disputes that music can be mismatched with an occasion.

With this you concede the fundamental point. The question of whether that is inherent or associational or cultural is a secondary point.

Truthfully, I find it absurd to try to even get to first base with this passage and claim it addresses the issue of music communicating primary emotions.

I find it absurd to suggest this passage says nothing about it.

So who wins?

The text.

Does the text say something about sound and communication? The answer is yes. So it is not absurd to try to understand that.

LOL… Who put you in charge of deciding what the “fundamental point” is? For the record, I didn’t. Thanks for reminding me why I should not be engaging in this silly debate.

LOL… Who put you in charge of deciding what the “fundamental point” is? For the record, I didn’t. Thanks for reminding me why I should not be engaging in this silly debate.

No one put me in charge. But having seen this silly debate (i.e., nonsense) for more than three decades, I am pretty sure the fundamental point is whether music has meaning or not (apart from words), at least to me.

What do you think the fundamental point is?

Rajesh graciously (?) responded:

I have no interest in having anything to do with discussing this. Please stop wasting your time and mine by trying to engage me in something like this.

Congratulations Rajesh, You have joined those whom I’ve heard for 4 decades who have made statements on music and refused to answer specific questions and dismissed those people, young and old, with questions.

[Larry]

No one put me in charge. But having seen this silly debate (i.e., nonsense) for more than three decades, I am pretty sure the fundamental point is whether music has meaning or not (apart from words), at least to me.

What do you think the fundamental point is?

No that is not the fundamental point. No one that is serious and knows even a little about music is going to deny that music has meaning and communicates.

The followup question may not be the fundamental point either but it is more important: can music communicate beyond the broad brushes of primary emotions? In other words, can music on its own contain moral meaning?

I know of no research that suggests that music can communicate in that way. I really don’t think there is any but if someone can come up with some, I will stand corrected. I certainly don’t think that Exodus addresses this issue either.

If we were to agree on this, we could move on to the next question which is whether music in context has moral meaning. Again, that is not a question that is answered in Exodus but that may be the most important question of all.

You are going to give a solemn account to God for your repeatedly making false statements about the supposedly ulterior motives that you are certain that I have.

Well, I might not be making “false statements” about “ulterior motives” if we could get a straight and clear answer from you, as we have been asking for since you first started posting.

I simply asked you to assign a value to Ravel’s Bolero. I apologize for not being more clear. Can you assign a value to Ravel’s Bolero?

For your consideration: