We Must Heed the Vital Message of 1 Corinthians 10:18-20
1 Corinthians 10:18-20 provides vital instruction that every believer must heed:
1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
To eat in a worship context of what has been sacrificed on an altar to an idol is to be a partaker of the altar. To do so is also to have fellowship with demons!
Such fellowship with demons is not contingent upon a person’s having to offer the sacrifices himself. Anyone who eats of such sacrifices comes into fellowship with demons.
The passage also does not provide any basis to say or to hold that this only happens sometimes—in a worship context, anyone who eats what has been sacrificed to an idol has fellowship with demons. God does not want any humans to have fellowship with demons!
- 666 views
[Kevin Miller]No, it’s important to note that I did not just ask whether anyone had biblical support for saying harmonies are moral—I asked for biblical support in someone’s holding that all harmonies are moral.You asked if anyone had Biblical support for saying harmonies are moral. Do you have any Biblical support for saying single musical tones are moral?
Holding that single musical tones is moral is an important question to discuss. Here’s a good passage to examine for what it says:
1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
This passage is in a premier NT chapter on corporate worship. It says that instruments, regardless of whether they can play only one tone at a time or more than one tone at a time, must “give a distinction in the sounds” to be intelligible as music. In other words, without a distinction in sounds, which means the use of more than one sound, that instrument is not producing music that can be known concerning what is being played by it.
More later, D.V.
[Kevin Miller]First Cor. 14:7-8 teaches us that for a musical instrument to be used properly in corporate worship, it must produce a distinction in tones such that what is played is humanly knowable. Based on that teaching, we are justified in holding that single musical tones do not have any intrinsic musical meanings that are humanly knowable.Do you have any Biblical support for saying single musical tones are moral?
Furthermore. we know that heavenly beings play musical instruments in producing moral instrumental music in corporate worship of God. That instrumental music is made up of single tones combined in whatever ways the supernatural musicians combine them in their worship. All of those single tones used in heavenly worship are intrinsically moral because they are sounds that were created by God when He ordered His universe to make sound and its intrinsic properties.
None of those intrinsic properties of single musical tones were humanly created.
Beyond that, we have explicit Scripture that relates to us that God assigned the use of certain musical instruments to His people (trumpets) to produce sounds that had assigned musical meanings to them that were divinely assigned (Num. 10:1-10 and other passages). God’s use of the single tones in whatever ways they were combined in this divinely commanded use of musical instruments teaches us that the single tones comprising what was played on those instruments were intrinsically moral.
Because single musical tones are basic sounds that were not humanly created, we are justified in holding that they are intrinsically moral.
Therefore, you have the burden of proof of showing why when the people in the GCI ate and drank what was offered to the idol they somehow still did not come into fellowship with demons.
If, however, you are not denying that they were in fellowship with demons after consuming what was sacrificed to the idol, what are you denying?
- I deny that anything from I Corinthians 10 has to do with contemporary worship practices today. Eating meat given to idols has nothing to do with music, although there is an applicable principle of not doing something that would cause another believer to stumble (10:23-33).
- I deny that Christians are “having fellowship with demons” if they use music that you do not approve of.
- I deny that Exodus 32 has anything to do with contemporary church practices at all, as I said in the thread several months ago.
I am saying that these two passages, which describe several particular incidents in OT history, are being incorrectly used by you to “prove” your position.
"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]Holding that single musical tones is moral is an important question to discuss. Here’s a good passage to examine for what it says:
1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
This passage is in a premier NT chapter on corporate worship. It says that instruments, regardless of whether they can play only one tone at a time or more than one tone at a time, must “give a distinction in the sounds” to be intelligible as music. In other words, without a distinction in sounds, which means the use of more than one sound, that instrument is not producing music that can be known concerning what is being played by it.
So now we are going to pull solid musical principles from an illustration in a brief passage about speaking in tongues. Not that I disagree that single tones are moral. Or for that matter, the relationships between single tones.
BTW, I read that last paragraph several times and I still don’t understand what you are saying in that last sentence.
[GregH]Playing a single musical tone once is not playing music. Playing the same musical tone over and over is not music. For something played on an instrument to be considered as music that has a humanly knowable meaning, two or more different tones must be played.BTW, I read that last paragraph several times and I still don’t understand what you are saying in that last sentence.
[Jay]God has provided an inspired record of people in a worship context who ate things sacrificed to an idol and thereby came into fellowship with demons. The inspired record shows that after they consumed what was offered to the idol and had come into fellowship with demons, they produced music and danced in the context of the same event. Therefore, your denial that “eating meat offered to idols has nothing to do with music” is refuted by the inspired record of Exodus 32.
- I deny that anything from I Corinthians 10 has to do with contemporary worship practices today. Eating meat given to idols has nothing to do with music, although there is an applicable principle of not doing something that would cause another believer to stumble (10:23-33).
- I deny that Christians are “having fellowship with demons” if they use music that you do not approve of.
- I deny that Exodus 32 has anything to do with contemporary church practices at all, as I said in the thread several months ago.
I am saying that these two passages, which describe several particular incidents in OT history, are being incorrectly used by you to “prove” your position.
Deny all you want, but the Bible stands.
[RajeshG]I don’t think these verses are teaching that single tones do not have meanings. In fact, I think the context of the verses actually contradict that notion. The context is about listening to a message that is spoken in tongues. A sentence is made up of words that have individual syllables that have individuals sounds. If I am speaking a sentence without clearly distinguishing between fa and ta and da, then you would not be able to recognize what words my message is trying to use. Now, fa and ta and da are not words by themselves, but there are plenty of single sound words which CAN be clearly understood. The words “I” and “a” and “oh” are all single sound words which have meanings that are humanly knowable. In fact, short, one-syllable words are usually the easiest to understand. 1 Cor 4:9 says “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”First Cor. 14:7-8 teaches us that for a musical instrument to be used properly in corporate worship, it must produce a distinction in tones such that what is played is humanly knowable. Based on that teaching, we are justified in holding that single musical tones do not have any intrinsic musical meanings that are humanly knowable.
Of course, it is not just enunciation that is needed for understanding, but familiarity with the language being spoken is also needed for understanding. My daughter took three years of French in high school. She would walk around the house saying a series of syllables from which I could not discern a message. I could not understand the distinction between the sounds as to how they came together into words unless she spoke each individual word very slowly. Even in French, there are single sound words which are humanly knowable. The French word for yes is “oui,” but if I only know English, I would hear that sound as the word “we,” and I wouldn’t understand the message being presented in French.
As for the music lesson from the verse, it’s saying that you need to clearly hear the distinction between the notes “A” and “C” and “F,” as examples, in order to be able to understand what tune is playing. The verse is NOT saying that the individual notes are not music, only that you need to be able to tell the differences between the notes in order to hear the song with understanding. Verse 9 about the trumpet call is an example of this. Suppose, in your village, a trumpet call in the note “A” means “Gather to fight” and a trumpet call in “C” means “Stay in your houses” and a trumpet call in “F” means “Run for the hills.” What do you do if the trumpet call is in “B”? That is very close to “A” but it is just as close to “C”. The trumpet call in “B” would be an uncertain sound, but only because you don’t recognize it as the call to battle. Other individual tones CAN BE certain sounds.
I wonder if anyone else finds this ironic.
Rajesh apparently feels that music is an important issue, enough to write small volumes on it. And yet, God apparently disagrees. Because the best Biblical passages Rajesh can apparently find to support his position are these:
* A neutral reference in a genealogy to Jubal, stating that he played music. Literally a few words.
* The golden calf story in Exodus where music is barely mentioned at all and is most certainly not the point of the story.
* A discussion of a madman that is not even about music.
* And now, an illustration of a battle trumpet in a discussion about speaking in tongues which he would have us believe is prescriptive for corporate worship. (I am not even sure it is prescriptive for a battle; it is just an illustration.)
So the obvious question is: if God is so concerned about music laws, why did he not give any? Not in the OT where he told them what kind of clothes to wear in excruciating detail. Not in the NT either.
[GregH]Well, you can’t really say that there aren’t any. Ephesians 5:19 is a Biblical instruction. “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;” In the Old Testament, Psalm 100.2 tells us to “Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing.” Other verses tell us to worship God with particular instruments. Do you really want Rajesh to post a list of those? Because he could. You know he could. :)So the obvious question is: if God is so concerned about music laws, why did he not give any? Not in the OT where he told them what kind of clothes to wear in excruciating detail. Not in the NT either.
[Kevin Miller]I think that you are not understanding this key point: no single-sound words have intrinsic meanings to them so that a person who has never heard that word before knows automatically what that sound means just by hearing the sound without being given any other information explaining the meaning of the word. If you know of any such words, what are they?I don’t think these verses are teaching that single tones do not have meanings. In fact, I think the context of the verses actually contradict that notion. The context is about listening to a message that is spoken in tongues. A sentence is made up of words that have individual syllables that have individuals sounds. If I am speaking a sentence without clearly distinguishing between fa and ta and da, then you would not be able to recognize what words my message is trying to use. Now, fa and ta and da are not words by themselves, but there are plenty of single sound words which CAN be clearly understood. The words “I” and “a” and “oh” are all single sound words which have meanings that are humanly knowable. In fact, short, one-syllable words are usually the easiest to understand. 1 Cor 4:9 says “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”
Of course, it is not just enunciation that is needed for understanding, but familiarity with the language being spoken is also needed for understanding. My daughter took three years of French in high school. She would walk around the house saying a series of syllables from which I could not discern a message. I could not understand the distinction between the sounds as to how they came together into words unless she spoke each individual word very slowly. Even in French, there are single sound words which are humanly knowable. The French word for yes is “oui,” but if I only know English, I would hear that sound as the word “we,” and I wouldn’t understand the message being presented in French.
As for the music lesson from the verse, it’s saying that you need to clearly hear the distinction between the notes “A” and “C” and “F,” as examples, in order to be able to understand what tune is playing. The verse is NOT saying that the individual notes are not music, only that you need to be able to tell the differences between the notes in order to hear the song with understanding. Verse 9 about the trumpet call is an example of this. Suppose, in your village, a trumpet call in the note “A” means “Gather to fight” and a trumpet call in “C” means “Stay in your houses” and a trumpet call in “F” means “Run for the hills.” What do you do if the trumpet call is in “B”? That is very close to “A” but it is just as close to “C”. The trumpet call in “B” would be an uncertain sound, but only because you don’t recognize it as the call to battle. Other individual tones CAN BE certain sounds.
Moreover, words are not comparable to single musical tones—individual letters are comparable to single musical tones.
As with letters of the alphabet and individual phonetic sounds, no single musical tones have intrinsic meanings to them. In your last paragraph, you say about trumpets: “Suppose, in your village, a trumpet call in the note ‘A’ means ‘Gather to fight.’” Are you asserting that somebody who has never heard that note before and not been told by anyone in any way about the meaning of that note automatically somehow knows that the note ‘A’ means ‘gather to fight’?
No, those meanings to those notes are assigned meanings—they are not intrinsic meanings communicated just by hearing the sound without having no other information provided in any way about the sound.
That’s exactly what we find in Numbers 10 when God assigns differing meanings to differing ways that the trumpets would be played.
[RajeshG]Well, speaking of assigned meanings, wouldn’t the same idea be true of styles. If individual notes don’t have intrinsic meanings, why would collections of notes have intrinsic meanings? Isn’t it true that in order to understand the meaning of styles, we have to have information about how the style has been originated or used, so that we can assign a meaning to that style?No, those meanings to those notes are assigned meanings—they are not intrinsic meanings communicated just by hearing the sound without having no other information provided in any way about the sound.
[Kevin Miller]Asking why would collections of notes have intrinsic meanings is the wrong question to ask. The right question is whether collections of notes have intrinsic meanings.Well, speaking of assigned meanings, wouldn’t the same idea be true of styles. If individual notes don’t have intrinsic meanings, why would collections of notes have intrinsic meanings? Isn’t it true that in order to understand the meaning of styles, we have to have information about how the style has been originated or used, so that we can assign a meaning to that style?
Typically, musical non-conservatives who are Christians beg the question by asserting that all instrumental musical styles/genres are inherently neutral or amoral. Others beg the question by asserting that all instrumental musical styles/genres are inherently good.
Well, you can’t really say that there aren’t any. Ephesians 5:19 is a Biblical instruction. “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;” In the Old Testament, Psalm 100.2 tells us to “Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing.” Other verses tell us to worship God with particular instruments. Do you really want Rajesh to post a list of those, because he could. You know he could.
The thing that I find so fascinating with all of these music teachers is that it’s so hard to get them to deal with basics. Their arguments almost always consist of arguments for or against a specific culture, or require training in musical notation and theory, or consist of looking at all sorts of different Bible passages except for, you know, the ones that are the clearest. So instead we have to have arguments over how the idolatrous worship of the Golden Calf led to fellowship with demons and how bringing pagan worship practices into the Corinthian church leads to fellowship with demons which leads to…what, exactly? That we shouldn’t use drums in church? We’d know if we’d even get beyond these crazy pre-pre-presuppositional arguments from the OT.
Sometimes I listen to these people and all I hear is “Yea, hath God said…Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing…But what if you aren’t doing it right? What if you’re using the wrong instrument, or the wrong singer, or the wrong style or the wrong notation, or what if that harmony communicates something spiritually that we don’t want to because it may somehow encourage the demons to gather in our midst…”
Does anyone else ever get that feeling as well?
And if the conservatives aren’t willing to deal with musical tunes, lyrics, or styles that we do present, what hope do we have of ever getting beyond “he said, he said”?
"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]Does anyone else ever get that feeling as well?
And if the conservatives aren’t willing to deal with musical tunes, lyrics, or styles that we do present, what hope do we have of ever getting beyond “he said, he said”?
I am pretty sure that today’s church music “experts” avoid getting specific simply because they know that the train is off the rails as soon as they go there. It is fairly easy to talk about music “meaning something” but quite another matter to take a piece of music and say what it means. They know that if they do try to parse the meaning of a piece of music, they are going to have to defend their analysis and it will not be pretty. So they hide behind abstract ideas.
In my experience in music, I have met and worked with numerous world-class musicians and educators who know the subject inside and out. And I can tell you that while sometimes there is speculation about what a composer might have been thinking when writing, I have never once heard a true expert try to parse meaning out of a piece of music at a level that would have moral implications. For example, you might hear a piece of music and say that the composer was trying to imitate rain or birds. Or perhaps, a piece of music is clearly trying to portray a primary emotion. However, there is no way to pull the meaning out of a piece of music at a level of specificity that would have moral implications.
[RajeshG]Asking why would collections of notes have intrinsic meanings is the wrong question to ask. The right question is whether collections of notes have intrinsic meanings.
But I was trying to figure out whether or not they have them by asking, based on the logic you used for individual notes, why you think they do. If your logic is correct for whether individual notes have intrinsic meaning, then shouldn’t you use that same logic for whether collections of notes have intrinsic meaning?
You wrote, “As with letters of the alphabet and individual phonetic sounds, no single musical tones have intrinsic meanings to them.”
You said the same thing about single sound words. You said, “no single-sound words have intrinsic meanings to them so that a person who has never heard that word before knows automatically what that sound means just by hearing the sound without being given any other information explaining the meaning of the word.”
Wouldn’t the same thing be true about multiple sound words? If you’ve never heard the word before, you wouldn’t know what the sounds mean without being given other information explaining the meaning of the word. Isn’t that true as well? If you put a bunch of unknown words together, you have a meaningless sentence. That’s the exact point of the 1 Cor 14 verses.
So, based on this logic, I can’t tell whether a style would have an intrinsic meaning to it. Wouldn’t the style be like a word or combination of words that you wouldn’t know the meaning of without other information being given to you explaining the meaning?
My position about single musical tones is based on inferences from divine revelation, especially what 1 Cor. 14 says that tells us that there is meaning to combinations of musical tones when they are played with distinctions between the tones that are produced by an instrument:
1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
Whether that meaning is intrinsic to those combinations in some or all cases seems to be something that this passage does not address.
The larger context of this study is what the Bible reveals as a whole about sounds and their meanings, which is a study of much more than just musical sounds. That study is a very complex, challenging subject. I have studied it a lot, but there is much about what is revealed that I do not understand at this point.
What should have been said was this:
My position about single musical tones is based on inferences from divine revelation.
- Jubal’s argument - based on inference
- The Golden Calf - argument based largely on inference from one or two words
- The assumed meaning of music played by a trumpet in a culture that none of us lived in and that predates us by literally centuries.
It seems far better to be to start with the solid things that God has said in Ephesians 5:19 and Psalm 100:2 and build off of that than it would be to cobble together arguments based on inferences that very few people see or understand, no matter how many threads are opened.
This is exactly why I went after you, Rajesh, in one of our initial threads on the perspicuity of Scripture. I have seen this over and over and over again in the more than ten years on this website. If you don’t recall, here’s what I said in November:
Any believer coming through this passage ought to be able, with a little bit of study, discern the practical implications for worship without consulting other resources. That’s what we mean when we talk about the perspicuity of Scripture. God doesn’t take principles of worship and hide them from us within OT narrative like some sort of bizarre shell game.
And then I said it again a few days later:
The Westminster Confession of Faith explains what Protestants believe about the perspicuity of Scripture: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (1.7).
And finally, I warned us about this particular strategy of flooding the zone with unwarranted and overwhelming data:
I’ll grant that I don’t have a PhD in New Testament Introduction, but I have very serious and strong reservations about teaching that all the pertinent Scriptures (Rajesh’s words on several occasions) must be taken into account before we can draw any application from it. I don’t think that is generally what we mean when we talk about the perspicuity of Scripture, and it seems as though this “prevent defense” of appealing all possible passages before we can make an application is a dangerous road to go down.
But hey, you’re driving a lot of traffic on SharperIron, so I guess that’s good for the site.
"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]Wrong again. My position about the GCI is not based on inference from one or two words; it is based on the Spirit directly quoting from Ex. 32 and from the Spirit providing previously unrevealed illumination about what takes place whenever humans in a worship context consume what has been offered to an idol.What should have been said was this:
My position about single musical tones is based on inferences from divine revelation.
- Jubal’s argument - based on inference
- The Golden Calf - argument based largely on inference from one or two words
- The assumed meaning of music played by a trumpet in a culture that none of us lived in and that predates us by literally centuries.
I have not assumed any meaning of music played by a trumpet. Where you get that from is a mystery to me. In any case, it is irrelevant how long ago something happened or whether we lived in that culture. Divine revelation is timelessly true.
The real core of the dispute about worship music styles/genres concerns the faulty presuppositions that musical non-conservatives routinely beg about the nature of instrumental music. Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth.
First Cor. 10:18-20 provides vital revelation that illumines all Scripture accounts of humans in a worship context consuming what has been offered to an idol. Such consumption puts people in fellowship with demons.
Not coming into fellowship with demons is a premier obligation for all humans, especially believers. In the ongoing war between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman that began after the Fall, heeding this obligation is self-evidently central to giving God the glory that is due Him.
Presupposing that instrumental music is a realm completely exempt from this warfare is an unbiblical position that we must reject. Wherever in Scripture God provides revelation about music connected with human contact with supernatural evil, we must scrutinize that revelation thoroughly for all the profit that God wants us to derive from it.
Exodus 32 is the most important biblical record of humans coming into fellowship with demons through their consuming in a worship context what was offered to an idol. The information about music in Exodus 32, therefore, is vital information for us to consider thoroughly.
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.
[RajeshG]I appreciate your honesty about the fact that there is much you don’t understand. I feel the same way. Not only is there much I don’t understand from the Bible, but I admit that there is much I don’t understand about the positions that you personally have inferred from the Bible. So my conversations here on the forum are not only “this is what I see from this verse” statements, but they are also “wait a minute- how did you infer that from this verse?’ Because i understand my own limitations in how I make inferences, I find it odd when I see you make declarative assertions about your own inferences, such as when you said “Deny all you want, but the Bible stands.” No one here is trying to deny the Bible, but I certainly don’t think it wrong to challenge an inference that you draw from disparate Scriptures whose main points aren’t even about the subject we’re addressing.My position about single musical tones is based on inferences from divine revelation, especially what 1 Cor. 14 says that tells us that there is meaning to combinations of musical tones when they are played with distinctions between the tones that are produced by an instrument:
1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
Whether that meaning is intrinsic to those combinations in some or all cases seems to be something that this passage does not address.
The larger context of this study is what the Bible reveals as a whole about sounds and their meanings, which is a study of much more than just musical sounds. That study is a very complex, challenging subject. I have studied it a lot, but there is much about what is revealed that I do not understand at this point.
You just told Jay ” Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth.” There are some things the Bible just isn’t clear about, so I don’t think it’s necessary for him or me to come up with a whole different scenario of inferred assertions in order to tell you that the Bible isn’t clear enough to support your own assertions.
[Kevin Miller]His assessments of the lack of support for my positions are based on his presuppositions about what the Bible teaches about instrumental music. He continues to comment on my threads about how poor of an interpreter of the Bible I am. When someone repeatedly makes such remarks, they need to be able to defend their remarks.You just told Jay ” Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth.” There are some things the Bible just isn’t clear about, so I don’t think it’s necessary for him or me to come up with a whole different scenario of inferred assertions in order to tell you that the Bible isn’t clear enough to support your own assertions.
In any case, I really would like to get back to the original discussion and not discourse about his assessments, etc. Thanks for your on-going remarks that have been on the topic of the thread.
Not coming into fellowship with demons is a premier obligation for all humans, especially believers.
If it’s obligations that you want to discuss, I again would disagree with you. The premier obligations for all humans are laid out in Mark 12:
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices
If you live in such a way that avoiding all contact with demons is one of your primary motivations, I truly feel sorry for you. Your life will be characterized by fearfulness and anxiety, which is not at all the kind of life that Paul tells us to strive for in Romans 14:
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
"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
Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth.
Since it’s so hard for you to speak plainly about what is and isn’t acceptable, I will take you up on this at some point in the future, but I can tell you right now that I’m a thousand percent certain you won’t agree with any of it.
"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]It’s great that you are going to take up that discussion elsewhere. It would be much appreciated if you stopped commenting on my threads with comments that do not directly pertain to the topic of the thread.Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth.
Since it’s so hard for you to speak plainly about what is and isn’t acceptable, I will take you up on this at some point in the future, but I can tell you right now that I’m a thousand percent certain you won’t agree with any of it.
Here’s my take on the GCI:
17 When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp.” 18 But he said, “It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear.”
At this point in the story, there is ZERO record of any negative response to the noise of singing. Nor is there any attempt to categorize the type of music being heard.
19 And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses’ anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. 20 He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.
Moses became angry based on what he saw: calf worship.
There is no evidence that the music style was bad.
[Dan Miller]Here’s my take on the GCI:
17 When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp.” 18 But he said, “It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear.”
At this point in the story, there is ZERO record of any negative response to the noise of singing. Nor is there any attempt to categorize the type of music being heard.
19 And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses’ anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. 20 He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.
Moses became angry based on what he saw: calf worship.
There is no evidence that the music style was bad.
There is another lengthy thread that you might want to consult, if you are really interested, to see why I disagree: https://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-how-does-god-want-christians-to-pr…
Briefly, to say that demonically influenced people were still producing godly music begs a key question.
Also, the text says that Moses became extremely angry when he saw the calf and the dancing:
Exodus 32:19 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.
He was not just angry because he saw the calf but the dancing was God-honoring so he was not angry at the dancing.
Finally, the passage records that the enemies of God’s people regarded what these demon-influenced, wildly-out-of-control Israelites were doing as shameful, which plainly points to the perversity of what they were doing:
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.
When unbelieving enemies of God’s people observing what was taking place judged that their being wildly-out-of-control was shameful, there is no basis for saying that what they were doing in their music and dancing was God-honoring and the only problem was they were directing it to an idol.
[RajeshG]Rajesh, I wasn’t talking about Jay’s assessments in my post. I was making my own assessment that “I find it odd when I see you make declarative assertions about your own inferences.” I see you make these assertions about things that aren’t clear in Scripture and then you challenge other people to make their own assertions even though you’ve just been told that the Bible isn’t clear enough to make an assertion. The only reason I mentioned Jay was because you had just used that tactic with Jay moments earlier.His assessments of the lack of support for my positions are based on his presuppositions about what the Bible teaches about instrumental music. He continues to comment on my threads about how poor of an interpreter of the Bible I am. When someone repeatedly makes such remarks, they need to be able to defend their remarks.In any case, I really would like to get back to the original discussion and not discourse about his assessments, etc. Thanks for your on-going remarks that have been on the topic of the thread.you seem to make
I’d love to get back to the discussion, but it seems that the deeper I try to go into the verses, the more I find that “intrinsic meaning vs assigned meaning” comes into play. The Bible isn’t totally clear about what items or what actions have intrinsic or assigned meanings. At that point, you then tell me, “This is a vast subject and I need to study more.” You’ve done that to me twice now, but I’ll keep attempting to further the discussion. A friend and I went 23 pages on a different forum discussing a single subject, so I’m not anywhere near to wearing down.
[RajeshG]Wait a minute. Dan said “There is no evidence the music style was bad,” He didn’t say the music style was God-honoring. We don’t have enough information about the style itself to make a declarative assertion either way, yet you like to make these declarative assertions and insist they are proven because a different declarative assertion can’t be made. Why not just admit that the Bible isn’t clear but you have an educated opinion about the matter?Dan Miller wrote:
Moses became angry based on what he saw: calf worship.
There is no evidence that the music style was bad.
When unbelieving enemies of God’s people observing what was taking place judged that their being wildly-out-of-control was shameful, there is no basis for saying that what they were doing in their music and dancing was God-honoring and the only problem was they were directing it to an idol.
We know just as much about the style of music and dancing in the GCI as we know about the music and the style of music and dancing 2 Samuel 6 when David danced. Verse 15 says “So David and all the people of Israel brought up the Ark of the Lord with shouts of joy and the blowing of rams’ horns.” This makes it sound like the style would remind someone of the sounds of war from a distance. Verse 16 says David was “leaping and dancing.” Michel accused David in verse 20 of “shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls like any vulgar person might do.” So while total nakedness did not happen, there was some perceived shamefulness. In both situations, we have no specifics about the particular style of music or dancing that was used.
[Kevin Miller]No, Michal’s assessment was not a valid assessment, as seen by both David’s rebuke of her and the subsequent statement that she died childless. The valid assessment by God’s enemies that what the Israelites were doing in the GCI was shameful is recorded by the Spirit as factual information.Wait a minute. Dan said “There is no evidence the music style was bad,” He didn’t say the music style was God-honoring. We don’t have enough information about the style itself to make a declarative assertion either way, yet you like to make these declarative assertions and insist they are proven because a different declarative assertion can’t be made. Why not just admit that the Bible isn’t clear but you have an educated opinion about the matter?
We know just as much about the style of music and dancing in the GCI as we know about the music and the style of music and dancing 2 Samuel 6 when David danced. Verse 15 says “So David and all the people of Israel brought up the Ark of the Lord with shouts of joy and the blowing of rams’ horns.” This makes it sound like the style would remind someone of the sounds of war from a distance. Verse 16 says David was “leaping and dancing.” Michel accused David in verse 20 of “shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls like any vulgar person might do.” So while total nakedness did not happen, there was some perceived shamefulness. In both situations, we have no specifics about the particular style of music or dancing that was used.
You are merely guessing that shouts of joy and blowing of horns will sound like war from a distance. Moreover, you are not accounting for the most important difference: the people in the GCI were in fellowship with demons and influenced by them.
[Kevin Miller]When you do examine the biblical data, we find that there are recorded instances of sounds that did have meaning that were not humanly knowable. That’s why in my previous comments, I kept saying it that way. Unless God reveals them to us, as humans, we cannot know the meanings, regardless of whether they are intrinsic or assigned, that music has for supernatural beings, especially God.Rajesh, I wasn’t talking about Jay’s assessments in my post. I was making my own assessment that “I find it odd when I see you make declarative assertions about your own inferences.” I see you make these assertions about things that aren’t clear in Scripture and then you challenge other people to make their own assertions even though you’ve just been told that the Bible isn’t clear enough to make an assertion. The only reason I mentioned Jay was because you had just used that tactic with Jay moments earlier.
I’d love to get back to the discussion, but it seems that the deeper I try to go into the verses, the more I find that “intrinsic meaning vs assigned meaning” comes into play. The Bible isn’t totally clear about what items or what actions have intrinsic or assigned meanings. At that point, you then tell me, “This is a vast subject and I need to study more.” You’ve done that to me twice now, but I’ll keep attempting to further the discussion. A friend and I went 23 pages on a different forum discussing a single subject, so I’m not anywhere near to wearing down.
When demons influence humans to produce music, those humans as well as all other humans do not have any way to assess what meanings that demonically influenced music has in the supernatural realm. All use of such demonically influenced music must be rejected for that reason as well as because of its origin in supernatural evil influence.
[RajeshG]Briefly, to say that demonically influenced people were still producing godly music begs a key question.
I didn’t, though. To claim the music was good and to claim it was evil are both without support in the text.
They also probably were standing on sand. But again we cannot claim that was part of the evil of that night.
[Dan Miller]Ok, so let’s back up. The text tells us that their idolatry included consuming what was sacrificed to an idol. Do you believe that they came into fellowship with demons, as 1 Cor. 10:18-20 explictly teaches people do when they engage in that behavior?I didn’t, though. To claim the music was good and to claim it was evil are both without support in the text.
They also probably were standing on sand. But again we cannot claim that was part of the evil of that night.
[RajeshG]Why do you associate “fellowship with demons” with “influence”? To me, fellowship means something like “going in the same direction,” which could include influence, but I can’t think of a clear Bible verse to say that it absolutely does. We as humans shouldn’t be traveling in the same rebellious path as demons do, but going on that path by eating idol food does not mean the demons with which one is fellowshipping with actually influenced anyone to do anything. To make a declarative assertion that there was influence is to go beyond the specific wording of the verses.Moreover, you are not accounting for the most important difference: the people in the GCI were in fellowship with demons and influenced by them.
Ok, so let’s back up. The text tells us that their idolatry included consuming what was sacrificed to an idol. Do you believe that they came into fellowship with demons, as 1 Cor. 10:18-20 explictly teaches people do when they engage in that behavior?
Yes, but μετέχω (participate) and κοινωνός (fellowship) must also be defined without begging the question.
[Dan Miller]Will do. But, first, back to Ex. 32. Do you agree that the text says that Moses became angry after seeing both the calf and the dancing and not just the calf?Ok, so let’s back up. The text tells us that their idolatry included consuming what was sacrificed to an idol. Do you believe that they came into fellowship with demons, as 1 Cor. 10:18-20 explictly teaches people do when they engage in that behavior?
Yes, but μετέχω (participate) and κοινωνός (fellowship) must also be defined without begging the question.
Also, do you agree that 1 Cor. 10:7 shows us that their idolatry did not just include their consuming what was sacrificed to the idol but also included their subsequent playing:
1 Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
[RajeshG]It’s interesting that you bring up supernatural music, since it seems to me from Ezekiel 28:13 that Satan was one of the first musicians. “the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.” Verse 15 then says, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” So if Satan was perfect until he fell, then the music he played was also perfect. However, since it was supernatural music, we have no way of knowing what it sounded like or even if humans could have heard the sounds. We have no way of knowing what styles or genres were represented. We have no way of knowing if the perfection was intrinsic or assigned. We have no way of knowing if Satan, once he fell, created new supernatural styles or if Satan used perfect styles in ungodly ways. We have no way of knowing if humans, even under the influence of demons, can mimic supernatural music of any intrinsic or assigned variety. In this post of yours that I quoted, you used “When demons influence humans to produce music” as an adverbial clause, as if it’s totally logical to you that demons influence humans to produce music. This might be true, but until we examine in depth what “demonic influence” actually means and what it entails, then I find it hard to just accept your assumption/inference/opinion that demons can influence humans to produce music.When you do examine the biblical data, we find that there are recorded instances of sounds that did have meaning that were not humanly knowable. That’s why in my previous comments, I kept saying it that way. Unless God reveals them to us, as humans, we cannot know the meanings, regardless of whether they are intrinsic or assigned, that music has for supernatural beings, especially God.
When demons influence humans to produce music, those humans as well as all other humans do not have any way to assess what meanings that demonically influenced music has in the supernatural realm. All use of such demonically influenced music must be rejected for that reason as well as because of its origin in supernatural evil influence.
I see you did admit that “humans do not have any way to assess what meanings that demonically influenced music has in the supernatural realm.” However, you went to to say that because we can’t know something, we have to reject certain music. How can we reject without knowledge? How can we even know if demonically influenced music actually exists if we haven’t fully discussed the Scripture-based mechanics of demon influence? Just giving examples of wicked people who used music does NOT give us proof that demons were actually influencing the production of a whole style that then needs to be rejected, especially since those examples don’t mention a specific style.
[Kevin Miller]It’s interesting that you bring up supernatural music, since it seems to me from Ezekiel 28:13 that Satan was one of the first musicians. “the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.” Verse 15 then says, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” So if Satan was perfect until he fell, then the music he played was also perfect. However, since it was supernatural music, we have no way of knowing what it sounded like or even if humans could have heard the sounds. We have no way of knowing what styles or genres were represented. We have no way of knowing if the perfection was intrinsic or assigned. We have no way of knowing if Satan, once he fell, created new supernatural styles or if Satan used perfect styles in ungodly ways. We have no way of knowing if humans, even under the influence of demons, can mimic supernatural music of any intrinsic or assigned variety. In this post of yours that I quoted, you used “When demons influence humans to produce music” as an adverbial clause, as if it’s totally logical to you that demons influence humans to produce music. This might be true, but until we examine in depth what “demonic influence” actually means and what it entails, then I find it hard to just accept your assumption/inference/opinion that demons can influence humans to produce music.
Translational uncertainties make the use of Ezek. 28:13 problematic:
KJV Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
NAU Ezekiel 28:13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared.
NET Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, the ruby, topaz, and emerald, the chrysolite, onyx, and jasper, the sapphire, turquoise, and beryl; your settings and mounts were made of gold. On the day you were created they were prepared.
NKJ Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
CSB Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every kind of precious stone covered you: carnelian, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and emerald. Your mountings and settings were crafted in gold; they were prepared on the day you were created.
ESV Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
NIV Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
NLT Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone— red carnelian, pale-green peridot, white moonstone, blue-green beryl, onyx, green jasper, blue lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald— all beautifully crafted for you and set in the finest gold. They were given to you on the day you were created.
…..we’re not going far enough. I mean, we’re talking here about rejecting music used by idolaters, but if we must—leaving aside the question of what the particular characteristics of that music might have been—why would we then fail to impugn the other things the idolaters did?
For example, some idolaters make offerings of meat. Others use bread or wine, and still others use potatoes or rice or raisins. Buddhists in Nepal use dairy in their idolatry. We should of course avoid all of these.
Some idolaters wear woolen garments, others used linen or cotton, some used leather, some use synthetics or hemp today, and (Druids) some wear blue paint/nothing at all. We should avoid all of these, of course. Might.be.difficult, to put it mildly.
In the same way, some idolaters worship in temples of stone or brick, or in frame buildings, or even in tents or outside altogether. I’m sure that, per the reasoning presented here, we ought to avoid all of these.
Either that, or we could remember that the ancients knew everything I just mentioned, and they rightly rejected guilt by association arguments that would force them to reject good gifts God had created for their enjoyment. Including music which included a beat and percussive instruments, and to which one might dance.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin Miller]in the context of the seriousness of what is discussed in 1 Cor. 10, we can be confident that “fellowship” does not mean something like “going in the same direction.” Allowing Scripture to interpret itself, consider the divine instruction in Eph. 4:Why do you associate “fellowship with demons” with “influence”? To me, fellowship means something like “going in the same direction,” which could include influence, but I can’t think of a clear Bible verse to say that it absolutely does. We as humans shouldn’t be traveling in the same rebellious path as demons do, but going on that path by eating idol food does not mean the demons with which one is fellowshipping with actually influenced anyone to do anything. To make a declarative assertion that there was influence is to go beyond the specific wording of the verses.
KJV Ephesians 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil.
NAU Ephesians 4:26 BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not give the devil an opportunity.
NET Ephesians 4:26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on the cause of your anger. 27 Do not give the devil an opportunity.
NKJ Ephesians 4:26 “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil.
CSB Ephesians 4:26 Be angry and do not sin. Don’t let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and don’t give the Devil an opportunity.
ESV Ephesians 4:26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil.
NIV Ephesians 4:26 “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold.
NLT Ephesians 4:26 And “don’t sin by letting anger control you.” Don’t let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 for anger gives a foothold to the devil.
Interpreters connect letting the sun go down on one’s anger with giving the devil an opportunity, providing him a foothold, etc. in one’s life. Although not dealing with anger properly is a sin, it is hardly comparable to the sinfulness of eating foodstuffs offered to an idol in a worship context. Arguing from the lesser to the greater, if not dealing with anger properly gives the devil an opportunity to influence one’s life to sin further, certainly putting oneself in fellowship with demons by eating meat offered to an idol in a worship context is far worse in leading to demonic influence in one’s life.
God commands us not to give the devil any opportunities in our lives for him to influence us to sin. When the idolaters in the GCI engaged in false worship, including consuming what had been offered to the idol, they certainly engaged in an act that led to demonic influence upon them to engage in further wickedness.
Although not dealing with anger properly is a sin, it is hardly comparable to the sinfulness of eating foodstuffs offered to an idol in a worship context.
Rajesh are you seriously arguing that some sins are…more sinful…than other sins? On what authority do you claim this? Does God say anything like this anywhere in the Bible?
Sins have different consequences but I don’t think God gives us a taxonomy for deciding some sins are better than others. I think you might be conflating the two.
"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
Discussion