What Does 1 Samuel 16:14-23 teach about music?
1 Samuel 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
The passage that ends with this statement provides us with explicit revelation about “an evil spirit from God” in connection with the playing of music. What does this passage teach about music?
- 3470 views
[Kevin Miller]I intend to discuss possible applications later, but not before the passage has been thoroughly handled properly. Having had many years of engaging in these types of discussions, it has been my experience that once discussions of applications begin, turning the discussions back to treating what the passage actually says is very hard or even impossible in many cases.There is also the danger of focusing so minutely on one particular passage that you feel general applications can’t be discussed unless you’ve also focused so minutely on multiple other passages. You see, you’ve made a number of general applications in this thread, but when I asked questions about where those applications lead you, you haven’t bothered to explain your logic. Instead of explaining the logic of the statements you’ve freely made, you shut down the conversation, using the excuse that we need to talk about this passage and other passages more fully. I see that as a cop-out rather than an attempt to handle the Bible properly.
A careful and logical examination of how passages might apply to us today is absolutely a vital part of a “careful and thorough treatment of the special and even unique contributions of given passages.” Our treatment of the passage wouldn’t be thorough if we didn’t discuss how the Spirit wants us today to apply the passage.
[Kevin Miller]I never claimed that Saul repented of his rebellion to God concerning God’s setting him aside from being king, etc.I don’t think that being willing to listen to David’s music in 1 Sam 16 was evidence of Saul’s submission to God. How do you get submission to God from that chapter? We know from the previous chapter that Saul was so rebellious to God that God was going to take his kingdom away from him. At the start of chapter 16, Saul was in such a state of rebellion to God that Samuel was afraid Saul would kill him for obeying God’s command to anoint a new king. Surely Samuel had an accurate understanding of Saul’s mindset. Saul was glad for the relief he received from David’s music, but there is nothing in the passage to show Saul repenting from his rebellion to God.
What I am talking about his submitting to God concerns specifically his response to the information and recommendation that he was given:
1 Samuel 16:18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.
Saul was specifically told of a musician with whom the Lord was. Had Saul refused that specific suggestion about having that man minister to him and said something like, “Find me someone else who is also skillful but the Lord is not with him,” or “I really do not like harp music much so find me someone who plays the flute well …”, Saul would have been rebelling further against God and would not have received the supernatural deliverance that God mercifully granted him.
Because Saul did not rebel additionally in that way but submitted to the recommendation that he providentially received, he received that deliverance:
19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep… .
As I explained earlier, when Saul later turned against David and opposed him in numerous ways, including trying to kill him repeatedly, he forfeited the benefits of David’s ministry to him because he was then rebelling against God further in ways that he had not done previously.
Having treated the information provided in 1 Samuel 16:14-23, we must compare and contrast it with what other Scripture passages that are related reveal in order to discover further what this passage teaches us about music.
One key truth that we learn from other passages is that David made/invented musical instruments:
1 Chronicles 23:5 Moreover four thousand were porters; and four thousand praised the LORD with the instruments which I made, said David, to praise therewith.
2 Chronicles 7:6 And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the LORD, which David the king had made to praise the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood.
Amos 6:5 That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;
These statements teach us that David did not just play the harp, write Psalms, and sing music—David invented musical instruments, including those that he made specifically for use in divine service.
Given that David was an inventor of musical instruments, we have a good basis to hold that he also was the inventor of the music that he played on those instruments.
This line of reasoning supports holding that the music that David played for Saul was Israelite music and adds to that view that it was music that David himself originated. We do not have any basis or need to hold that David borrowed any of his music that he played from any other source(s).
Later in David’s life, Scripture informs us of an instance when David seems to have used non-Israelites and their capabilities to accomplish a task:
2 Samuel 5:11 And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons: and they built David an house.
When the Spirit wants us to know and believe that God’s people used things of pagans in accomplishing a certain task, He tells us so. Moreover, this passage is not the only such passage in Scripture where the Spirit has revealed such information.
In view of such evidence, it is noteworthy and determinative that neither in 1 Samuel 16 nor in any other passage in Scripture does the Spirit ever speak of God’s people borrowing anything musical from pagans.
Had David used pagan music to deliver Saul, the Spirit would have told us that he did so. The Spirit has not provided any such information—there is no basis to hold that God had David play pagan music to deliver Saul!
Second Timothy 3:16-17 teaches us that all Scripture is profitable for us for what we believe and how we live.
Applying that teaching to 1 Samuel 16:14-23 makes it certain that God intends this passage to profit us today.
One application that this passage teaches us is the reality of human affliction (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual) caused by the evil activities of demons. The failure to keep this truth in mind has likely led to the faulty understanding of the bodily afflictions of many people and faulty approaches to trying to help them.
A closely related application is that God may, as He sees fit, use listening to godly instrumental music to help alleviate some or all aspects of those afflictions for some people.
First Samuel 16:14-23 reveals to us that God has not given the gift of instrumental music to mankind only for us to use either for worshiping Him corporately or for entertainment/personal fulfillment. Played by godly people who allow God to direct them to please Him with what they do musically, instrumental music is a powerful way to do good to other people. Stewarding the gift of instrumental music faithfully to accomplish this divine purpose is an important part of giving God the full glory that is due His name.
Such stewardship requires that we accept that personal preferences in music are not the ultimate criterion for deciding what music we should play when we minister to others who are afflicted. As the Spirit has framed the account of David’s playing for Saul, there is no indication that Saul’s musical preferences were determinative in what music God used to provide him with the multiple therapeutic benefits that He graciously bestowed on him through David’s music ministry to him.
Based on what God has revealed in 1 Samuel 16:14-23, we know that God has used harp music to deliver a sinful human from affliction that he was suffering from a demon. The passage does not establish that harp music is the only type of music that God has ever used or would ever use in that way, but we do not have any evidence that He has ever used or would ever use any other type of music in that way to bring about all the same effects.
We may be justified therefore in holding that there is a unique excellence of some harp music in that respect.
[RajeshG]It’s explanations like this that cause me confusion when I am trying to understand the principles you present. In a previous post, you stated “Those who do not first submit to God will not receive supernatural deliverance from demonically caused afflictions (cf. James 4:7)” I thought this was a general statement about the need to first have submission in order to receive deliverance. That seems to be what the words of the post are conveying.I never claimed that Saul repented of his rebellion to God concerning God’s setting him aside from being king, etc.
What I am talking about his submitting to God concerns specifically his response to the information and recommendation that he was given:
1 Samuel 16:18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.
Saul was specifically told of a musician with whom the Lord was. Had Saul refused that specific suggestion about having that man minister to him and said something like, “Find me someone else who is also skillful but the Lord is not with him,” or “I really do not like harp music much so find me someone who plays the flute well …”, Saul would have been rebelling further against God and would not have received the supernatural deliverance that God mercifully granted him.
Because Saul did not rebel additionally in that way but submitted to the recommendation that he providentially received, he received that deliverance:
19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep… .
As I explained earlier, when Saul later turned against David and opposed him in numerous ways, including trying to kill him repeatedly, he forfeited the benefits of David’s ministry to him because he was then rebelling against God further in ways that he had not done previously.
Turns out, I couldn’t read that principle at face value, since you admit that Saul had not repented of his rebellion. He did lack submission when David delivered him from the affliction. You claim you were meaning that some “further” rebellion keeps deliverance from happening, but that’s not how your original statement was worded.
[RajeshG]I think your point number 4 is actually an over-arching point that supersedes point number 6, and under which all the other points would fall. This wasn’t just any instrumental music, it was specifically David’s instrumental music. It wasn’t just any skillful playing, it was specifically David’s skillful playing. It wasn’t played by just anyone with the spirit on him, it was specifically David playing with the Spirit on him. Furthermore, before David even had the Spirit on him, we was doing seemingly impossible deeds by the power of God. There’s no way he would have been able to kill a lion and a bear without God’s power. It seems to me that delivering someone from demon affliction is a miraculous type deed, and I highly doubt that anyone else would have been able to do it with their music. I know you have already disagreed with that in this thread, but I just wanted to point it out again since you’ve made this summary list.Based on what is explicitly revealed in 1 Samuel 16:14-23, we know the following about the music in 16:23 that God used to deliver Saul from the multifaceted demonic affliction that he was experiencing:
- Instrumental music (no mention of singing)
- Solo music (no mention of other instruments played by other people)
- Harp music
- Played by David’s hands
- Played skillfully
- Played by a godly Israelite
- Played by a man chosen by God
- Played by a man who had the Spirit on him and with whom the Lord was
- Music that brought multiple benefits to the hearer
Based on the context and other biblical considerations, we also know that the music was Israelite music.
Given these 10 things that we do know about that music, are there any other things that we can legitimately infer about it?
Now, I’m not going to individually respond to each of the posts you’ve made in the past week, but there is one theme that needs to be addressed. You keep arguing against “pagan music” being used by David, so I think would be useful to go back and see how that theme started. You were the one who originally brought it up, after all, not me.
On page 2 of this thread, you stated, “First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a biblical basis for using music therapeutically to benefit people with various problems.” You then provided a link to the American Music Therapy Association to show that music can have both emotional and physical benefits. I’ll go through my direct response to that post sentence by sentence to see if my logic is faulty. My first sentence in response was, “First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a basis for saying that David’s music provided a therapeutic benefit.” I highlighted David’s name in my original post, since I was making the same point that I just made about your summary list. The passage was specifically about David’s music, and I think it’s stretch to say that First Samuel 16 is teaching that any music other than David’s music benefits people with various problems. Other passages in the Bible may give that indication, but if David’s deliverance of Saul actually is miraculous, than we can’t just claim that same miracle for any other music.
I’ll go on. My next sentence was “The passage doesn’t specifically say that any other harp music would provide the same benefit.” In other words, we know that David’s music specifically did provide the benefit, but the passage does not say, one way or another, whether other people’s harp music could do the same. It’s entirely possible, since the Bible doesn’t deny that other people could have done it, I just personally don’t think it’s likely, but I’m willing to look at the logic of those who think it’s possible..
My next sentence was, “If we do suppose that other harp music provides a benefit, then we should also be able to say, as you did, that other instrumental music would also provide a benefit.” Throughout the thread, you’ve made statements about the value of instrumental music. In the 11th post of this thread, you used David’s harp music to make this point, “God intends the explicit emphasis on instrumental music in this passage to instruct us about the importance that He places on instrumental music that pleases Him.” In the very next post, you said, “This passage shows definitively that instrumental music played by a godly, highly skilled, and Spirit-empowered musician provided multiple benefits to a suffering human being.” You were not limiting these statement to harp music alone, but seemed to be making a point about instrumental music in general. I was recognizing the logical validity of that point, even though my personal view is still that the passage was most likely speaking specifically of David’s instrumental music
My next sentence was, “If we say that other instrumental music provides a benefit, then it’s logical to say that various styles of music would also provide a benefit,” At least with the instrumentation, we know that the Bible declared the harp to be the effective instrument, yet we can potentially include other instruments as well. As you said in your post Sunday evening, “The passage does not establish that harp music is the only type of music that God has ever used or would ever use in that way.” Regarding the style, the Bible doesn’t even mention the style of Israelite music used, so we can’t say if it was a slow, relaxing style or if it was a joyful, celebratory style or if it was a victorious military style. You even admitted in the 13th post of this page that “there may be the possibility that Israel had more than one godly style that pleased God that He also used during the instances communicated by 1 Samuel 16:23.”
So in this post, I never mentioned pagan music, did I? Yet your response to this post contained the following paragraph. “First Samuel 16 does not provide any support for someone who would assert that there had to have been and were Philistine harp styles, Moabite harp styles, Babylonian harp styles, etc that David could just as well have played and God would also just as well have used to provide Saul with the same benefits, especially that of driving out the demon from him.” Why did you feel the need to argue against Philistine or Moabite styles, if no one had mentioned those styles in the thread? Who is this “someone who would assert” that you speak of. It wasn’t me. I certainly hadn’t been advocating that David used those styles to relieve Saul. That hadn’t even crossed my mind. From that point on, you’ve kept arguing against the use of pagan music as if I had brought it up. You even asked me for Scripture to prove that it was used to bring deliverance, when I never even said that it was used by David or anyone else to bring deliverance.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, you were not the one to first say anything specifically about pagan music. You, however, did make the following comment on page 1 of this thread:Now, I’m not going to individually respond to each of the posts you’ve made in the past week, but there is one theme that needs to be addressed. You keep arguing against “pagan music” being used by David, so I think would be useful to go back and see how that theme started. You were the one who originally brought it up, after all, not me.
On page 2 of this thread, you stated, “First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a biblical basis for using music therapeutically to benefit people with various problems.” You then provided a link to the American Music Therapy Association to show that music can have both emotional and physical benefits. I’ll go through my direct response to that post sentence by sentence to see if my logic is faulty. My first sentence in response was, “First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a basis for saying that David’s music provided a therapeutic benefit.” I highlighted David’s name in my original post, since I was making the same point that I just made about your summary list. The passage was specifically about David’s music, and I think it’s stretch to say that First Samuel 16 is teaching that any music other than David’s music benefits people with various problems. Other passages in the Bible may give that indication, but if David’s deliverance of Saul actually is miraculous, than we can’t just claim that same miracle for any other music.
I’ll go on. My next sentence was “The passage doesn’t specifically say that any other harp music would provide the same benefit.” In other words, we know that David’s music specifically did provide the benefit, but the passage does not say, one way or another, whether other people’s harp music could do the same. It’s entirely possible, since the Bible doesn’t deny that other people could have done it, I just personally don’t think it’s likely, but I’m willing to look at the logic of those who think it’s possible..
My next sentence was, “If we do suppose that other harp music provides a benefit, then we should also be able to say, as you did, that other instrumental music would also provide a benefit.” Throughout the thread, you’ve made statements about the value of instrumental music. In the 11th post of this thread, you used David’s harp music to make this point, “God intends the explicit emphasis on instrumental music in this passage to instruct us about the importance that He places on instrumental music that pleases Him.” In the very next post, you said, “This passage shows definitively that instrumental music played by a godly, highly skilled, and Spirit-empowered musician provided multiple benefits to a suffering human being.” You were not limiting these statement to harp music alone, but seemed to be making a point about instrumental music in general. I was recognizing the logical validity of that point, even though my personal view is still that the passage was most likely speaking specifically of David’s instrumental music
My next sentence was, “If we say that other instrumental music provides a benefit, then it’s logical to say that various styles of music would also provide a benefit,” At least with the instrumentation, we know that the Bible declared the harp to be the effective instrument, yet we can potentially include other instruments as well. As you said in your post Sunday evening, “The passage does not establish that harp music is the only type of music that God has ever used or would ever use in that way.” Regarding the style, the Bible doesn’t even mention the style of Israelite music used, so we can’t say if it was a slow, relaxing style or if it was a joyful, celebratory style or if it was a victorious military style. You even admitted in the 13th post of this page that “there may be the possibility that Israel had more than one godly style that pleased God that He also used during the instances communicated by 1 Samuel 16:23.”
So in this post, I never mentioned pagan music, did I? Yet your response to this post contained the following paragraph. “First Samuel 16 does not provide any support for someone who would assert that there had to have been and were Philistine harp styles, Moabite harp styles, Babylonian harp styles, etc that David could just as well have played and God would also just as well have used to provide Saul with the same benefits, especially that of driving out the demon from him.” Why did you feel the need to argue against Philistine or Moabite styles, if no one had mentioned those styles in the thread? Who is this “someone who would assert” that you speak of. It wasn’t me. I certainly hadn’t been advocating that David used those styles to relieve Saul. That hadn’t even crossed my mind. From that point on, you’ve kept arguing against the use of pagan music as if I had brought it up. You even asked me for Scripture to prove that it was used to bring deliverance, when I never even said that it was used by David or anyone else to bring deliverance.
So when a Spirit-filled Christian composes some contemporary Christian music, is it automatically godly, since a spirit-filled person can’t play anything that displeases God?
As a result of this statement having been made, the thread became highly susceptible to being diverted into a discussion of “contemporary Christian music.” One of the most hotly disputed aspects about the debates about that music concerns whether instrumental music that is not from God’s people but is borrowed from wicked people is nonetheless inherently good music that can be used to worship God.
My subsequent comments have been made with this dimension in mind and how neither 1 Samuel 16 nor any other passage in Scripture supports any such notions about borrowing music from wicked people and using it in divine service and worship.
[Kevin Miller]I do not understand what you cannot understand. Saul was a sinful man who was judged by God by God’s taking His Spirit away from him and sending a demon to afflict him.It’s explanations like this that cause me confusion when I am trying to understand the principles you present. In a previous post, you stated “Those who do not first submit to God will not receive supernatural deliverance from demonically caused afflictions (cf. James 4:7)” I thought this was a general statement about the need to first have submission in order to receive deliverance. That seems to be what the words of the post are conveying.
Turns out, I couldn’t read that principle at face value, since you admit that Saul had not repented of his rebellion. He did lack submission when David delivered him from the affliction. You claim you were meaning that some “further” rebellion keeps deliverance from happening, but that’s not how your original statement was worded.
At the precise time that God did so, Saul’s standing before God was not that of a righteous person who was pleasing to God. Nonetheless, God in His incomparable goodness and mercy yet extended to him immense mercy by providentially directing that he would be advised of a means by which his suffering at the hands of the demon could be alleviated at various times.
When Saul received that specific advice, he faced a choice. Either he would rebel further against God by rejecting that advice or he would submit to God’s providence and heed that advice.
Saul chose to heed that advice and therefore received a large measure of deliverance that God graciously extended to him in spite of his sinfulness. By submitting to God at least to that extent and in that specific way, he received divine mercy that he could not have earned or merited in any way.
[Kevin Miller]Whatever divine empowerment David may have experienced prior to Samuel’s anointing him to be the next king (cf. 1 Sam. 17:37, which may allude to that dynamic), the text clearly says that what David experienced after his anointing was different from what he had experienced before:I think your point number 4 is actually an over-arching point that supersedes point number 6, and under which all the other points would fall. This wasn’t just any instrumental music, it was specifically David’s instrumental music. It wasn’t just any skillful playing, it was specifically David’s skillful playing. It wasn’t played by just anyone with the spirit on him, it was specifically David playing with the Spirit on him. Furthermore, before David even had the Spirit on him, we was doing seemingly impossible deeds by the power of God. There’s no way he would have been able to kill a lion and a bear without God’s power. It seems to me that delivering someone from demon affliction is a miraculous type deed, and I highly doubt that anyone else would have been able to do it with their music. I know you have already disagreed with that in this thread, but I just wanted to point it out again since you’ve made this summary list.
1 Samuel 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.
It is possible that his previous exploits resulted from periodic empowerment by the Spirit (cf. Samson’s killing a lion after the Spirit came on him [Judg. 14:5-6] , which uses the same Heb. verb for the Spirit’s coming on Samson as is used for His coming on David in 1 Sam. 16:13), but at this point (16:13) there was a coming upon him by the Spirit that he had not experienced previously that continued from then on in his life.
In any case, what we are told about David’s musical proficiency is only predicated of him after this point in his life. The flow of thought clearly highlights the Spirit’s coming upon him as the central development that preceded his music ministry to Saul.
It is entirely possible that the Spirit’s coming upon him directed him to originate instrumental music that he had never played before. If so, he enjoyed a supernatural skillfulness similar to what Bezaleel experienced (Exod. 31:2-5). (Of course, undoubtedly, David did know how to play the harp skillfully prior to the Spirit’s coming on him, and Bezaleel was a highly skilled craftsman prior to what he experienced in making various things in the Tabernacle.)
Prior to our being told of David’s Spirit-enabled skillfulness, we are specifically told of prophets (who would have had the Spirit on them and) who prophesied with musical instruments (1 Sam. 10:5). Their Spirit-directed ministry to Saul preceded/accompanied the Spirit’s coming on him (1 Sam. 10:6).
Whether God ever used these Spirit-empowered musicians to deliver people from demonic affliction is unknown, but it is entirely possible, and I do not find any reason to think that He did not use them in that way, as He saw fit.
A significant parallel would be how Christ empowered and authorized numerous disciples of His to cast out demons. Yes, Christ, Peter, and Paul had extraordinary abilities to do so that the other disciples did not have, but it was still true that the other disciples did have the authorization and enablement to drive out demons from many people on differing occasions.
Similarly, even if David’s Spirit-enabled musical skillfulness surpassed that of all the other prophets who were Spirit-empowered musicians, there is no necessity to hold that he was the only one who was ever able to do so.
First Samuel 16:14-23 is one of many passages that show the surpassing biblical importance of the harp. What the Bible reveals about the harp teaches us that any believer who despises harp music has musical sensibilities that are not biblical.
I have had online engagement with at least one such person who professed to be a Christian. It was shocking to encounter a Christian who used a euphemism for a curse word to speak of the use of harp music in biblical times.
A believer who despises the use of the harp in worship needs to have his mind and heart renewed by the Spirit and the Word of God so that his musical sensibilities will change to be what they should be.
This passage strongly emphasizes David’s skillfulness in playing the harp:
1 Samuel 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well. 17 And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. 18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.
23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
In theory, had God chosen to do so, He could have used ordinary playing ability in a consecrated musician to deliver Saul from his demonic affliction.
What lessons do we learn from the Spirit’s revealing to us, however, that He chose to use a highly skillful musician to accomplish a task (deliverance from demonic affliction) that would always require the supernatural working of God in order for it to be efficacious, regardless of the skill level of the human musician that He were to choose to use?
[RajeshG]Again, it’s explanations like this that are confusing, if not downright disingenuous. I’ve been debating with myself about whether to even continue in this thread, if you can’t even understand the point I was making. We got into this discussion because you were asking why Saul was relieved from the demon the first time David played, but not at later times. As part of your reasoning, you wrote, and I’ll repeat it once more, that “Those who do not first submit to God will not receive supernatural deliverance from demonically caused afflictions (cf. James 4:7)” A plain reading of that comment would have me think you believe Saul was submissive to God when David first played for him, otherwise he would not have received deliverance.” Is it really that hard to understand how someone would get that reading from the words you used? Is it really that hard to understand how someone could be confused that you weren’t talking about Saul’s submission to God, but were really talking about submission to a servant’s suggestion?I do not understand what you cannot understand. Saul was a sinful man who was judged by God by God’s taking His Spirit away from him and sending a demon to afflict him.
At the precise time that God did so, Saul’s standing before God was not that of a righteous person who was pleasing to God.
Nonetheless, God in His incomparable goodness and mercy yet extended to him immense mercy by providentially directing that he would be advised of a means by which his suffering at the hands of the demon could be alleviated at various times.So, really, the submission you are talking about here is not submission to God, but simply submission to his servant’s advise to have someone godly come in to play for him. You know full well that if Saul had known David was the one designated at the next king, Saul would have killed him immediately rather than listen to any music from him. Being willing to listen to music from someone godly is NOT actually submission to God. Following a servant’s advice to listen is NOT actually submitting to God. I know you realize that, since you try to qualify Saul’s “submission” by describing it as “at least to that extent and in that specific way.” Whatever the “extent” was of Saul’s supposed submission, it certainly doesn’t fit the submission described in the verse you cross-referenced, James 4:7.When Saul received that specific advice, he faced a choice. Either he would rebel further against God by rejecting that advice or he would submit to God’s providence and heed that advice.
Saul chose to heed that advice and therefore received a large measure of deliverance that God graciously extended to him in spite of his sinfulness. By submitting to God at least to that extent and in that specific way, he received divine mercy that he could not have earned or merited in any way.
[RajeshG]I’ll admit I likely overstated my case when I claimed that the things David did could only have been done by him. As I was thinking about David’s killing of the lion and the bear, I realized that David mentioned those events because he trusted in the same God that the army did, and he was surprised that no one in the army had offered to go kill Goliath. David was basically saying that anyone else who trusted God should have the same power to defeat Goliath.A significant parallel would be how Christ empowered and authorized numerous disciples of His to cast out demons. Yes, Christ, Peter, and Paul had extraordinary abilities to do so that the other disciples did not have, but it was still true that the other disciples did have the authorization and enablement to drive out demons from many people on differing occasions.
Similarly, even if David’s Spirit-enabled musical skillfulness surpassed that of all the other prophets who were Spirit-empowered musicians, there is no necessity to hold that he was the only one who was ever able to do so.
However, the time period of these events should also be a factor in whether we can make certain applications for today.. We as Christians are not part of the Israelite army, which had a direct promise that they would overcome their enemies. We certainly can’t take the David and Goliath account and pick out one small aspect to make application for today about. I can just imagine the thread “What can we learn about stone throwing from I Samuel 17?” We would dig into the passage and make a list like 1. David deliberately chose stones, 2. He chose 5 stones, 3. The stones were smooth, 4. He chose them from the brook and not the mountainside or underground, 5. He placed them in the bag he used while tending sheep, 6. He only used one of the five stones, 7. He ran toward Goliath and used a slingshot, 8. The stone sunk in Goliath’s forehead.
All of those items are things that the Spirit wanted us to know about David’s stone throwing, and any other Israelite in the army could have done it, but are we today to understand that those same truths about the stones are applicable to our own stone throwing?
Consider even the disciples who were sent to cast out demons. In Matthew 10:8, Jesus told them “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.” Are we to consider us today to have the same authority to do those things as what the 12 apostles had?
As we think about David playing music for Saul, are we really supposed to understand that our music playing today would have the same beneficial effect as what David’s had for Saul? Perhaps it does, but it seems a stretch. I certainly wouldn’t make a definitive assertion that it does.
[RajeshG]I see from the linked post that one of Cain’s descendants was the “father of all such as handle the harp.” He certainly would not have been playing it in godly ways. Would it be a valid principle that God can take an instrument that has been used for ungodliness and sanctify it’s use for godly purposes?First Samuel 16:14-23 is one of many passages that show the surpassing biblical importance of the harp. What the Bible reveals about the harp teaches us that any believer who despises harp music has musical sensibilities that are not biblical.
I have had online engagement with at least one such person who professed to be a Christian. It was shocking to encounter a Christian who used a euphemism for a curse word to speak of the use of harp music in biblical times.
A believer who despises the use of the harp in worship needs to have his mind and heart renewed by the Spirit and the Word of God so that his musical sensibilities will change to be what they should be.
[RajeshG]I’m wondering if perhaps the servants didn’t want to bring in a “beginner” musician to play for a KING, especially when so much was at stake with the king’s mental state? It rather makes sense that they would only want the best musicians to play for the king, but I’m not sure there is a lesson for us today in that idea. Sure, God can be considered as our king today, but I think God is just as pleased with the music of an unskilled person as he is with the music of a skilled person, as long as both people are desiring to follow God.This passage strongly emphasizes David’s skillfulness in playing the harp:
1 Samuel 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well. 17 And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. 18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.
23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
In theory, had God chosen to do so, He could have used ordinary playing ability in a consecrated musician to deliver Saul from his demonic affliction.
What lessons do we learn from the Spirit’s revealing to us, however, that He chose to use a highly skillful musician to accomplish a task (deliverance from demonic affliction) that would always require the supernatural working of God in order for it to be efficacious, regardless of the skill level of the human musician that He were to choose to use?
[Kevin Miller]I’m not going to try much more to sort this out. I disagree with your reading of the passage. The text specifically says that the servant informed Saul concerning David that “the Lord is with him” (1 Sam. 16:18). That is not just a generic statement that he was a godly man. If you trace that phrase in Scripture, it is a very important statement of God’s special favor on someone.Again, it’s explanations like this that are confusing, if not downright disingenuous. I’ve been debating with myself about whether to even continue in this thread, if you can’t even understand the point I was making. We got into this discussion because you were asking why Saul was relieved from the demon the first time David played, but not at later times. As part of your reasoning, you wrote, and I’ll repeat it once more, that “Those who do not first submit to God will not receive supernatural deliverance from demonically caused afflictions (cf. James 4:7)” A plain reading of that comment would have me think you believe Saul was submissive to God when David first played for him, otherwise he would not have received deliverance.” Is it really that hard to understand how someone would get that reading from the words you used? Is it really that hard to understand how someone could be confused that you weren’t talking about Saul’s submission to God, but were really talking about submission to a servant’s suggestion?
So, really, the submission you are talking about here is not submission to God, but simply submission to his servant’s advise to have someone godly come in to play for him. You know full well that if Saul had known David was the one designated at the next king, Saul would have killed him immediately rather than listen to any music from him. Being willing to listen to music from someone godly is NOT actually submission to God. Following a servant’s advice to listen is NOT actually submitting to God. I know you realize that, since you try to qualify Saul’s “submission” by describing it as “at least to that extent and in that specific way.” Whatever the “extent” was of Saul’s supposed submission, it certainly doesn’t fit the submission described in the verse you cross-referenced, James 4:7.
Saul’s submission to that servant’s advice and his allowing David to come play for him was submission to God. We will just have to leave it there and agree to disagree.
[Kevin Miller]We had a very long discussion about that passage some time ago here on SI. It would be interesting to see what positions were taken about what we can say about his playing.I see from the linked post that one of Cain’s descendants was the “father of all such as handle the harp.” He certainly would not have been playing it in godly ways. Would it be a valid principle that God can take an instrument that has been used for ungodliness and sanctify it’s use for godly purposes?
We do not know whether Jubal invented the harp or even whether others who used the harp after the Flood used the same instrument that he did. In any case, I do not believe that a musical instrument can be inherently evil, as long as it can produce individual tones played by themselves because such individual tones by themselves cannot be evil.
[Kevin Miller]What God chooses to do today with godly music played by godly people in godly ways is up to Him. I believe that it is valid to say that if He were to use any music similarly today to benefit demonically afflicted people, it would only be godly music played by godly people in godly ways.I’ll admit I likely overstated my case when I claimed that the things David did could only have been done by him. As I was thinking about David’s killing of the lion and the bear, I realized that David mentioned those events because he trusted in the same God that the army did, and he was surprised that no one in the army had offered to go kill Goliath. David was basically saying that anyone else who trusted God should have the same power to defeat Goliath.
However, the time period of these events should also be a factor in whether we can make certain applications for today.. We as Christians are not part of the Israelite army, which had a direct promise that they would overcome their enemies. We certainly can’t take the David and Goliath account and pick out one small aspect to make application for today about. I can just imagine the thread “What can we learn about stone throwing from I Samuel 17?” We would dig into the passage and make a list like 1. David deliberately chose stones, 2. He chose 5 stones, 3. The stones were smooth, 4. He chose them from the brook and not the mountainside or underground, 5. He placed them in the bag he used while tending sheep, 6. He only used one of the five stones, 7. He ran toward Goliath and used a slingshot, 8. The stone sunk in Goliath’s forehead.
All of those items are things that the Spirit wanted us to know about David’s stone throwing, and any other Israelite in the army could have done it, but are we today to understand that those same truths about the stones are applicable to our own stone throwing?
Consider even the disciples who were sent to cast out demons. In Matthew 10:8, Jesus told them “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.” Are we to consider us today to have the same authority to do those things as what the 12 apostles had?
As we think about David playing music for Saul, are we really supposed to understand that our music playing today would have the same beneficial effect as what David’s had for Saul? Perhaps it does, but it seems a stretch. I certainly wouldn’t make a definitive assertion that it does.
[RajeshG]We do not know whether Jubal invented the harp or even whether others who used the harp after the Flood used the same instrument that he did.
Quite true. In fact, we can’t be sure that the harps we have today are the same as what David used. Of course, we have so many different types of stringed instruments today, that some of them are likely to be pretty close to what David used. I doubt David used anything like the huge free-standing harps we have today to play while he tended the sheep, but I think the word “harp” in the Bible could be used for all sorts of stringed instruments. If David could see a modern guitar, he might even say, “That sure is an interesting harp.”
[RajeshG]Sure, that’s a valid statement to make, but such a statement could also be made by someone who has an entirely different viewpoint than yours about what constitutes “godly music” or “godly ways” of playing it.What God chooses to do today with godly music played by godly people in godly ways is up to Him. I believe that it is valid to say that if He were to use any music similarly today to benefit demonically afflicted people, it would only be godly music played by godly people in godly ways.
[Kevin Miller]To be valid, every person’s viewpoints about every subject have to be based on whatever God has revealed about the subject. I would be glad to interact with people who have “entirely different viewpoints” than mine provided that they consistently and exhaustively use the Bible to support and set forth what they believe.Sure, that’s a valid statement to make, but such a statement could also be made by someone who has an entirely different viewpoint than yours about what constitutes “godly music” or “godly ways” of playing it.
[Kevin Miller]The Bible is replete with emphatic assertions that God is the King of the universe. One of the most emphatic statements in the Bible about music highlights the importance of ministering skillfully to God as our King:I’m wondering if perhaps the servants didn’t want to bring in a “beginner” musician to play for a KING, especially when so much was at stake with the king’s mental state? It rather makes sense that they would only want the best musicians to play for the king, but I’m not sure there is a lesson for us today in that idea. Sure, God can be considered as our king today, but I think God is just as pleased with the music of an unskilled person as he is with the music of a skilled person, as long as both people are desiring to follow God.
Psalm 47:6 Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises. 7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
Note that the command to “sing praises” is repeated 5x in these two verses and that the explanation for those commands is that “God is the King of all the earth”!
A few other versions bring out this emphasis in this passage more directly:
NAU Psalm 47:6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; Sing praises to our King, sing praises. 7 For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with a skillful psalm.
NET Psalm 47:6 Sing to God! Sing! Sing to our king! Sing! 7 For God is king of the whole earth! Sing a well-written song!
Other passages make clear that God demands that people play music skillfully to Him:
1 Chronicles 15:22 And Chenaniah, chief of the Levites, was for song: he instructed about the song, because he was skilful.
Psalm 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
Ministering music skillfully to God as the King is not optional.
[RajeshG]True enough, but there are certain situations where the Bible does not explicitly state whether one particular viewpoint or the other is accurate. In that case, either one might be true. Sometimes even both could be true to a certain extent. What I find hard to digest is when someone simply declares a certain position to be true, and then uses as their support a statement similar to “I can’t find anything in the Bible to contradict me, so my view is the only Biblical one.”To be valid, every person’s viewpoints about every subject have to be based on whatever God has revealed about the subject. I would be glad to interact with people who have “entirely different viewpoints” than mine provided that they consistently and exhaustively use the Bible to support and set forth what they believe.
[RajeshG]I can’t figure out if you are adding some more context to what I said, or disagreeing with me in some way. I did acknowledge that God is our King, and that acknowledgement is certainly something we need to understand as we sing praises to God. I don’t see how this passage relates to “skillfulness” though, since understanding the sovereignty of God is different from skillfulness.The Bible is replete with emphatic assertions that God is the King of the universe. One of the most emphatic statements in the Bible about music highlights the importance of ministering skillfully to God as our King:
Psalm 47:6 Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises. 7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
Note that the command to “sing praises” is repeated 5x in these two verses and that the explanation for those commands is that “God is the King of all the earth”!
A few other versions bring out this emphasis in this passage more directly:Are we now expanding the discussion in this thread to lyrics, since the verse you just quoted here applies to singing rather than to instrumental music. Lyrics certainly must be skillfully written, since lyrics give explicit messages that can be clearly understood. Instrumental music alone does not have anywhere near the same ability as lyrics to make a message understood.NAU Psalm 47:6 Sing praises to God, sing praises; Sing praises to our King, sing praises. 7 For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with a skillful psalm.
NET Psalm 47:6 Sing to God! Sing! Sing to our king! Sing! 7 For God is king of the whole earth! Sing a well-written song!
Other passages make clear that God demands that people play music skillfully to Him:My statement in my last post was “I think God is just as pleased with the music of an unskilled person as he is with the music of a skilled person, as long as both people are desiring to follow God.” Do you disagree with that? When you say that ministering music skillfully is “not optional,” are you saying that my own personal tone-deaf praise, with my lack of ability to play any musical instrument, is displeasing to God because I’m not skillful? I can agree that God would desire me to gain some skill, but i don’t see God as being displeased with sincere praise, not matter how skilled or unskilled it may be.1 Chronicles 15:22 And Chenaniah, chief of the Levites, was for song: he instructed about the song, because he was skilful.
Psalm 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
Ministering music skillfully to God as the King is not optional.
[Kevin Miller]I can’t figure out if you are adding some more context to what I said, or disagreeing with me in some way. I did acknowledge that God is our King, and that acknowledgement is certainly something we need to understand as we sing praises to God.
You said, “Sure, God can be considered as our king today …” Your use of “considered” struck me as hardly in keeping with the profound biblical emphasis on God as King.
[Kevin Miller]This command has to mean something: Psalm 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.My statement in my last post was “I think God is just as pleased with the music of an unskilled person as he is with the music of a skilled person, as long as both people are desiring to follow God.” Do you disagree with that? When you say that ministering music skillfully is “not optional,” are you saying that my own personal tone-deaf praise, with my lack of ability to play any musical instrument, is displeasing to God because I’m not skillful? I can agree that God would desire me to gain some skill, but i don’t see God as being displeased with sincere praise, not matter how skilled or unskilled it may be.
Except perhaps in exceptional circumstances, obedience to that command directs us not to have unskilled instrumentalists ministering publicly in corporate worship. For those who are singing in the congregation but not actually leading the congregation in some manner, the standard would be lower. Sincerity, of course, is vital and pleases God, but Psalm 33:3 (in conjunction with other passages) teach us that He wants more than just sincerity from the people who would lead a group of believers musically in worship.
[RajeshG]“Considered” may not be the best word I could have used, but the thought was in the back of my mind that we are still waiting for Christ to be a physical King reigning on earth after the Second Coming. That hasn’t happened yet, but God is still considered to be king even though Christ is not yet physically reigning on the earth. I don’t think that that use of the word “considered” is downplaying God in any way.You said, “Sure, God can be considered as our king today …” Your use of “considered” struck me as hardly in keeping with the profound biblical emphasis on God as King.
Do you think the command to “play skillfully’ in Psalm 33:3 applies mainly to those “actually leading the congregation” in music? That’s what it sounds like you’re saying, since you say a different standard would apply for those simply singing in the congregation. I didn’t even realize you were starting to make distinctions between the types of people ministering to God in music. I was thinking that everyone in a congregation, leaders and singers alike, would be ministering to God in music, but your perspective seems to be that only those leading the music are ministering. Is that correct? (This is one of those situations where your wording is starting to confuse me, so I want to clear it up before I answer with wording that means something different from the wording you are using.)This command has to mean something: Psalm 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
Except perhaps in exceptional circumstances, obedience to that command directs us not to have unskilled instrumentalists ministering publicly in corporate worship. For those who are singing in the congregation but not actually leading the congregation in some manner, the standard would be lower. Sincerity, of course, is vital and pleases God, but Psalm 33:3 (in conjunction with other passages) teach us that He wants more than just sincerity from the people who would lead a group of believers musically in worship.
[Kevin Miller]The command applies to everyone, but not everyone is able to fulfill the requirement to the same extent or in the same way. Psalm 33 does not expand on this subject, but other passages teach that skillfulness is essential for those who lead others in worship.Do you think the command to “play skillfully’ in Psalm 33:3 applies mainly to those “actually leading the congregation” in music? That’s what it sounds like you’re saying, since you say a different standard would apply for those simply singing in the congregation. I didn’t even realize you were starting to make distinctions between the types of people ministering to God in music. I was thinking that everyone in a congregation, leaders and singers alike, would be ministering to God in music, but your perspective seems to be that only those leading the music are ministering. Is that correct? (This is one of those situations where your wording is starting to confuse me, so I want to clear it up before I answer with wording that means something different from the wording you are using.)
Everyone ministers to God in music in corporate worship but not everyone is called or gifted by God to lead others in doing so. Those who are not skillful in playing instruments will not be playing when they are in the congregation, etc.
Psalm 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
We know from this text that playing musical instruments skillfully is not optional. The Spirit obviously expected that His people would obey this command. To obey it, they would have to know what comprises skillful playing.
How does God expect us to know what obedience to this command looks like, given that He has not explained thoroughly or even defined anywhere in Scripture what skillful playing is?
What’s more, He has not provided us with any audio or video recordings of what skillful playing sounds like or looks like.
[RajeshG]What other passages would those be, that teach skillfulness as being “essential” for those leading others in worship?The command applies to everyone, but not everyone is able to fulfill the requirement to the same extent or in the same way. Psalm 33 does not expand on this subject, but other passages teach that skillfulness is essential for those who lead others in worship.
[RajeshG]Is Psalm 33:3 also teaching that playing “loud” music is not optional? That adjective is just as much part of the verse as the adverb “skillfully.” I usually think of skillful in regards to music playing as “having excellence of technique,” but I’m not sure that that present-day meaning is what the original authors would have always had in mind.Psalm 33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
We know from this text that playing musical instruments skillfully is not optional. The Spirit obviously expected that His people would obey this command. To obey it, they would have to know what comprises skillful playing.
How does God expect us to know what obedience to this command looks like, given that He has not explained thoroughly or even defined anywhere in Scripture what skillful playing is?
What’s more, He has not provided us with any audio or video recordings of what skillful playing sounds like or looks like.
I was looking at the Hebrew words translated as “skillful” and I noticed that a different Hebrew word is used In 1 Samuel 16 than what is used in Psalm 33:3. In 1 Samuel 16:16, the Hebrew word is yada, which means “to know.” The NIV translates the first part of the verse as “Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre.” They didn’t even add “skillfully.” Since the Hebrew word simply means ‘to know,” they translated it as someone who knows how to play. The King James version uses the word “cunning,” which to me is a word denoting a wider knowledge than just technical expertise. David was cunning enough (knowledgeable enough) to know what music would relieve Saul. I don’t think that knowing which music would relive Saul is the kind of skillfulness that is required of musicians who minister n the church today. The word “yada” is certainly expansive enough to include knowledge of technical expertise, but it wouldn’t have to include such expertise. Even a mediocre player could have the “yada” that was needed to help Saul.
Psalm 33:3 uses the Hebrew word “yatab,” which means “to be good, well, glad, or pleasing.” I think that that Hebrew word does imply more of a technical expertise to make the music pleasing, but one doesn’t have to be a virtuoso to make glad or pleasing music. I think most anyone can do so, especially if the standard is God’s pleasure than than some human’s pleasure. My neighbor might not be pleased with my off-key singing or playing, and neither might my wife, but I think God is very pleased with my musical expressions of praise to Him no matter what another human may think of them.
[Kevin Miller]1 Chronicles 15:22 is one of the main ones; I am in the process of intensely and extensively attempting to study the subject of what the Bible teaches about skillfulness. There is a lot of material that I have looked at in the past and am again studying.What other passages would those be, that teach skillfulness as being “essential” for those leading others in worship?
Here are some of the other passages that have some form of the root “skil-” in them in their rendering in English. Not many are specifically to do with music, but studying all of them (and other passages as well) carefully and thoroughly is essential to properly understanding what comprises skillfulness specifically concerning music.
1 Ki. 5:6
1 Chr. 5:18
1 Chr. 28:21
2 Chr. 2:7
2 Chr. 2:8
2 Chr. 2:14
2 Chr. 34:12
Ps. 78:72
Eccl. 9:11
Ezek. 21:31
Dan. 1:4
Dan. 1:17
Dan. 9:22
Amos 5:16
[Kevin Miller]I appreciate your interest in digging further into this subject! There is a lot to study. I know that I do not yet have a thorough understanding of the topic, but I continue to pray and study and am confident that God will provide illumination in His timetable. Having to look at multiple Hebrew words makes this study even more challenging.Is Psalm 33:3 also teaching that playing “loud” music is not optional? That adjective is just as much part of the verse as the adverb “skillfully.” I usually think of skillful in regards to music playing as “having excellence of technique,” but I’m not sure that that present-day meaning is what the original authors would have always had in mind.
I was looking at the Hebrew words translated as “skillful” and I noticed that a different Hebrew word is used In 1 Samuel 16 than what is used in Psalm 33:3. In 1 Samuel 16:16, the Hebrew word is yada, which means “to know.” The NIV translates the first part of the verse as “Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre.” They didn’t even add “skillfully.” Since the Hebrew word simply means ‘to know,” they translated it as someone who knows how to play. The King James version uses the word “cunning,” which to me is a word denoting a wider knowledge than just technical expertise. David was cunning enough (knowledgeable enough) to know what music would relieve Saul. I don’t think that knowing which music would relive Saul is the kind of skillfulness that is required of musicians who minister n the church today. The word “yada” is certainly expansive enough to include knowledge of technical expertise, but it wouldn’t have to include such expertise. Even a mediocre player could have the “yada” that was needed to help Saul.
Psalm 33:3 uses the Hebrew word “yatab,” which means “to be good, well, glad, or pleasing.” I think that that Hebrew word does imply more of a technical expertise to make the music pleasing, but one doesn’t have to be a virtuoso to make glad or pleasing music. I think most anyone can do so, especially if the standard is God’s pleasure than than some human’s pleasure. My neighbor might not be pleased with my off-key singing or playing, and neither might my wife, but I think God is very pleased with my musical expressions of praise to Him no matter what another human may think of them.
I am not in a position to answer your specific questions in this comment at this time; I’ll get back to you. Daniel 1:4 and 1:17 combine multiple Hebrew words that are relevant. You might want to study that passage to see what you can discover.
[RajeshG]This really IS interesting. 1 Chronicles 15:22 uses a different Hebrew word than the other two I looked at. This one means “to discern.” The ESV translated it as, “Chenaniah, leader of the Levites in music, should direct the music, for he understood it.” I think the way most other passages translated it as “skillful” is better at describing the “understanding” that this choir director would have had, rather than just saying “he understood it.” Young’s Literal translation ended the verse with “for he is intelligent,” which I guess IS a quite literal translation, but it really looses a lot of musical flavor.1 Chronicles 15:22 is one of the main ones; I am in the process of intensely and extensively attempting to study the subject of what the Bible teaches about skillfulness. There is a lot of material that I have looked at in the past and am again studying.
[RajeshG]The only question I asked you in my post was “Is Psalm 33:3 also teaching that playing “loud” music is not optional?” If the adjective is “not optional,” then wouldn’t the adverb also be not optional.”I appreciate your interest in digging further into this subject! There is a lot to study. I know that I do not yet have a thorough understanding of the topic, but I continue to pray and study and am confident that God will provide illumination in His timetable. Having to look at multiple Hebrew words makes this study even more challenging.
I am not in a position to answer your specific questions in this comment at this time; I’ll get back to you. Daniel 1:4 and 1:17 combine multiple Hebrew words that are relevant. You might want to study that passage to see what you can discover.
[Kevin Miller]I have not studied much the Hebrew word and expression that is rendered “with a loud noise” in Psalm 33:3 so I will answer your question when I have studied it further. Something is being commanded, but knowing exactly what that is will require additional study.The only question I asked you in my post was “Is Psalm 33:3 also teaching that playing “loud” music is not optional?” If the adjective is “not optional,” then wouldn’t the adverb also be not optional.”
[RajeshG]I looked up the Hebrew and the word used means “a shout or blast of war, alarm, or joy.” A number of versions translate the last words as “with a shout of joy.” So the command does involve loudness, since a shout is not quiet.I have not studied much the Hebrew word and expression that is rendered “with a loud noise” in Psalm 33:3 so I will answer your question when I have studied it further. Something is being commanded, but knowing exactly what that is will require additional study.
[Kevin Miller]I looked briefly at the meaning of Hebrew word in BibleWorks 10 before I responded to your initial comment with that question in it and saw similar info. Looking at all 33 verses in which the word occurs is an important part of ensuring correct understanding about what exactly is being commanded. Comparing this verse with other parallel passages that do not use this word but involve the same concept is also important.I looked up the Hebrew and the word used means “a shout or blast of war, alarm, or joy.” A number of versions translate the last words as “with a shout of joy.” So the command does involve loudness, since a shout is not quiet.
Furthermore, because there are many passages involving shouting in Scripture, an accurate handling of this aspect of Psalm 33:3 would also need to take into account what is revealed in those passages.
Discussion