Are Some Kinds of Instrumental Music Objectively Better Than Others?

Solomon did not ask for wisdom to be the wisest man in the world, nor did he ask that God would enable him to make the greatest throne in the world, nor did he ask God to make him the richest king in the world. These superlative attributes that were above all others in the world were not necessary if the chief import of the wisdom that God gave Solomon was merely to "understand situations and make the right decisions."

Nobody said those extra things were "necessary." Nobody said that Solomon's wisdom was "merely" anything. It was surpassingly supreme in all it's aspects. You sure seem to argue an awful lot against things that I've never said.

It wasn't even necessary for God to let Solomon ask for something. Solomon asked for wisdom to judge properly and God provided him with that. Yes, God also provided a lot more, such as riches and honor. So what. Are you saying that the provision of those extra things is proof that the main import of Solomon's wisdom was to further acceptable worship? I'm not understanding your logic here.

Without having any of the all-excelling superlatives given to him that God gave Solomon, David did the very thing that Solomon prayed for:

2 Samuel 8:15 And David reigned over all Israel; and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people.

For God to have answered Solomon's prayer for what Solomon asked for did not require that Solomon be given anything beyond what David had as king before him.

Yes, David was able to judge the people wisely, but Solomon was not David, and he knew it. 1 Kings 3:6-7 gives Solomon's reasoning behind asking for wisdom.

And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. And now, O Lord my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in.

Solomon recognized his own shortcomings in the wisdom department. I figure he would have been entirely satisfied if God had simply given him the wisdom of David. Solomon wasn't asking to be the most wise person in the entire world. So you are absolutely correct that "what Solomon asked for did not require that Solomon be given anything beyond what David had as king before him," and yet God in His infinite wisdom gave Solomon more than he had asked for. God knew exactly what Solomon was going to need in order for him to judge effectively.

You, in effect, asserted that 1 Kings 3 establishes the chief purpose for which God gave Solomon the all-excelling wisdom that He gave him. That understanding is not correct.

What I did was assert that God gave Solomon wisdom for the purpose of having wisdom in ALL areas of his life, since making proper judgements in all circumstances would affect ALL areas in which he had to make decisions. How is that understanding incorrect? Your logic really eludes me sometimes.

Why did God give Solomon so much more than what Solomon asked for (according to 1 Kings 3)? What were God's purposes for doing so?

Are you asserting that one can definitely know God's purposes in His actions when God hasn't revealed those purposes explicitly in Scripture, especially His purposes for one specific action like giving more of something than is asked for?

For example, what does understanding situations and making the right decisions have to do with making a throne that is superior to all the thrones of all the kings of all the kingdoms of the world? What is there specifically in Scripture that shows that Solomon was in and understood that he was in a situation where he had to make the "right" decisions so that the throne he would make would be the greatest throne in the world?

Well, if he had made the wrong decisions regarding his throne, it wouldn't have been the greatest in the world. Since Scripture tells us it was the greatest in the world, then he must have made the right decisions about it.

It seems as if you are arguing against the definition of wisdom itself. What is wisdom if it isn't understanding situations and making the right decisions? Wouldn't wisdom about worship be understanding what God desires in worship and making the right decisions based on that? Wouldn't wisdom about a throne be understanding the form, function, and message of a throne and then making decisions in building it in such a way that his was the greatest? You wrote me a nice long post, but it doesn't explain what you think is wrong with my understanding of wisdom. In what area of Solomon's life did he lack the ability to understand the situation and make wise decisions? He must have had that ability in all areas of his life or he wouldn't have been the wisest person alive.

Again, there was no necessity for him to have all-excelling wisdom to make an all-excelling throne in order for him to judge God's people properly, as David did, which is explicitly stated in Scripture that he did (without having such all-excelling wisdom or such an all-excelling throne).

This is the second time you've asked me about "necessity" and I can't figure out why this is a focus of yours. Of course there wasn't a necessity for him to build a throne. He could have used any old throne and he still would have been the wisest person in the world. He didn't need the throne to make wise decisions. There wasn't even any necessity for him to be the wisest person in the world. He could have judged wisely if God had just given him the wisdom of David.

God does things for us believers today without there being a "necessity" for God to do them. Eph. 3:20-21 says Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen. When we ask God for things today, he can do exceedingly more than we ask, and there is no "necessity" for Him to do it. Why do you think a gift from God has to have a "necessity" to it?

As the top leader over God's people, Solomon's calling was to govern God's people so that they would be faithful in being such a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Ensuring that God's people worshiped God aright was central to the role of the king as the sovereign over God's people.

But isn't it true that the nation could have properly followed God without an earthly king? 1 Samuel 8:7 says, And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

So the desire of the people for a king was seen by God as a rejection of God as king over them.

I am making this a focus because your claim that I Kings 3 in effect serves as an all-encompassing explanation for the purpose for which Solomon's wisdom was given to him is wrong and explains neither the totality of nor the greatest aspects of what God brought about through the all-excelling wisdom that God gave Solomon.

I never presented 1 Kings 3 as explaining the "totality" or "the greatest aspects" of Solomon's wisdom. I don't think the full totality of the wisdom was even passed along to us in Scripture, since such exceeding wisdom could never be fully described.

I just think that when God explicitly gives us the request of Solomon and Solomon's reasoning behind the request and God's provision of what is asked for and then an example of the use of that provision, we should pay attention to the importance of that information and not flippantly dismiss it like you are in effect doing.

The book of Judges repeatedly establishes that God's people did not properly follow God because there was no king over them:

Jdg. 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

And Solomon's request for understanding to judge the people included the wisdom to lead the people in the right way. 1 Kings 3:9 says, Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?

Everything Solomon needed for every decision in every area of life was included in his request for understanding so that he could discern between good and bad in every area that needed such discernment. He knew that as a king, he wouldn't just make decisions about worship but he would also make decisions regarding the good and bad in people's actions and about the good and bad in how kings presented themselves with their thrones.

Do you still assert that the wisdom given to Solomon about worship was no more important than the wisdom given to Solomon about anything and everything else?

Well, that depends upon the specific "factor" that we are dealing with within the wisdom discussion. Are we dealing with the importance of the "amount" of worship wisdom that Solomon had within his total volume of "surpassingly supreme" wisdom? Or are we talking about the importance of having worship wisdom as a quality of wisdom alongside all the other types of wisdom that Solomon possessed? I think it was important to God to have all types of wisdom represented in Solomon's portfolio of supreme wisdom. The way Solomon used each type of wisdom was going to be different, and worship was going to be a more important use than other uses, but I don't think we can divide his "possession" of wisdom into lesser and greater amounts of various types. He possessed all types "supremely" and if any type were less in amount or less in value to God than another type, then that would be a failure to have that type supremely.

Do you think Solomon was lacking in any type of wisdom? If he was, then he wouldn't have that type supremely. One of the comments I made to you earlier was "Isn't it true that there was surpassing supremacy in ALL God's wisdom that He gave to Solomon? I can't understand why you are trying to make a point that some surpassingly supreme wisdom is more surpassingly supreme than other surpassingly supreme wisdom." Perhaps I am making too much of the phrase "surpassingly supreme," but I don't see variations of supremeness within a total volume of supreme wisdom that has every part registering supremeness.

Think of knowledge as something that is measured in amounts, such as the number of books about a particular subject. Think of wisdom as one's reading level. I might have a 12th grade reading level. You might have a college reading level. Solomon had a "surpassingly supreme beyond seminary professor" reading level. So Solomon would have had the same reading level no matter how "books" he used for each situation he was in. His reading level in one area was not more or less than his reading level in any other area. His wisdom was not more or less in one area than in any other area.

Note that God stresses the incomparable supremacy of Solomon's wisdom in all the earth both at the beginning of this passage and at its end. Note also what God specifically talks about that is sandwiched between 4:29-31 and 4:34--Solomon's writing 1005 songs!

Writing songs pertains directly to music. Scripture is therefore explicit that Solomon excelled musically above all the peoples of the earth.

Remember the question: Are Some Kinds of Instrumental Music Objectively Better Than Others?

If the answer is no, then the instrumental portion of Solomon's music cannot be said to have excelled on the basis of its kind.

And yet we see that his music did excel. Would not excelling on the basis of its kind mean that it did not excel at all? No. It could have excelled in its performance or in its propositional content (lyrics). I believe the latter.

This seems to be getting far afield from discussing what Scripture actually reveals. A more helpful approach is to stay focused on what has been said in Scripture not just in 1 Kings 3 but also elsewhere about Solomon's wisdom.

Well, having a discussion about "kinds" of music when the Bible doesn't specifically differentiate "kinds" is already going far afield of what Scripture actually reveals.

You had challenged a previous assertion I had made regarding wisdom, and you did so by bringing up factors that I wasn't even dealing with when I made my assertion. I was trying to get you to see the nuance that I was specifically referring to when I made my assertion, and you were claiming that I was "in effect" saying things that I wasn't really saying. I think if we were talking face to face I could have gotten you to understand my point, and I'm still not sure you would be in agreement with it, but you would have been able to bring up your objection specifically about my point instead of thinking I was saying something that I wasn't. Anyway, as you brought up factors that didn't have anything to do with my assertion, I would still make comments about those unrelated factors, and so I likely contributed a great deal to making the conversation more convoluted than it should have been.

1 Kings 4:29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. 30 And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. 31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about. 32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. 33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. 34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

You said earlier that "the divine wisdom given to Solomon about worship was greater in its importance than the divine wisdom given to Solomon about any and all other things was." Now this passage here could have specifically mentioned worship as the prime factor of Solomon's wisdom, but it didn't. This doesn't mean your assertion was wrong, but that assertion doesn't tell the full story. I'm just trying to look specifically at what the passages about Solomon's wisdom actually reveal. His 3000 proverbs would have most definitely included proverbs about worship, as we see many of those in the book of Proverbs, but we also see the book of Proverbs containing more than just worship wisdom. I think it's logical to assume that the 1005 songs dealt with more than just worship as well. Then we have botany wisdom and zoology wisdom specifically mentioned, so we see Solomon's wisdom was supreme in those areas as well as it was in worship wisdom.

So an equality statement can be true in that Solomon did not lack wisdom in any area because he had a supreme amount in every area, while also asserting a superlative that worship is obviously more important in the Bible than zoology. Both can be true because they are dealing with different facets of thinking about wisdom.

Given that only very few of his songs were inscripturated, the ramifications of his writing 1000 or so songs that were not inscripturated and doing so with incomparable wisdom above all other humans has profound ramifications for this discussion.

Why would that have profound ramifications for the discussion? I can understand that if 1000 songs had been inscripturated, there would be profound ramifications for the discussion, but I can't see as how our lack of specific knowledge about them has ramifications. We don't even know if they were all in the same style or in multiple styles or if he invented some new styles. Even for the few songs we have inscripturated, we don't have any Scriptural information about the styles.

All 1005 songs were superior to all other songs in the world other than any other songs that were given directly by God or given by divine inspiration.

I'm not sure you have your logic straight here. Are you saying that the result of every activity that Solomon engaged in was superior to the result of every other person's in all those activities? Did his wisdom allow him to run the mile in a superior time than any other person? Was his cooking skill superior to everyone?

What we do know explicitly from Scripture is that his wisdom was superior to any other person's. That is explicit. We also know he wrote 1005 songs, and while wisdom is used to write songs, the Bible doesn't tell us that all 1005 songs were superior to all other songs on earth. His wisdom was not the same as his actions. We know explicitly from Scripture that he performed actions later in life that were actually incompatible with divine wisdom, yet he still performed those actions. I'm not saying that any of his songs were ever incompatible with God's direction, but I don't think we have the information to say that none of his songs could be equal to what other godly songwriters could write.

We do not need to know what the style (or styles) of the singing of those songs was/were. Regardless of what that style was (or those styles were), that style or those styles were superior to all other styles of singing in the world.

God gave Solomon wisdom that was supreme. The Bible doesn't say that God gave any style of music an attribute that was supreme. It might have been true, but we just don't have that information from the Bible.

I have not made any such claims about his running a mile or cooking skills. The statement about his producing those songs is explicit in Scripture and is directly sandwiched by statements about his excellence above all others.

You do not have any biblical basis to deny that anything mentioned in between those statements was not all surpassingly excellent above all others in the world.

The number of songs he wrote is explicit in Scripture. The statements about the excellence of his wisdom are explicit in Scripture. The Bible doesn't say that songs=wisdom, so I don't know where you are getting the idea that all the products of his song-writing activity would have to be surpassingly excellent if the bible doesn't equate the two.

The reason I asked you about cooking skills was to see if you are claiming that all the products of his activities that require wisdom would also be surpassingly excellent. I know you haven't made claims about them, so that's exactly why I'm asking for your position on the matter. I want to fully understand your position, because it doesn't make sense to me unless you think that all the products of any activity that required wisdom would also be surpassingly excellent. After all, it wasn't only songs that were sandwiched between the excellence of wisdom statements, but it was also botany and zoology. Decisions about botany and zoology take wisdom, but the existence of that wisdom would not mean that every product of his gardens or his zoo (we know he kept apes and peacocks) would have had to have been surpassingly excellent. Do you think every product was?

No, songs by definition are not just words. If something is not sung, it is not a song.

I think you must have meant to word this differently, since the wording of your second sentence conflicts with the first. An instrumental arrangement is not "sung," so is it therefore not a song?

To hold that God's all-surpassing wisdom that was given to Solomon to produce those songs only pertained to the words would be a baseless claim that must be proven directly from Scripture.

I myself never made that claim. Putting musical notes together in a coherent fashion, especially for multiple instruments, definitely takes knowledge and understanding of a number of musicological factors. That being said, the possession of all-surpassing wisdom would not mean that Solomon never composed a song that was "just as good" as the best song composed by others rather than having to be superior to it. Solomon was still a human being after all. He wasn't some wisdom-filled robot who never had an off day or a distraction but was programed to only produce "superior" songs.

The burden of biblical proof is on anyone who would assert that his songs were not musically superior to those of all others.

Asserting that we do not have that information in the Bible is a denial of what the text requires. Songs are not just lyrics . . .

Actually the burden of proof would be on someone who would be claiming that all his songs were musically superior, when the Bible simply says that his wisdom was superior. Superior songs are not a requirement of the text. Asserting that one's own assumptions about what the text means is actually the same as "what the text requires" is pretty close to arrogance.

Dan: And yet we see that his music did excel. Would not excelling on the basis of its kind mean that it did not excel at all? No. It could have excelled in its performance or in its propositional content (lyrics). I believe the latter.

Rajesh: What you have written here does not make sense to me, especially the second sentence and how it connects to the rest of what you have written.
Can you rephrase it to make clearer what you are actually saying here?

If I sing a new song, and my friend says, "That's about the best song I ever heard."

I might ask, "What was it about it that was good?" He might say, "Everything. The music, the lyrics, the melody, the style, everything."

If he sings a song, and I say, "That's about the best song I ever heard," most likely I just mean the words. I just don't care that much about the music. Not that I don't like it. I do. I'm just not that picky about style or whatever.

1. Even though my friend and I have different criteria for judging music, we both can honestly proclaim a piece of music our favorite, according to our own criteria.
2. This thread asks: Are Some Kinds of Instrumental Music Objectively Better Than Others?
3. The 1 Kings 4 passage says that Solomon was wise, including the song he wrote.
4. So, given that God calls those songs excellent, were they excellent in all respects? lyrics (meaning), style, melody, performance, etc. Or could it be that the wisdom-excellence of Solomon's music referred to the words in these songs?
5. IF it is necessary that 1 Kings 4 means Solomon's music was excellent in style, then this would be something I did not think existed: A Biblical honoring of a style of music.

However,

• I do not believe #5 is necessary. The songs could have been complimented solely on the basis of the words. And if, in God's view, no kind of instrumental music is better, then of course his complement would not be related to the style or kind of music.
• Since the type of excellence ascribed to the songs was "wisdom," it seems pretty obvious to me that the words to the songs were wise.
• If we had some examples of instrumental music that was highly pleasing to God, then I would have thought a description of the style would have been preserved.

Strictly speaking, instrumental arrangements are not songs. We call them songs because people either are familiar with the words or the words are provided in some manner, and the majority of the people are familiar with how those words are sung.

So, strictly speaking, when the Bible tells us that Solomon wrote 1005 songs, the songs could have been just the lyrics and not an entire arrangement. There is nothing in the text of the bible that requires the songs written by Solomon to be more than just the lyrics, especially since the phrase before the song information was about him writing proverbs, which are words, and the phrase after the song information was about Solomon speaking about various topics, which would also be just words.

I disagree very strongly with your saying, "Superior songs are not a requirement of the text." The point of that passage is to highlight Solomon's all-excelling wisdom that God gave him, and the Spirit has sandwiched the statement about Solomon's having those songs with explicit statements about Solomon's all-excelling wisdom.

And I strongly disagree with your disagreement. It's very telling that you neglected to answer the question I asked you in my post to clarify your position to me. Solomon's wisdom had explicit statements about superiority. Solomon's songs did not. How is that hard for you to understand?

To say that the passage does not require that the songs were superior is a denial of what the passage reveals.

No, it's a denial that your understanding of the passage is the only way to interpret the passage.

No, not at all. Solomon's songs could not just have been lyrics. If those lyrics were not sung, they were not songs.

Can you provide any biblical rationale or evidence why we should hold that "songs" cannot refer to the words alone? Based on your "sandwiched between" principle that you want me to acknowledge, since the information about the songs is sandwiched between statements that refer to things that are exclusively words, we should then consider the songs to be exclusively words. Are you just picking and choosing when you abide by this supposed "sandwiched between" principle?

Songs do not have to be "an entire arrangement" to be songs. They must be sung; they cannot just be written or spoken and be songs.

What do you think I meant by "an entire arrangement?" I meant a sequence of notes. How can it be sung without an arrangement of notes of some kind? Sometimes I think you disagree with me just to be disagreeing with me.

So, by this reasoning of yours, none of the things talked about between those statements (1 Kings 4:29-31 and 4:34) had to be superior in any way because none of those things have explicit statements about superiority. That means neither his 3000 proverbs, nor his 1005 songs, nor his speaking about trees or animals had any superiority to them because there are no explicit statements about their superiority.

It's very clear that you haven't been paying attention to my reasoning. If you had been paying attention, you would have realized that I never claimed that none of the things had to be superior. I only claimed that the text didn't require that all had to be superior in every way. Perhaps you're just purposely misrepresenting my point, but I hate to accuse you of that, so I'm going to assume that you just haven't been paying attention.

Dan: So, given that God calls those songs excellent, were they excellent in all respects? lyrics (meaning), style, melody, performance, etc. Or could it be that the wisdom-excellence of Solomon's music referred to the words in these songs?

Rajesh: Can you provide any biblical rationale or evidence why we should not hold that they were excellent in all respects?

I appreciate this question because it allows that lyrics-only excellence is possible.

Reason #1: The category of excellence in 1 Kings 4 is wisdom, not beauty. Wisdom is about thought and meaning, propositional content, not artistry.

Reason #2: IF God had a favorite style of music, He could have told us. Even here, if He said, "Solomon's music was excellent. Not just the lyrics, but also the style of music is excellent." What good would that do us if He never told us what style He was complimenting?

If I said to my wife, I have a favorite candy bar. Can you get me that when you go to the store? And she says, "Sure. What's your favorite?" And I say, "I'm not going to say. Just I have a favorite and I want it - please."

Reason #3: Should we by default consider it excellent in all respects? And the burden of proof is on me to say it is only lyrics? I don't think so. But if so, then the calls to worship God with a new song - do those ask for a new-in-all-respects song? New style and new lyrics? Or just new lyrics? If we have to assume all respects (unless proven otherwise) then the Biblical priority placed on using new styles generates quite a few problems for your view.