On Bible Interpretation, Evidence, and Music
Image
2 Timothy 3:16 reveals that all of Scripture is God-inspired and instructive. Taken with Romans 15:4, similar verses, and examples of NT use of OT passages, some have concluded that even incidental narrative details are potential sources of doctrine.
Since OT narrative details reference everything from clothing to cooking, tools, weapons, vehicles (carts, chariots), and so much more, there are, of course, references to music. There are even references to specific instruments, moods, and uses of music.
I want to offer a few thoughts here for two audiences. The first is those who claim the hermeneutic (interpretive approach) that takes every narrative detail as a potential source of doctrine. The second audience is those who have participated in conversations, debates, or quarrels on the topic of “what the Bible teaches about music” and sensed that there was some kind of disconnect regarding how to use Scripture to address features of present-day culture.
Maybe something here can help a few understand each other a little bit better on these topics and more accurately identify points of agreement and disagreement.
Narrative and Evidence
I’ve written about proper use of narrative before, with a focus on why we should avoid “spiritualizing” elements of narrative—whether OT or NT. Many of the same problems afflict efforts to extract doctrine from narrative details.
Here, we’ll focus on the role of evidence in Bible interpretation, especially narrative.
It should be a given that since we’re talking about God’s Word, and teaching we are going to claim is “biblical,” any interpretation we take of any passage of Scripture—narrative or not—needs to be justified by evidence and reasoning. Saying “God meant this when He said that” is a weighty claim! It needs to be justified.
In other words, whenever we claim, “This information in this text has this meaning for us,” we should be expected to prove it. The “proof” may be informal, as it usually is in preaching. Still, we should expect listeners to want reasons. Our beliefs and assertions should be warranted, and we should help others see why they are warranted.
Narrative is no exception to this duty—any more than poetry, prophecy, or epistles.
Classifying Evidence
Some years ago, I wrote about casting lots as a thought experiment on handling biblical evidence. A lot of readers wanted to debate the validity of casting lots—but my intent was to stir curiosity: Why don’t churches or individual believers generally make decisions that way today?
There’s a reason we don’t. It has to do with evidence.
I’m going to talk about three qualities of evidence, two types of evidence, then five sub-types.
First, three qualities:
- Consistent with
- Supportive
- Conclusive
Say a building burned down, and we discover that Wolfgang was at the location when the fire started. His presence there is consistent with the claim that he started the fire, but it doesn’t support that conclusion at all. This is more obvious if lots of other people were there, too.
But suppose we also learn that Wolfgang had publicly said he wished that building would burn. He also bought lots of flammable liquids earlier that day. That still doesn’t prove he did it, but it is supportive. Though inconclusive, it is evidential for the claim that Wolfgang started the fire.
Now suppose Wolfgang was the only person there at the right time to have started the fire. Suppose the building was recently inspected and found to have no faulty wiring. There were no electrical storms that day, either.
We are now probably “beyond reasonable doubt” about Wolfgang’s guilt. The evidence is conclusive in the sense that it warrants a high-confidence conclusion.
On to the two types:
- Internal evidence
- External evidence
In reference to the Bible, internal evidence is anything within the 66 books of the Bible. External evidence is everything from human experience, human nature, and the whole created world outside the Bible.
Simple enough. On to the five sub-types. These are types of internal evidence. We could choose almost any topic, then classify every (or nearly every) biblical reference to it as one of these types. I’ll use music for this example:
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in all contexts.
- Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in a particular setting.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality, and evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality but no evidence of exemplary intent.
- Examples of people using music, but no contextual indications of quality or exemplary intent.
What do I mean by “exemplary intent”? Sometimes we read that person A did B, and the context encourages us to believe we’re seeing an example of good or bad conduct. For example, we read that Daniel prayed “as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). The context encourages us to see Daniel’s choices as both good (“contextual indications of quality”) and something to imitate in an appropriate way (“exemplary intent”).
Evidence and Certainty
Why bother to classify evidence? Because classifying the information (evidence/potential evidence) guides us in evaluating how well it works as justification for a claim. In turn, that shapes how certain we can be that our understanding is correct and how certain we can encourage others to be.
Looking at the five types of internal evidence above, the evidential weight and certainty decrease as we get further down the list. By the time we get to type 5, we may not have evidence at all—in reference to our topic or claim. Depending on the size of the claim, there might be information that is consistent with a claim, but not really anything supportive, much less conclusive.
As we move up the list of types, relevance to the topic becomes far more direct, and interpretive possibilities are greatly reduced. Certainty increases because there are fewer options.
There is no Bible verse that tells us this. It’s a function of what is there in the text vs. what is not there. We know there is a difference between an apostle saying, “Do this for this reason” and an individual in an OT history doing something, with no explanation of why it’s in the text. The relationship of these realities to appropriate levels of certainty follows out of necessity.
How Narrative Is Special
Speaking of differences between one genre of writing and another in Scripture, let’s pause to briefly note a few things about narrative.
- Humans pretty much universally recognize narrative. They may not be able to explain what sets it apart from other kinds of writing, but they know it when they read or hear it.
- The characteristics of narrative that enable us to recognize it are not revealed in Scripture. There is no verse that says “this is the definition of narrative.” We just know.
- Those characteristics include the fact that many details in narratives are only there to support the story. They are not intended to convey anything to us outside of that context.
- There is no Bible verse that tells us narrative works this way. We just know. It’s built into the definition.
What does this mean when it comes to evidence and justifying our claim that a passage reveals a truth or helps build a doctrine?
It means that narrative detail has a different burden-of-proof level by default. Because the story-supportive role of narrative detail is inherent in the nature of narrative, our starting assumption with these details is normally that they are there to give us information about the events and characters, not to provide other kinds of information.
Can a narrative detail have a secondary purpose of revealing to us the nature of, say, hats and other clothing, carts and other vehicles, stew and other dishes, axes and other tools, lyres and other musical instruments? Probably sometimes. As with any other interpretive claim, the burden of proof lies on the interpreter to justify it. In the case of narrative, though, the interpreter has a lower-certainty starting point, and a longer journey to arrive at a warranted belief.
The Profitability of All Scripture
2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4 do indeed assure us that all of Scripture is important. “Verbal, plenary inspiration” describes our conviction that every original word of the Bible is fully and equally from God. So we don’t look at any words and dismiss them as unimportant. What we do is ask how do these words work together in their context to provide us with “teaching… reproof.. correction… and training in righteousness.”
Narrative details are important. They’re so important that we’re obligated to stay out of the way and let them do their job.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 1218 views
Concerning the notion that we must use a "best-passages" approach to hermeneutics and theology, the following points need to be considered.
1. It assumes without any biblical warrant that I know of, that such passages exist for every subject or area of interest. Someone could rightly say that 1 Cor. 15 is the best passage for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead or at least among the best passages on that doctrine. We certainly should make use of that passage for establishing our understanding of that doctrine. We must not, however, hold that passage teaches us everything that is important to know about that doctrine.
Holding that there are passages that as 1 Cor. 15 is for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, so there are such passages for all other areas has no biblical basis.
2. The writer of Hebrews did not employ a "best-passages" approach to what the Spirit inspired him to set forth in Heb. 11-12. Instead, he set forth more than two dozen different narrative events as his basis for his teaching about how the just are to live with a faith that pleases God.
It is plain that he did not regard one or a few of those narrative passages as the so-called "best passages" to use to give his instruction.
3. He does not cite what clearly is the best biblical material--the example of Christ--until he has first presented those more than two dozen other narrative events as the basis and support for his inspired instruction about living a life of faith that pleases God.
4. He does not even mention godly king Hezekiah who is explicitly extolled as exemplary for his trusting in God unlike any king that was before him or after him:
2 Kings 18:5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.
What's more, he cites people like Samson by name! Certainly, Hezekiah was far superior to Samson in his trust in God, living by a faith that pleases God, etc., and yet he is not set forth by name but Samson is.
Plainly, the writer of Hebrews has not used at least by direct mention one of the best narrative passages/personages that could have been used to support his instruction.
5. He makes use of narrative material where there is no mention of the faith of the exemplars that he refers to (for example, Abel and Enoch).
Yes, we should make use of biblical revelation that directly addresses the area of interest, provided such revelation exists. Even then, in keeping with what the writer of Hebrews 11-12 did, we must make full use of all other material that pertains to the matter of interest. We also must not hold that any one or more "best passages" teach us everything that is important to know about the subject in which we are interested.
Thanks for the list. Having studied all of them to one degree or another in the past, there’s much more in at least some of them that many have not appreciated for what they teach.
Feel free to tell us what the “much more is,” and how you know it’s there. But of course, it may be there yet also be available as teaching in a far more clear and direct passage.
There might sometimes be a good reason to use information from a text in way that ignores the primary message of that passage. It should be pretty rare, and it doesn’t make sense to ever do that when there is a better text to make the point.
I’ve already explained why, but one more time: If you have conclusive evidenced for a claim in passage A, there is no reason to add mere consistent with information from another passage. That adds nothing to the evidence.
Going back to Wolfgang and the burning building, if you have a video recording of Wolfy lighting the fire, there is no reason to submit separate evidence that he was there that day. It just doesn’t make sense.
As for the the “use the best texts” principle, I’m not sure you’re understanding what I’m saying about that. I’m not sure how to make it clear. Maybe it helps to go at it negatively. The concept…
- is not that there is one and only one clearly-best passage for every idea
- is not that when there is a best text, no others should ever be used at all in any way
- is not that there can only be a small number of best texts to support a truth
- is not that we should never do a focused study of what a particular section of Scripture or author says about a topic
- is not that we shouldn’t survey Scripture exhaustively to see if we’ve missed something
That last one second to last one is partly what’s going in Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews definitely used the best texts for his purposes, both for the point he was making and the primary audience he had in mind. (Also he was not just trying to ‘prove’ a point, he was trying to make his readers feel it. So he alludes to a lot of narrative—narrative where faith is indeed very much on display.)
The best texts principle really simply this: use the strongest internal evidence to support a claim. If there are passages that are clear, direct, and contextually on point, prioritize them.
If the evidence there is conclusive, don’t go looking for more evidence in passages that are, at best, going to provide weaker evidence.
Passages that are actually about the topic in question are always going to be better places to learn about that topic than passages that are about something else. This is self-evident.
So, with music, or clothing, or food, or transportation, etc., start with the best passages, then go from there.
I’m not against looking for more, but by the time we’ve exhausted the most clear and relevant passages, there is—on lots of topics, not going to be much more. Realistic expectations might lead to less eisegesis.
But I really think a lot of this is tangential.
People will be mostly on the right track if they just focus on the fact that any interpretation needs to justified by evidence and valid reasoning. If you want to go looking for evidence in places it is very unlikely to exist—and you have time for that—I don’t see any harm in it. It just isn’t likely to be there, or is likely to be a repetition of what is already clear in a more direct passage.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
A factor that definitely matters in this conversation but I don’t think I’ve said much about: we all go to Scripture with a tendency toward eisegesis. That is, we aren’t neutral. There are answers we hope to find or not find.
I know these are familiar terms to many, but just in case:
- Exegesis: drawing meaning that is actually there out of the text
- Eisegesis: reading our own ideas into the text… that aren’t actually there
So one of the reasons for the ‘use the best texts’ rule of thumb is that it’s one of the disciplines that helps us avoid eisegesis.
The way we approach study can set us up to be more likely to lean toward exegesis or toward eisegesis. This is why understanding the main purpose of narrative and what the details are there for is important. It sets us up to lean toward exegesis rather than eisegesis.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The mishandling of music passages in the Bible includes dismissing details of narratives because of faulty presuppositions and theological reasoning. Many hold that the so-called "best" passages say nothing about such and such a point concerning instrumental music, and therefore, such and such a point concerning instrumental music is not true. Their assessment of the teaching of those "best" passages, however, is based on their faulty presuppositions that they bring to those passages.
Then, based on that faulty reasoning with those passages, they use their mishandling of the "best" passages to dismiss negative evaluations or presentations in other passages that speak of sinful human musical activity with musical instruments by saying that those negative evaluations or presentations do not reveal anything negative about the instrumental music itself.
This is another form of importing one's own ideas and biases into narrative passages.
The mishandling of music passages in the Bible includes dismissing details of narratives because of faulty presuppositions and theological reasoning.
I’ve explained at length what my own view on that actually is and, more importantly, I’ve explained why.
I can’t really speak for anyone else’s view on that in any authoritative way, of course, but I think that some have overstated what their own view on that is, and their view is closer to mine.
- The details matter.
- They matter in different ways based on the context.
- When there are many possible ways to interpret a narrative detail, high levels of uncertainty are impossible to avoid.
- The further (as in less connected) we get from the context, the less there is to support one interpretation over another: uncertainty increases dramatically.
- It is better to use low-uncertainty passages vs. high-uncertainty ones.
I doubt I have anything more to offer on the topic, other than repackaging what I’ve already said.
Edit: Ok, yes, this is worth restating, because it’s really the core of the matter:
- Whatever interpretation we claim, we need to support it/justify it with evidence and sound reasoning.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Ok, so what are the "best" passages that teach that the instrumental music that was played in any biblical account of music was itself always amoral or neutral or inherently good so that the instrumental music that was played in any biblical account was itself always pleasing to God and acceptable to Him?
Put differently, what are the "best" passages that show that in any of the accounts in the Bible where there is a negative evaluation or presentation of the playing of instrumental music, the sinfulness in that account never included the instrumental music itself?
It's clear from the book of Galatians that God has made us for freedom, not bondage, and hence the primary question to be asked here, from a systematic theology point of view, is not what ought to be allowed, but rather whether we have some reason to prohibit certain instruments, techniques, or the like.
And along those lines, here is a complete list of passages that would tend to prohibit certain genre, instruments, and the like:
Regarding the acceptability of the various families of instruments, genre,, and musical expressions, it's worth noting that when one compares the Psalms and Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar's orchestra for his idol, they're the same basic classifications of instruments. In the same way, God commands His people to sing His praises both in the Old Testament Hebrew contexts and in the New Testament Gentile contexts. If there were some "tainted" genre or instrument, we would expect Paul and others to mention this. But God tells His people to praise Him in song in both Hebrew and Greek, among the further peoples, and He doesn't say "but don't use this instrument", and He doesn't say "and don't use this genre."
I think we should take the hint.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Without any biblical evidence, the claim is asserted that Pauline prohibitions such as Ephesians 5:11 do not apply at all to musical instruments or "genres":
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Unless it can be shown directly from the Greek text that there is an inspired footnote to Ephesians 5:11 saying, "Of course, 'unfruitful works of darkness' does not apply at all to musical instruments or 'genres,'" any such claim is entirely a question-begging claim that has no merit or validity at all.
....Scripture's definition (context) of "unfruitful works of darkness." Ephesians 5:11 follows a list of behaviors by Paul where he is fleshing that out--and it does not include "using the wrong instruments" or "using the wrong genre in music".
If this were the gigantic issue you'd make it out to be, Rajesh, Paul has a splendid opportunity to do so right there--he's writing to a mix of Jews and Gentiles with two different languages, probably more, and multiple favored genre of music that they will (Ephesians 5:19) adapt for songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. But; Paul does not do this.
So absent a really strong argument--for starters one that does not work from guilt by association fallacies--we really ought to hesitate to proscribe that which the Bible itself does not proscribe.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
No, a proper contextual understanding of "the unfruitful works of darkness" in Ephesians 5:11 is not limited to the few, specific sinful behaviors spoken of in just some short span of verses that precede that verse. The inspired unit is the whole book--there were no chapter or verse divisions that God inspired.
When Ephesians 5:11 is properly understood in the context of the whole book, it is very clear that what Paul is prohibiting is not just human sinfulness in a few specified ways. What the Spirit reveals in Ephesians is that all unbelievers are energized by the devil himself, and that energizing plays a vital role in their disobedience to God.
There is no biblical justification for holding that the demonically energized disobedience of sinful humans does not include anything that they do with musical instruments and the "genres" that they play on them.
Paul also explicitly says that there are evil supernatural beings who rule over the darkness of this world. When all that Paul reveals in Ephesians is brought to bear on the right understanding of what the unfruitful works of darkness comprise, it is impossible to legitimately limit those unfruitful works of darkness to exclude sinful human musical activity on musical instruments and the "genres" that humans play on those instruments.
There is no biblical justification of any kind to hold that the prohibition in Ephesians 5:11 and many other similar passages does not apply at all to what sinful people do on musical instruments and the "genres" that they play on those instruments.
Rajesh, you seem to be channeling Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland--"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
In other words, you're assuming that Ephesians 5:11 provides an open ended provision for defining unfruitful works of darkness in ways that are not only not stated in Ephesians 5, but are not related to the topics discussed in Ephesians 5, and most importantly, are never stated as such anywhere in Scripture.
Rajesh, you don't get to just make this stuff up as you go. You must tether it somehow plausibly to Scripture, or you are simply indulging eisegesis.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I'm surprised Rajesh didn't cite this verse as a support:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 (ESV) Abstain from every form of evil.
This was the "go to" verse to support cultural fundamentalism in the churches I attended. Never mind the immediate context (1 Thes. 5:19-22).
Certainly, we could wrestle with this verse to include certain musical instruments and genres because they are used for evil purposes today.
I'm surprised Rajesh didn't cite this verse as a support:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 (ESV) Abstain from every form of evil.
This was the "go to" verse to support cultural fundamentalism in the churches I attended. Never mind the immediate context (1 Thes. 5:19-22).
Certainly, we could wrestle with this verse to include certain musical instruments and genres because they are used for evil purposes today.
I tend not to use that verse much at all because other verses are stronger. Ephesians 5:11 is very clear about "works of darkness" having direct connection to Satan's energizing all unbelievers in their disobedience (Eph. 2:2-3) and wicked spirits who are the rulers of the darkness of this world (Eph. 6:12).
In other words, you're assuming that Ephesians 5:11 provides an open ended provision for defining unfruitful works of darkness in ways that are not only not stated in Ephesians 5, but are not related to the topics discussed in Ephesians 5, and most importantly, are never stated as such anywhere in Scripture.
Rajesh, you don't get to just make this stuff up as you go. You must tether it somehow plausibly to Scripture, or you are simply indulging eisegesis.
Before I answer your claims here, I want to make sure exactly what it is you are claiming. Surely, you are not claiming that Ephesians 5 is an independent inspired unit that is separate from the rest of the book, are you?
If you are, the burden of proof is on you that Paul wrote Eph. 5 separately from the rest of the book, that the Spirit inspired that "chapter" separately from the rest of the book, and some unknown person later inserted that "chapter" into the book.
As for what you assert is "never stated as such anywhere in Scripture," what exactly are you speaking of that you believe is never stated in the Bible?
I tend not to use that verse much because other verses are stronger
Rajesh, it's obvious you understood Aaron's "best text" principle and were just obfuscating.
Discussion