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:

  1. Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in all contexts.
  2. Direct teaching on the nature and purpose of music in a particular setting.
  3. Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality, and evidence of exemplary intent.
  4. Examples of people using music, with contextual indications of quality but no evidence of exemplary intent.
  5. 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.

Discussion

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.

This is a false accusation. If you actually carefully read the things that I said about that matter, you might understand what I was saying. Then again, based on the nature of your previous comments on my threads, in both this thread and others, perhaps you will not because you yourself may actually be the one who has an agenda of obfuscating my discussions.

Rajesh, you're trying to make it look like this is complex, and it's really the basics of exegesis and hermeneutics, using really one of the first laws of linguistics; usage determines meaning. You start with the immediate context and then go to the broader context.

And in this case, it is my view that Scripture nowhere tells us that any instrument or genre is off limits due to its associations with paganism. This is to be expected, since guilt by association is a basic logical fallacy, and God doesn't use bad logic.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Predictably, once it was realized that the claims about Eph. 5:11 and its context were entirely baseless, classic evasion technique was employed to avoid further detailed discussion of Eph. 5:11 in its actual, true context of the whole book of Ephesians.

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?

There is no need to prove a generalization about things being amoral, or whatever, etc.

The burden of proof lies on the interpreter to show that the passage in question means what we’re saying it means.

Where supportive arguments go wrong

I’m not going to be able to keep up with the back and forth, I think because in exchanges between Rajesh and Burt, I usually see problems with the case being made on both sides of that.

So, for what it’s worth, there are two main ways that we go astray when trying to trying to make a case for a claim:

  • Errors of evidence
  • Errors of reasoning

The two can overlap.

Errors of evidence are when we’ve gotten something wrong in relation to the facts. We’ve imagined something that isn’t there or have misread/mistranslated, etc.

Errors of reasoning take a huge variety of forms, but in my experience, one of the most common is mistaken relevance. Some quick examples:

  • Ad hominem: The “find a flaw in the speaker” argument is usually invalid because it usually has nothing to do with whether his claim is true or false. There are exceptions. But almost anybody can be correct and almost anybody can be incorrect, so… it’s low- or no-relevance to the claim.
  • Straw man: If we replace a person’s view with something of our own making that only slightly resembles it, we have a relevance problem. The straw man is not the man and so arguments that defeat the straw man are not relevant to the real thing.
  • Various species of category collapsing: If we lump a bunch of stuff into category A, then argue against category A, we might have a strong case against A, but we have said nothing at all about not-A. (This is kind of an error of reasoning layered on an error of evidence, since our evidence has lumped dissimilar things together.)

I should throw in one more, because it’s so common—well, it would be, because it’s a catch-all. Non sequitur. This is just your basic “this does not really follow from that” mistake. So we have passionately made a claim that A is true, then moved to a “therefore…” but the “therefore…” does not really follow.

  • Argument: The guy down the road ran over a squirrel!! He obviously hates all animals and wants to make them all extinct!
  • Counter argument: No, you can’t reason like that. People who run over squirrels are never animal haters!!!

Both of sides have indulged in non-sequiturs, of the overgeneralization variety.

It seems like on cultural topics like music styles, there’s a ton of overgeneralizing all the way around.
I know that’s a generalization, but I think the evidence supports it. 😀

On any controversial topic, we should focus on solid evidence and sound reasoning. The rest is just theater.

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.

On any controversial topic, we should focus on solid evidence and sound reasoning.

No evidence is solider or sounder than God's own words. Ephesians 5:11 states,

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

This is an explicit apostolic epistolary prohibition to all believers. Every believer has an obligation to God to heed fully what it prohibits.

Correctly establishing what this divine revelation prohibits is therefore essential.

Any claim that this verse has no application to human musical activity and its products is a claim that has to be proven biblically because neither the passage nor its context speaks of any such exclusions from its scope of application. To those who espouse such a view, what is your biblical proof that this prohibition has no relevance to human musical activity and its products?

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?

There is no need to prove a generalization about things being amoral, or whatever, etc.

So, is this an admission on your part that there are no "best" passages to prove a view about instrumental music that is very widely held by Christians in our day?

Alternatively, are you asserting that this generalization about things being amoral is self-evidently true and does not need any proof?