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.)
- 4812 views
To my knowledge, there is no credible information that atheists, idolaters, witches, etc. secretly wear some kinds of distinctively occultic socks such that even talking about their wearing those socks would be a shame.
Well … there is Justin Trudeau
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Well … there is Justin Trudeau
I have no idea what you are talking about concerning him.
Update: I did an online search. Obviously, he is not doing what he does secretly. Does he claim that those socks have some occultic significance?
Search on his name and socks. By definition, he is a representative of evil (in my country anyway.)
You might get it then.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Search on his name and socks. By definition, he is a representative of evil (in my country anyway.)
You might get it then.
I did search on it, saw some images, and that was enough for me not to need to see or comment any more about that matter.
Along the same lines, I have argued elsewhere that something similar applies or would apply to certain musical instruments:
Have There Ever Been Any Musical Instruments That Were and Are Unacceptable for Use in Corporate Worship?
October 31, 2022
Have there been any physical objects, whether manmade or not, that have been used as musical instruments that have been and are unacceptable for use in corporate worship?
Here are some possible considerations that we must think through biblically:
1. A drum that has multiple horns on it that signify that it is dedicated to demons and used to interact with them
2. A drum that has a humanly indecipherable inscription on it that in actuality expresses praises to Satan
3. A drum that has been used in human sacrifices and has been consecrated for that use by the application of sacrificial human blood to one or more parts of the instrument
4. A drum intentionally shaped in some manner so that one or more parts of it are like human private parts
5. A drum “decorated” with one or more engraved images of “one-finger salutes” or some other vulgar symbol, graphic, etc.
6. A drum that has occult symbols engraved on it
7. A drum that is a real human skull or is shaped like a human skull
Neither “style” nor “genre” is a Bible term. Yet, you or others use one or the other or both regularly in nearly every discussion of music.
Yes. My point is not that there is anything wrong with using non-biblical terms, but when we do that, we have definitely taken a step away from the self-evident. It means we have more to prove if we’re going to be persuasive.
In the case of music “styles,” it’s a particularly strong example of that. It’s a very high-ambiguity concept. Where does one style end and another begin? Do styles overlap?
It’s sort of like “flavors.” We find the term useful, but there’s quite a range of understandings and a lot of subjectivity.
Yes, idolatry is an important subject in Scripture. Scripture, however, has much to say that is important about people who are involved in demonic practices that are not spoken of in Scripture as being idolatry.
OK, if you like. I’m not really very interested in that question… but it’s hard to resisting commenting. What is idolatry? Isn’t it worshipping as God anything that is not God?
But we’re pretty off topic.
I use the term “occult” to refer to all those practices.
That’s probably how most understand the term. I don’t feel strongly about it, but in this case, I prefer to just use the biblical terminology. There doesn’t seem to be any advantage to using a different term. And “the occult,” in my experience, comes with a lot of baggage in the area of superstition.
a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
It is not obvious, by either grammar or context, that the “unfruitful works of darkness” and the “things done in secret” are 100% overlapping concepts.
If they are, it argues against my ‘witches wear socks’ argument, but raises another problem. If “unfruitful works of darkness” are only things done in secret, that eliminates a huge swath of various forms of occultism. They do secret stuff, but quite a lot of out in the open stuff.
Like wearing socks, but also like conferences and such (spiritism is worship of demons, right?)
I don’t think you have solved the basic reasoning problem: The fact that evildoers (idolatrous, occultic, atheistic, or otherwise) engage in an activity (openly or secretly) does not, in itself make that activity an “unfruitful work of darkness.”
I mean, during their secret rituals, they probably do things like talk, maybe sing, sit down, stand… certainly breathe!
Here’s my point. This reasoning is not valid:
- Group A does X
- Group A is evil
- Therefore X is evil
Some other argument is required.
I’m not asking for that evidence here. Where all this relates to the topic of the article is this: application is even less certain than interpretation. Just as the interpreter must justify the interpretation, so the applier must justify the application.
A difference with application is that external evidence always has a major role. We are taking biblical truth and saying it applies in a particular way to our life today. To do that, we have to a) interpret Scripture and b) interpret our setting in life today.
Both of these are human processes, but the latter especially so.
Which is a major reason why these matters are high uncertainty and so controversial.
With music styles, clothing styles, hair styles, visual arts, entertainment, etc., we always have to interpret “life as we know it” in addition to interpreting Scripture. Somebody has said, “exegete the culture.”
So we need to be honest about all the variables and also recognize the burden of proof we’re taking on when we make claims on these topics.
In a matter of application—if we’re going to try to teach people—we have not only show how we have arrived at our interpretation(s) of Scripture, but also how we have arrived at our interpretations of culture. It’s a tall order.
So, to sum up…
The argument that “unfruitful works of darkness” are only things done in secret doesn’t help much with the argument that some activity (such as use of a music ‘style’) associated with occult practices has to be avoided because of that association. There is a need to show that the connection is special and meaningful in some way unique to that activity.
(So we can, thankfully, ignore Justin Trudeau’s socks, going forward 😆)
I’m not saying you have to prove that kind of connection to anybody in order to establish boundaries/rules of life for yourself. But any effort to teach/win over others will require that.
Along the same lines, I have argued elsewhere that something similar applies or would apply to certain musical instruments:
These are interesting examples. They all had to do with how the instrument looks… and not to do with what category of instrument it is or how it sounds. So that’s interesting.
I’m not sure what the point is, though.
Surely a piano or violin or organ covered in skulls or cryptic symbols would equally inappropriate?
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, if you like. I’m not really very interested in that question… but it’s hard to resisting commenting. What is idolatry? Isn’t it worshipping as God anything that is not God?
Hmm. It is very important to heed all the wisdom that God gives to us. For example, the NT explicitly distinguishes between idolatry and witchcraft (an occult practice):
Galatians 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies.
Paul puts both sins on equal footing in this listing of the sinful works of the flesh. We must not try to subsume occult practices under general notions of idolatry . . .
Yes, idolatry is "worshipping as God anything that is not God," but the Spirit in His wisdom distinguishes between idolatry and the occult and so must we.
There are many idolaters who have no consciousness or intention of worshiping demons. They would vehemently deny that what they are doing is demonic.
Although we know that what they are doing has demonic aspects to it, the key difference between ordinary idolatry (not idolatry where demons are overtly the objects of worship) and the occult is that those involved in many occult practices knowingly and intentionally seek contact with demons.
It is not obvious, by either grammar or context, that the “unfruitful works of darkness” and the “things done in secret” are 100% overlapping concepts.
If they are, it argues against my ‘witches wear socks’ argument, but raises another problem. If “unfruitful works of darkness” are only things done in secret, that eliminates a huge swath of various forms of occultism. They do secret stuff, but quite a lot of out in the open stuff.
I did not say that the two "are 100% overlapping concepts. In fact, we know from a key parallel passage that Paul uses the same Greek words to speak about other things (several of which are not mentioned in Eph. 4-5) as "works of darkness":
Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
Nonetheless, the importance of the direct connection between Eph. 5:11 and 5:12 includes that it teaches us that there are "unfruitful works of darkness" that are done in secret. As such, we can be certain that the Spirit has not given us exhaustive information in Scripture about all such evil works of darkness.
These are interesting examples. They all had to do with how the instrument looks… and not to do with what category of instrument it is or how it sounds. So that’s interesting.
I’m not sure what the point is, though.
Surely a piano or violin or organ covered in skulls or cryptic symbols would equally inappropriate?
No, they do not all have to do with how the instrument looks. One of them has to do with the instrument being consecrated by the application of sacrificial blood to the instrument. Regardless of whether there would persist any lasting evidence of such prior consecration of that instrument, any use of such an instrument in divine worship would be inherently unacceptable to God regardless of any and all other considerations.
Similarly, drums made from real human skulls are perverse objects that are inherently unacceptable to God for any use in worship. They are not unacceptable merely because of their appearance--what they are renders as unrighteous activity any musical activity engaged in with them.
Occultists in many parts of the world use skull drums in their perverse musical activities and testify to their direct intent of having contact with and being controlled by demons in those musical activities. Ephesians 5:11-12 and many other passages make clear that all such musical activity and its distinctively occult music produced in that activity are categorically off-limits to God's people for any use of those skull drums or the music played on them.
I don’t think you have solved the basic reasoning problem: The fact that evildoers (idolatrous, occultic, atheistic, or otherwise) engage in an activity (openly or secretly) does not, in itself make that activity an “unfruitful work of darkness.”
I mean, during their secret rituals, they probably do things like talk, maybe sing, sit down, stand… certainly breathe!
Here’s my point. This reasoning is not valid:
- Group A does X
- Group A is evil
- Therefore X is evil
Some other argument is required.
Many divine prohibitions against any contact with or involvement with occultic practices provide the "other argument" that you say is required. God has never authorized His people to investigate and explore occult practices to "redeem" what they think is good, etc. Everything about the occult is categorically off-limits, regardless of whether we think that its specific aspects are just ordinary human activities or not.
Rajesh, precisely who in secular music uses human skulls for drums, especially onstage in concert? Maybe I'm a little behind the times, but I remember watching my share of music videos as a young pup, and the impression I got was that nobody but nobody was using such a thing. That would be for starters because the skull isn't big enough to generate the dissonant harmonics needed for a good drum sound (unless maybe Justin Trudeau's noggin), but more importantly because most areas have laws against the abuse of a corpse.
Plus, I don't think you'd get too many modern musicians, Christian or secular, who would say "Hey, I think it's a great thing that you've got your Uncle Ben's Kopf in your drum set!". Something of a "straw man", don't you think?
Among more plausible drum sets, I also don't think you'd find too many people who would disagree that some evil symbol on the drums might be objectionable. So precisely why you bring that up as possibly significant is not clear to me.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I guess you haven't watched the Dove Awards recently, Bert. Skull drums were everywhere!
If skull drums were all over, wouldn't that be the "Vulture Awards" or something?
And weird. I thought there was only one Justin Trudeau. Or was.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It does not matter whether any of us know of people who have used human skull drums (drums made from human skulls) in non-occult contexts, etc. What kind(s) of percussive sounds such skull drums can and cannot produce is also ultimately not a leading consideration.
Skull drums matter because of key realities that they reveal, including the following:
1. We do not have any evidence that skull drums created themselves, evolved on their own, magically appeared on earth, or fell out of heaven.
Neither God nor holy angels nor righteous prophets or apostles or people made them. Someone had to make them. Who, then, made them, and what does their making them reveal? What does the existence of human skull drums teach us?
2. God made human skulls to be what they are. He did not make them to be used as percussion instruments in any manner in any musical activities.
Furthermore, skull drums are not made just from human skulls--they are made from one or more additional materials combined with something good that God made (human skulls).
What does that prove about what evil entities can make from one or more things that were in and of themselves good things that were made by God?
3. Any and all musical uses of drums made from human skulls is perverse musical activity that is totally and unchangeably unacceptable to God. What does God want righteous people to do concerning all musical activities done with drums made from human skulls?
Not in in dispute…
- Various forms of divination, spiritism, etc. are condemned in Scripture and are to be taken seriously (my lack of interest is of the lack of curiosity variety: views settled on that long, long ago)
- Instruments with visual representations of anti-Christian beliefs and practices are not appropriate for use in Christian worship
- Instruments known to be ceremonially dedicated to some anti-Christian belief system would also not be appropriate
What does all that have to do with the questions at hand? Very little, because nobody here is in favor of spiritism, demon worship, or any other idolatry, nor is anyone in favor of using instruments in worship that endorse these practices or belief systems.
Facts that remain…
- Any interpretation must be justified. If we’re going to teach it, it needs to be supported in way people can see and understand, so: evidence and sound reasoning.
- Application involves interpretation not only of Scripture but of the areas of life we are trying to apply Scripture to.
- In narrative, the smaller the detail, the more ambiguities and uncertainties there will be about any interpretation that is not strongly connected to the narrative. As with other genres, context is key.
- When we have clear, strong biblical evidence for a belief, there is no need to supplement that with weaker, more uncertain evidence.
As for paganism, occult, etc., these are pretty off topic, but Christians should frame them properly.
for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. (2 Ti 1:7)
Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. (1 Jn 4:4)
We should not be afraid, but should be cautious. But note that we are not called to any special caution regarding “the occult.” Caution is equally appropriate toward lots of other things we tend to not find spooky.
8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Pe 5:8)
But also…
14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. (2 Ti 4:14–15)
12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. (Heb 3:12)
9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Co 8:9)
15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Ga 5:15)
Scripture points out a lot of potential hazards to be wary of. Including mishandling Scripture with the result of getting carried away, and becoming unstable:
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (2 Pe 3:15–17)
Edit to add…
3. Any and all musical uses of drums made from human skulls is perverse musical activity that is totally and unchangeably unacceptable to God.
Would it be physically impossible to play a percussion line from, say Handel or Bach? (Yes, Bach used drums a couple times). I mean, assuming some transcription would be required. If someone played Bach on a skull drum, would it become “perverse musical activity”?
I think a drummer could bang out the rhythms on any drum. You could do it on your kitchen table with a spatula. Does the instrument used fundamentally change the music?
I’m not sure what your claim is on that point.
My own view is that to be coherent on these topics, we have recognize all the performance, motivation, and cultural meaning contexts. I don’t think use of a super creepy drum would, in itself ruin Bach. The rhythm would be the same.
But when you turn it into a performance, there is a performer, an audience, and all the other context they bring with them. So then there are layers of meaning.
Context is key to so, so many things.
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.
Rajesh
3. Any and all musical uses of drums made from human skulls is perverse musical activity that is totally and unchangeably unacceptable to God. What does God want righteous people to do concerning all musical activities done with drums made from human skulls?
As Aaron said, I doubt you will find anyone here arguing that we should use human skull drums. Whether such drums exist or not or are any good or not is irrelevant.
You seem to want to make the point that music that is made from or with human skull drums is therefore evil.
I don't know that is logical. I bet you could use human skull drums to perform any music you want, including every hymn in your hymnal.
That doesn't make the music bad.
So, consequently, you are way off on a rabbit trail pursuing triumphantly something that no one is advocating. I'd call that straining at gnats.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion