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.)
- 3524 views
And as you note in this sentence--"bottom line for me is that there are musical "genres" or "styles" that are unacceptable to God because they are of demonic origin."--your argument is, in a nutshell, that we must work from guilt by association. Since that is a basic logical fallacy, and moreover would implicate basically any type of music, that claim is "dead on arrival" for me.
Bert, you beat this drum constantly, usually when attempting to shut down someone else's argument. I am not sure you really understand logical fallacies.
It is true that there is a fallacy of guilt by association, and it might be true that Rajesh is using it.
However, mere association can be a valid reason for dissassociating ourselves from something. Otherwise, why would all those Christian book stores, Masters University, etc., have suddenly dropped Steve Lawson's material?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Neither the discussion about the GCI or arguing about things like skull drums is accomplishing that with respect to music. I’ve been reading authors on this topic for more than 40 years, beginning with Garlock (I was a teenager when I first heard him speak, so I wanted to see if he had good arguments for what I had heard preached all my life) and moving on to others most recently including Aniol, and I’m yet to be convinced, on this forum or elsewhere.
More than forty years is a long time to be reading about a subject and not be convinced so as to have firmly held positions. It seems to me that you, like many, may have underlying presuppositions or assumptions that need to be scrutinized for validity.
It's mind-boggling to me that so many people have a hard time accepting or even flat out reject that demons can and have directed humans to engage in musical activity such that the music played on the instruments used was entirely and permanently unacceptable to God. Apparently, there is a huge disconnect between our thinking on some foundational matters such as demonology and human sinfulness.
>>It’s mind-boggling to me that so many people have a hard time accepting or even flat out reject that demons can and have directed humans to engage in musical activity such that the music played on the instruments used was entirely and permanently unacceptable to God.<<
So if I understand what you have said in different threads, I take the following from your arguments:
- Demons direct humans to do unholy things, including making unholy music.
- This worship may include lyrics we cannot humanly understand.
- We aren’t to study too closely these aspects of demons and false worship.
- We still need to know that whatever humans do under the influence of demons is something we cannot do or use ourselves.
- Because of how some humans use music in worship of demons, music in those styles or with the same instruments (or maybe with other similarities I’m not currently thinking of) is something Christians cannot use.
- Humans are not in a position to evaluate musicological aspects of music that may or may not make it acceptable to God.
If I haven’t misrepresented you above, then with your way of approaching this topic, I have no way to know what music I can or cannot use based on music made from demonic activity. If I can’t study or listen to such music, or evaluate it in any way, then I have no way to know if music I use is similar enough or not to be unacceptable, beyond the obvious (like using instruments made out of humans or with demonic inscriptions, or unholy lyrics).
If, as most of us do, we stay completely away from anything to do with the occult, how do we have any way of knowing that music we are making is similar enough to such music to be unacceptable? What lines can be drawn that get us there?
Of course there is demonic activity, and of course humans are sinful. But taking the arguments above to their logical conclusion, we can’t use anything (including music) made by humans, because it might be similar to what humans worshipping demons are doing.
If you can’t show me how to use all of our tools from scripture, knowledge, experience, and logic to evaluate something like music, then I submit the whole process is incorrect, because scripture commands us to make judgments, and specifically, righteous judgments. Guessing doesn’t meet that criteria, and neither does just listening to a supposed expert telling me what is good and what is evil.
Dave Barnhart
So if I understand what you have said in different threads, I take the following from your arguments:
- Demons direct humans to do unholy things, including making unholy music.
- This worship may include lyrics we cannot humanly understand.
- We aren’t to study too closely these aspects of demons and false worship.
- We still need to know that whatever humans do under the influence of demons is something we cannot do or use ourselves.
- Because of how some humans use music in worship of demons, music in those styles or with the same instruments (or maybe with other similarities I’m not currently thinking of) is something Christians cannot use.
- Humans are not in a position to evaluate musicological aspects of music that may or may not make it acceptable to God.
Points 2, 3, and 5 are faulty because it appears that you either conflate or reduce all demonic practices and activity as worship of demons. That simply is not true and not what the Bible teaches.
This is a very important correction that you need to make in your demonology. Scripture does speak of the worship of demons, but that is far from everything that the Bible has to say about the occult, etc.
More later when I have more time, DV.
If you can’t show me how to use all of our tools from scripture, knowledge, experience, and logic to evaluate something like music, then I submit the whole process is incorrect, because scripture commands us to make judgments, and specifically, righteous judgments. Guessing doesn’t meet that criteria, and neither does just listening to a supposed expert telling me what is good and what is evil.
For now, my entire focus is on using "all of our tools from Scripture" to address the music issues. So many believers have espoused unsound doctrine about music. As much as is possible, it is necessary to answer those wrong views by showing from Scripture why they are wrong.
All of my music threads have had in form or another the goal of treating Scripture to address one or more false views that many believers hold either about what the Bible teaches about music or what is true about music based on their wrong use of the Bible.
Humans are not in a position to evaluate musicological aspects of music that may or may not make it acceptable to God.
This certainly is not my view except that I do hold that God has not authorized Christians to go to occultists and other evildoers and listen to their music to analyze it musicologically according to their own man-made notions about music.
On the other hand, my view is that humans must do this regarding music that is not from or derived from the occult, but their musicological understanding in doing so must still come foremost from the Bible--it must not be foremost the musicological claims of music "experts" who assert things that are contrary to the true teachings of the Bible.
For example, whether or not acceptable music for corporate worship can be "rhythmically dominant" music or poundingly percussive music is something that must be established from the Bible itself.
In that regard, I find zero evidence in Scripture that any music that is rhythmically dominant or poundingly percussive is acceptable to God for use in corporate worship. Rather, Scripture abundantly and profoundly teaches that stringed instruments are to be the primary instruments used in acceptable music for corporate worship.
Evidently you've never heard of the last two Psalms, Rajesh? Let's be blunt; you don't get danceable music for a large gathering before electronic amplification without percussive help, and Middle Eastern music still features a good strong beat to this day. That's why they command cymbals and other percussive instruments.
Again, it was commanded in Scripture. Please stop telling God's people to ignore God's word, Rajesh.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
First of all, here's a definition.
To the topic, the key question here is how, or if, one can bridge the gap between what everyone agrees on--if you need to sin to create an instrument or use a genre, it is out--and the kind of cases that Rajesh notes, like music with heavy percussion, or a generic rock/rap/whatever genre.
And since drum sets, the 12 bar blues, harmonization, and a lot more were unknown in Bible times, we're left doing what Rajesh has done here; allege that a given technique, instrument, or genre is corrupted.
The trouble with that is linked above; it's textbook guilt by association, and logical fallacies should never be part of our discourse. Yes, I'm trying to shut this down, as should anyone who understands the logical principles at stake.
A side note; many times, we won't notice this because GBA is so darned pervasive in our society and even in our circles. For example, KJVO is built on GBA, as is our political discourse--"Candidate Bob was seen with Jeff, who once wandered into a white pride event." So there will be a great deal of repentance needed from this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
My point, Bert, is that it seems to me you trot out these fallacies as a trump card, implying that the argument is over. Further, I don’t think you really understand the fallacies. And there are certainly times when association is guilt.
Finally, unless you actually engage the argument point by point, your argumentation is as much noise as you say your opponent’s is.
It’s too easy to claim “Fallacy” and declare victory
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, you are free to point out, with evidence, if you believe that I'm not using the fallacy correctly. That requires, however, an adherence to Deming's Law; "In God we trust, all others must provide data."
Put gently, throwing bombs without evidence like that is one of the banes of our circles, and it should be stopped. Don't throw the accusation, Don, unless you're willing and able to back it up.
And yes, if I'm correct that this is indeed guilt by association, it should end the argument in the same way that the yellow flag ends debate over the play. Going through things point by point is a waste of time, akin to a football commentator addressing the movements of the other 21 players when the key issue is the player deliberately grabbing the face mask of another.
Really, we fundamentalists cause a lot of our own problems by refusing to throw these yellow flags. We debate all the other issues, not realizing that we do indeed have a central issue that must be addressed first. In this area, KJVO, and others, the unfortunate reality is that fundamentalists have tolerated guilt by association fallacies far too much. It's time to stop.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Evidently you've never heard of the last two Psalms, Rajesh? Let's be blunt; you don't get danceable music for a large gathering before electronic amplification without percussive help, and Middle Eastern music still features a good strong beat to this day. That's why they command cymbals and other percussive instruments.
Again, it was commanded in Scripture. Please stop telling God's people to ignore God's word, Rajesh.
I have never told anyone to ignore God's Word. You misuse Psalms 149-150 to claim that they support things that they do not.
Don, you are free to point out, with evidence, if you believe that I'm not using the fallacy correctly. That requires, however, an adherence to Deming's Law; "In God we trust, all others must provide data."
Bert, you are arguing with Rajesh over a point that seems to be "guilt by association" - here is how I see the argument going.
Rajesh: Certain demonic activities produce certain styles of music, therefore these styles are evil and should be avoided.
Bert: Guilt by association, you are using a fallacy.
The thing is, I think you would agree that if demonic activities definitely produced a style of music (or a piece of music), you would say that there is a problem with that. Paul in 1 Cor 10 makes it clear that if you know a piece of meat comes from an idol temple, you shouldn't use it because of demons. (If you don't know, the implication is it is just meat.)
So the problem as I see it is that Rajesh (as several have said), doesn't show his work. He doesn't show:
- Evidence that demons produce such music
- Evidence that "skull drums" produce a distinctive style of music clearly produced by demons
- Evidence that music from sources like has infiltrated general culture or church culture
I suppose the argument that the use of "skull drums" to produce any music is guilt by association, because you could theoretically play such music on non-problematic instruments and the association would not exist.
Anyway, I am simply objecting to "throwing the fallacy flag" in the argument. Just as Rajesh doesn't convince me of his views, your use of this approach doesn't convince me either. That's all I am saying to you. You have done this in other threads, I don't need to go back and dig them out.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
In this thread, Bert Perry has repeatedly faultily argued from silence. Even after I have pointed this out earlier in this thread, he did it again when he said the following:
Note how he again argues from silence: "does not tell those so commanded to eschew certain instruments and genre."
What Bert Perry actually does is to explain away all biblical prohibitions that would apply by claiming that they do not apply to eschewing such things.
In spite of much unwarranted opposition to my doing so, by my persisting in pointing much needed attention to the wickedness of human skull drums, I have refuted his false claims about what is true concerning musical instruments and what Scripture teaches that applies to them. Divine prohibitions such as Ephesians 5:11 absolutely do apply to the necessity of eschewing certain musical instruments.
Because we know with certainty that prohibitions such as Ephesians 5:11 do apply to certain musical instruments, we have no basis to hold that they do not and cannot apply to any musical "genres" or "styles."
Earlier in this thread, I meant to challenge these statements but did not get to them.
These statements by Bert Perry are not true because Daniel 3 does not list any percussion instruments among the list of instruments that are mentioned 4x in that account of "Nebuchadnezzar's orchestra for his idol."
Daniel 3 thus does not list "the same basic classifications of instruments" as the Psalms do.
This is yet another instance where he has made a faulty claim about Scripture and then used that faulty claim to support his faulty positions about music.
Eleven pages in and I still have no clear picture of what your point is, Rajesh.
It may be true that Daniel 3 does not list percussion instruments in regard to worship of an idol, but the Psalms does list percussion instruments in regard to worship of God.
Since Daniel 3 lists both wind and string instruments being used in idol worship, does it follow that trumpets, flutes, and harps cannot today be used in worshipping God? (I rather think that conclusion would gain about zero traction in our Baptist churches of today.)
Since Daniel 3 lists both wind and string instruments being used in idol worship, does it follow that trumpets, flutes, and harps cannot today be used in worshipping God? (I rather think that conclusion would gain about zero traction in our Baptist churches of today.)
The point of my most recent comment was to show that Bert Perry has once again made comments claiming that Scripture says something when in fact it does not. Correcting such false statements is important because he uses those false claims to support his false positions.
The instruments used in Daniel 3 do not establish that those categories of instruments cannot be used today; we know that, not by reasoning that has anything to do with Daniel 3, but with many other passages in Scripture where God authorized the use of such instruments.
His authorization of the use of those instruments, however, does not establish that all kinds and ways of using all those same instruments are acceptable to God.
The key point that is under dispute in this thread is what does the Bible teach about and what is true about all musical "genres" or "styles." If they are all acceptable to Him, legitimate proof must be provided to show that is true.
Arguing that Daniel 3 has all the same basic classifications of instruments as the Psalms do is not factually true, and even if were true, that would not prove that all "genres" and "styles" of instrumental music are acceptable to God.
Discussion