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.)
- 3976 views
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."
Ironically, this appears to be another faulty argument from silence.
Don, glad to see you concede that Rajesh's tactic is indeed fallacious, but you really shouldn't object. Genetic fallacies are in general the rhetorical equivalent of personal fouls in football, where the ad hominem is 15 yards and loss of down because it directly attacks another person, and I'd argue that guilt by association, being an indirect attack, is at least worth the rhetorical equivalent of "five yards".
One of the chief issues with refusing to throw the flag is that it enables verbal assaults, and thus makes our arguments into donnybrooks. Witness this thread, really. Throw the flag cheerfully when you see the violation, unless you want to see the forum look like the NHL of the 1970s.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I’ve said all I need to say on this point, but one follow up.
I would LOVE to see the NHL get back to 70s hockey. Bring it on!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Rajesh, it's not exactly an argument from silence, but a basic technique of inductive logic and exegesis, that I'm getting at here. Confronted with a text from a culture different than our own, we may be tempted to insert our own biases into the text, and one of the key checks is a basic question:
Does the text have obvious places where my logic could have been applied, and does it do so in these cases?
If the answers are "yes, there are obvious places" and "no", then you've got to entertain the notion that the culture simply didn't think the way we did, and hence your initial analysis is incorrect.
And that's exactly the case. Despite Israel hearing just about every kind of music due to being on the trade routes, and despite the Church quickly including people from many nations (e.g. slaves), no Bible author ever warns God's people about any instrument or genre that they might have used to fulfill Ephesians 5:19.
So I conclude that, absent significant additional information, you're simply reading your own culture into the text of Scripture.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
One disagreement with you Don. I love that the 2-line pass rule has been discarded. I enjoy the way the game flows much more now that that is gone.
Dave Barnhart
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."
Ironically, this appears to be another faulty argument from silence.
Not true. Ephesians 5:11-12 states,
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
To claim that "unfruitful works of darkness" applies to occult activities but not to the music used in such activities has no biblical warrant whatever. Those who try to say that since occult music is not mentioned in the passage means that it does not apply to the music of the occult argue from silence to do so.
To claim that "unfruitful works of darkness" applies to occult activities but not to the music used in such activities has no biblical warrant whatever.
You continue to argue against a position no one here is defending. Can you just give us one example of a musical genre or style that is commonly used in Christian worship today that is an unfruitful work of darkness? If you can't or won't, then what on earth is the point of this?
You continue to argue against a position no one here is defending. Can you just give us one example of a musical genre or style that is commonly used in Christian worship today that is an unfruitful work of darkness? If you can't or won't, then what on earth is the point of this?
It's no secret that I reject all rock music, rock-based music, rock-influenced music, etc. as occult music that has no place in Christian anything.
No, by saying this, I am not signaling that I am interested in any musicological discussions about rock music or its history, etc.
Musics "o," "p," and "q" are special because they are the musics of people "m" who suffered greatly at the hands of people "n."
All Christians who are of people "n" or are in the countries or regions of the world where people "n" are ascendant must accept musics "o," "p," and "q" as fully pleasing and acceptable to God because they are the musics of oppressed and brutally afflicted people "m."
Any attempts to critique or reject musics "o," "p," and "q" on the basis of biblical, musicological, historical, or any other considerations are undeniable evidence of sinful partiality or respect of persons against people "m."
Is this legitimate argumentation, sound reasoning, and sound doctrine?
So what exactly is "rock-based" and "rock-influenced" music? How do we know what songs/instruments/genres are off limits?
It's worth noting that on Rajesh's personal site, he links to a guy who attempts to link rock & roll with animist/voodoo traditions of Africa, and the interesting thing is that if you go that far back, you implicate not just rock & roll, but also blues, jazz, and....spirituals and black gospel.
Please stop, Rajesh. Please.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
So what exactly is "rock-based" and "rock-influenced" music? How do we know what songs/instruments/genres are off limits?
You will have to do your own research into these subjects. Here are some sources to begin with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rock_genres
There are plenty of good sources to consult for such information, including sources written by believers.
This thread began with a discussion of what is the right way to handle details in narrative passages. I hold that many Christians do not profit from the Bible the way that God wants them to because they mishandle various details in narrative passages.
This mishandling has led to what I believe is a very widespread deficiency in understanding and accepting sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology. Acts 13 has a passage that serves as a good test case for my views about this serious problem.
Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Some approach the book of Acts by asserting that we do not get our doctrine from Acts. Having this wrong understanding in mind, they likely have never profited from the vital information that the Spirit has revealed in this passage.
What does this passage teach us about sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology?
Why do you believe that those are the most important questions to answer from that text?
What does this passage teach us about sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology?
pvawter’s question is a good one.
Why do you believe that those are the most important questions to answer from that text?
We all have limited time and energy, so wisdom (a biblical obligation) calls us to prioritize. In addition to that factor, there is the fact that any given passage of Scripture contains ideas that are very clear and prominent. Usually, there are also ideas that are less prominent and less clear in the passage. Often there is information that is not prominent at all and these bits of info also bring a wide range of interpretive possibilities with them.
How do we judge prominence and clarity? Mostly context.
But first we interpreters have to fully embrace the fact that what we have in Scripture is not flat. It is not all equally prominent and clear.
The reality is that we all prioritize as we read. Even those who try to say the text is flat actually select what they are going to focus on.
We do well to select based on what’s there and not there—the real prominence and clarity of the elements of the text.
So I would add a question to pvawter’s: Why would we go to that passage for “sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology” first?
If there are passages where these ideas are more prominent and clear, clarity is good, right? Confident interpretation (because the text has fewer interpretive possibilities) is good, right? Interpretation people can understand and follow is good, right?
So, since Scripture is not flat, we go to the best passages first. Then when we get to Acts 13 we ask the best question:
What is this passage mainly there to teach us? What is prominent and most clear here?
After we’ve exhausted the most prominent and clear passages on “sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology” and also, separately, exhausted what is most prominent clear in Acts 13, we could go ahead and see if there is anything more we can draw from Acts 13, with confidence, on “sound doctrine about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology.”
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.
Discussion