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.)
- 4019 views
Why do you believe that those are the most important questions to answer from that text?
I made no claim about what "are the most important questions" to answer from that text.
These questions are relevant because they pertain to what has been under discussion about music in this thread.
In addition, Scripture reveals truth about anthropology from Gen. 1-Rev. 22, about demonology from Gen. 3-Rev. 20, and about hamartiology from Gen. 3-Rev. 22. Determining what, if anything, a passage teaches about these doctrines is always relevant to examine.
So, what does Acts 13:6-12 teach us about anthropology, demonology, and hamartiology?
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?
Who said anything about going to that passage first about those doctrines?
There is doctrinally important information that we can clearly get out of Acts 13:6-12 that we do not get either as directly or at all from the passages that are typically treated about these doctrines.
So, what does Acts 13:6-12 teach us about these doctrines?
I think we have a fundamentally different approach to Scripture. In general, I do not approach the Bible with the goal of forming a systematic theology. That is why I continue to find your questions and methods puzzling.
I think we have a fundamentally different approach to Scripture. In general, I do not approach the Bible with the goal of forming a systematic theology. That is why I continue to find your questions and methods puzzling.
If you do not thoroughly examine what the Spirit has said in a passage for what it actually teaches, you are not going to profit from the passage the way that the Spirit wants you to profit from it.
Acts 13:6-12 reveals information about four people; one of those people is conspicuously an evil person who engages in an evil activity. Who is that person and what does the Spirit reveal to us about what kind of evil person he was and what his evil activities were and what was the extent of his wickedness?
If you do not answer these questions carefully and thoroughly, there is no way that you are going to profit from the passage the way that God wants you to profit from it.
If you choose to answer these questions correctly, you will learn important information about the doctrines of man (anthropology), demons (demonology), and sin (hamartiology). Doing so is not inherently a systematic theology approach to the study of the Bible--we must examine all that the Spirit has actually said in a passage for what it teaches us.
If you choose to answer these questions correctly, you will learn important information about the doctrines of man (anthropology), demons (demonology), and sin (hamartiology). Doing so is not inherently a systematic theology approach to the study of the Bible--we must examine all that the Spirit has actually said in a passage for what it teaches us.
Is Luke's intention to teach us about demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology in Acts 13? Or is he writing with another purpose in mind? How do you know?
I made no claim about what “are the most important questions” to answer from that text.
These questions are relevant because they pertain to what has been under discussion about music in this thread.
Who said anything about going to that passage first about those doctrines?
Fair enough, but the question remains, why would we be looking for demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology there? I guess we need more context on your study process. Without knowing how you studied demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology etc. before looking at Acts 13, it seems arbitrary.
But, as I’ve noted before, with a lot of topics, once we have worked through the texts where that topic is most prominent and clear, we often find that other passages with a different focus don’t add much, if anything to our understanding. And as we work down the list (assuming we’re working from most prominent and clear passages down to least prominent and clear ones) there is increasingly nothing there that we didn’t already know.
So, though some have probably overstated their own view on this, the core of it is, again, whether the Bible is topically flat or not. It is not. Since Scripture varies on how prominent and clear a topic is (and it even notes this about itself in 2 Pet 3.16), that reality has to drive our interpretive process.
The way I heard it nutshelled often as a kid was “the clear interprets the unclear.” It’s a good rule of thumb, though using it can sometimes be complex.
So the principle that Scripture is not topically flat—let’s just say, for simplicity, that it has depth—a lot of interpretive method flows from that.
If we ignore the degree of prominence and clarity of a topic in the text we’re looking at, we’re likely to engage in the worst sort of proof-texting. If we’ve actually already exhausted all of the best passages (those where the topic of interest is most prominent and clear) and we don’t provide that as context, people get the impression we’re just cherry picking texts to suit a view we’ve already chosen.
Understandably.
So, to sum up, if the Bible is not flat, then method should reflect that and also communication with audiences should reflect that—if we want to be understood and heeded.
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.
Fair enough, but the question remains, why would we be looking for demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology there? I guess we need more context on your study process. Without knowing how you studied demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology etc. before looking at Acts 13, it seems arbitrary.
I did not arbitrarily go to Acts 13 to study those doctrines there.
Rather, if I am remembering correctly what happened, in the process of reading through the book of Acts several years ago, as part of my yearly practice of reading through the whole Bible at least once, I read that passage again, but this time the Spirit illumined my mind to see truth that had always been there but was not perceived by me in the past.
Alternatively, since it has been a number of years ago when I first perceived what was in the passage, it may have been that I was examining all the passages that mention anything about a specific subject and came to that passage to study that subject. This is a method that I have used numerous times to study what the Bible teaches about specific subjects.
Regardless, there is only one right way to examine what is being communicated in that passage. In English, words have meanings when they are used in combinations with other specific words in specific word orders, etc.
Using plain and invariable techniques of proper reading comprehension, there is no denying what the text says unless you come to the passage with an intent to reject any teaching about anything that might be in the passage because you have wrongly predetermined that the book of Acts or that passage is not "about" such and such . . .
Is Luke's intention to teach us about demonology, anthropology, and hamartiology in Acts 13? Or is he writing with another purpose in mind? How do you know?
You cannot predetermine what Luke's purpose is until you have read the passage itself in a normal reading of the book. When you read the passage carefully and pay attention to what the words say as the Spirit inspired Luke to write them, you can plainly see truths in that passage that teach you about those doctrines.
As I related to Aaron above in my comment previous to this one, it was not that I arbitrarily went to the passage looking for content about those doctrines, etc. Either I studied it again as part of my normal reading through the Bible every year or I studied it again as part of my studying one or more specific subjects (I do not know for sure which one it was because it has been quite a number of years since I first understood the relevance of what is in that passage).
Regardless, a proper reading of that passage that does not wrongly predetermine that the passage is only "about" such and such, etc., shows that it teaches things about those doctrines.
You cannot predetermine what Luke's purpose is until you have read the passage itself in a normal reading of the book.
Right, and reading Acts 1:1-11 would strongly suggest that Luke's purpose is to record the history of the early church and initial fulfillment of the great commission. While we can certainly draw data from the book for building our systematic theologies, it is somewhere down the list of priorities when reading the book (or at least it should be, imo.)
As I said before, your approach to Scripture is sufficiently different from mine, that I find it difficult to accept many of your conclusions and emphases.
As I said before, your approach to Scripture is sufficiently different from mine, that I find it difficult to accept many of your conclusions and emphases.
There is not anything difficult about knowing what Acts 13:6-12 shows. It seems that you do not want to actually engage with the text because it reveals truths that you really do not want to accept or deal with because of their implications for the discussion about music in this thread.
Rajesh, there is everything difficult about extrapolating from Scripture to begin with, as it is inductive, not deductive, logic, and hence you've got to assemble a broad array of texts on the same basic subject to infer a conclusion. This is especially the case with narratives, where we do not always know God's view on what was just related.
Still waiting, by the way, for your explanation of whether spirituals, black gospel, jazz, and blues might "pass muster" in your exegetical scheme. The same factors relate to these genre as would relate to rock & roll, and the predecessors of Frank Garlock made that very clear in their writings.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It seems that you do not want to actually engage with the text because it reveals truths that you really do not want to accept or deal with because of their implications for the discussion about music in this thread.
If you would just be up front and tell me what precise implications that passage has about worship music and how they are derived directly from it, I could tell you whether I accept them. I get tired of constantly being told you're not ready to draw conclusions. If the implications follow, then let's hear them.
If you would just be up front and tell me what precise implications that passage has about worship music and how they are derived directly from it, I could tell you whether I accept them. I get tired of constantly being told you're not ready to draw conclusions. If the implications follow, then let's hear them.
How can we properly discuss implications if you are not even willing to state what you believe the passage actually teaches (not its implications, but what is directly seen in the passage itself)? You believe that your hermeneutics are sound. So, based on your sound handling of the passage, what does it reveal about those doctrines?
I don’t think I’ll be back to this particular discussion.
I’m not seeing any evidence that I’m even being understood, and mostly I’m just rephrasing things I’ve already said.
So one last time…
- An interpretation has to be supported. If you want to be persuasive, people need to be able to understand how you got there.
- With respect to topics, Scripture is not flat. Some passages are more clear than others and the topic is more prominent there.
- It is sound method to use the passages where the topic is most prominent and clear first, and work to less prominent and clear passages after that. Given the limits of time and energy, you might not get to the bottom of that process to the least clear and least prominent passages. That’s probably OK. 24 hrs in a day and all that.
- If we go to passages near the bottom of that chain without providing people with context, our choice of that text is going to seem (note I use the word ‘seem’ here and I also used it previously) arbitrary. It may well not be arbitrary, but the reality is that people we are communicating with are not inside our heads.
That’s all I’ve got on this, I think.
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.
I’m not seeing any evidence that I’m even being understood, and mostly I’m just rephrasing things I’ve already said.
So one last time…
- An interpretation has to be supported. If you want to be persuasive, people need to be able to understand how you got there.
- With respect to topics, Scripture is not flat. Some passages are more clear than others and the topic is more prominent there.
- It is sound method to use the passages where the topic is most prominent and clear first, and work to less prominent and clear passages after that. Given the limits of time and energy, you might not get to the bottom of that process to the least clear and least prominent passages. That’s probably OK. 24 hrs in a day and all that.
- If we go to passages near the bottom of that chain without providing people with context, our choice of that text is going to seem (note I use the word ‘seem’ here and I also used it previously) arbitrary. It may well not be arbitrary, but the reality is that people we are communicating with are not inside our heads.
That’s all I’ve got on this, I think.
You cannot predetermine which passages are the ones where "the topic is most prominent and clear" until you have done proper exegesis of all the passages that pertain to a subject.
I chose Acts 13:6-12 as a test case because it reveals the faultiness of a method that predetermines that the "best" passages to teach a truth will not be in narratives. You cannot know that until you first handle the passage properly to see what is says.
You cannot predetermine on any objective basis that Acts 13:6-12 is at the "bottom of [some] chain" until you have examined the passage thoroughly for what it actually says.
If you really want to have a profitable discussion, I encourage you to interact with the text and set forth what you believe Acts 13:6-12 is teaching.
If, however, that is not something that you and others are willing to do, I am fine with ending this discussion here.
Discussion