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.)
- 4536 views
Well, I guess I’m not really out of things to say. 😀
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.
Fortunately, we absolutely can. Even for those who completely reject “genre criticism,” you don’t have to read the Bible for very long before you start to recognize that there are different kinds of writing and that pieces and sections have themes and main topics and secondary topics and so on.
Jesus himself repeatedly referred to the Old Testament as “the law and prophets.” This was a common term at the time, but still, He did not choose to challenge the idea that the OT had sections with different characteristics.
As for the NT, it’s noticeable to readers pretty quickly that we have history sections and direct teaching sections. It should go without saying that a passage that is directly teaching on a topic is one where that topic is more clear and prominent than it would be in a teaching passage about something else or a story far more focused on people than on ideas.
Plus, you seem to be forgetting about historical theology and the role of the church. None of us has to start from scratch studying anything. In fact, it’s impossible to really do that, because we did not come to the faith in a vacuum. We came to know Christ through the church.
So, when we approach a topic, we have a vast history and lots of faithful, though fallible, predecessors to guide us.
In my case, I grew up knowing that the Bible had history, poetry, and direct teaching sections. I knew that because the Body of Christ passed that truth down.
Of course there is often merit in starting with as blank a slate as possible and restudying a topic. But doing that as though all sections of Scripture are equally clear on the topic or that the topic is equally prominent everywhere would be not only reinventing the wheel, but reinventing geometry.
I see that as not only unnecessary but improper. Are we supposed to set aside the reasoning abilities God made us with? Are we better humans than those who came before us? Are we better Christians? Are we better students of the Word?
So, no, that is not the right road. That is not 2 Tim. 3:16, or 2 Tim 1:5, or 2 Tim 3:14 and many others.
About Acts 13
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.
This is off topic, especially if we’re not approaching the Bible in a sound way to begin with. That’s more foundational.
But the passage is not difficult… and it’s also really cool. I’ll try to summarize.
Acts 13 is relating the history of Paul and Barnabas’ church planting journey and showing us the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise/mandate in Acts 1:8. As it unfolds, the history—the whole book of Acts—shows us how various kinds of opposition (some of it from inside the Church) arose but, to use Jesus’ language (Matt 16:18) Hell did not prevail.
So the chronicle of the spread of the gospel and the church is full of challenges but ultimate triumphs. In Acts 13, the missionaries encounter a new and special kind of opposition from the “magician” Bar Jesus, aka, Elymas
The histories have a lot of ambiguities. One of them is whether we’re being told what a person really was or what everyone knew him as, so we have “for that is the meaning of his name” in Acts 13:8. I don’t want to get deep into the weeds on that question, but it’s a question. I did take a quick look at Toussaint in Bible Knowledge Commentary…
The word “sorcerer” (magos) could describe a counselor or honorable gentleman (e.g., the “Magi” in Matt. 2:1, 7, 16) or it could refer to a fraudulent wizard, as here. It is related to the verb “practice sorcery” (mageuō) used of Simon (Acts 8:9). BKC, Walvoord and Zuck, 1985.
- I’m not convinced, off-hand, that Elymas was a fake. Toussaint doesn’t explain how he arrived at that conclusion, so I’d have to study it further. But it’s of secondary importance.
The most solid point there (because it’s clear) is that Elymas was revered and feared as a man of supernatural power.
But Paul is not intimidated and rebukes him to his face in Acts 13:9-10. He calls him a child of the devil. (We all are, before we come to Christ (1 John 3:10, 2 Cor 4:4, Eph 2:3, Col 1:13), but Paul seems to mean that Elymas is more devilish than average. The emphasis is on his nature as a deceiver (Acts 6:10), which makes total sense (John 8:44).
I’m getting pulled into the details again. Summarizing is challenging, because the details are so interesting, but summarizing is a great Bible study exercise because it forces us to see context and note the overall flow. It makes us see the forest and then the trees, so that the trees don’t blind us to the forest.
Paul not only rebukes Elymas but demonstrates to all present that the power of God is superior and that the Apostles truly posses that power, blinding Elymas in front of everyone (13:11). In keeping with long-established protocol, so to speak (Deut 18:21-22), the truth of the prophets’ message is confirmed with signs of God’s power.
So Christ and His church win the day and the gospel continues to triumph (Ac 13:12). It seems that the proconsul would not have come to faith without Elymas’ opposition first, so the faith is more triumphant amid opposition than it would have been unopposed.
What a great message for our times!! (I find myself wanting to preach.) That power is still here (though I believe the apostles and prophets are not) and the gospel is often more compelling opposed than unopposed.
… which we would not even preach if we focused on the magician and “the occult.”
So, I’m not saying there is nothing to learn about supernatural power in opposition to God in Acts 13. But there is always opportunity-cost with preaching and teaching. If we choose to focus on one thing in a passage in our 40 minute opportunity, we will not be focusing on other things in that 40 minutes.
And the strongest, most compelling message in a text is often lost when decide to handle a passage as though it were flat, favoring our own emphasis over the emphasis God put there… or, to put it less dramatically, favoring a secondary or tertiary detail over the central theme of the passage.
Though other truths are in a text, there is a cost when we focus on what is secondary. There is a time and place to do that, but it should always be done in the context of giving weightier matters their due (and I’m reminded again that Jesus validated the idea that there are weightier matters—Matt 23:23).
(So, to touch on the secondary or tertiary question… do we learn anything about ‘magicians’ from the passage? Nothing we didn’t already know from the OT or other passages: There are both real and fake wielders of supernatural power; they are one of the many ways people are deceived by the ‘god of this age’ (2 Cor 4.4); God’s power is superior and Holy Spirit is not hindered by these ‘magicians.’)
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.
Of course there is often merit in starting with as blank a slate as possible and restudying a topic. But doing that as though all sections of Scripture are equally clear on the topic or that the topic is equally prominent everywhere would be not only reinventing the wheel, but reinventing geometry.
I see that as not only unnecessary but improper. Are we supposed to set aside the reasoning abilities God made us with? Are we better humans than those who came before us? Are we better Christians? Are we better students of the Word?
So, no, that is not the right road. That is not 2 Tim. 3:16, or 2 Tim 1:5, or 2 Tim 3:14 and many others.
These remarks are not legitimate comments concerning me, my approach to Scripture, and my 35 years of intense immersion in Scripture. They do not deserve further response.
As for the second part of your response, I appreciate your efforts to engage with the text. I have much to say in response. This is the busiest week of the year at work, so I'll get back to you when I have more time to do so.
These remarks are not legitimate comments concerning me, my approach to Scripture, and my 35 years of intense immersion in Scripture. They do not deserve further response.
Rajesh,
From my perspective as someone who has read many of your posts and comments here on SI over the past several years, it appears as though Aaron had accurately characterized your approach to Scripture. This is one of the reasons why I find your threads and comments very frustrating to engage with.
While you may feel that his description is inaccurate and therefore unworthy of a response, our future interactions on this site would likely be much more beneficial if you did. And you might start by asking yourself why your hermeneutics appear this way to other. Just a thought.
From my perspective as someone who has read many of your posts and comments here on SI over the past several years, it appears as though Aaron had accurately characterized your approach to Scripture. This is one of the reasons why I find your threads and comments very frustrating to engage with.
While you may feel that his description is inaccurate and therefore unworthy of a response, our future interactions on this site would likely be much more beneficial if you did. And you might start by asking yourself why your hermeneutics appear this way to other. Just a thought.
His remarks are untrue and unfair. They strike me as being similar to asking somebody about whether he has stopped beating his wife:
Are we supposed to set aside the reasoning abilities God made us with? Are we better humans than those who came before us? Are we better Christians? Are we better students of the Word?
I have never, ever said anything about setting aside the reasoning abilities God made us with. That is a ridiculous question to ask. As for the other questions, they are even worse because they implicitly attribute mindsets and perspectives to me that are completely false. Yes, they are phrased as questions, but they serve nonetheless as statements.
The histories have a lot of ambiguities. One of them is whether we’re being told what a person really was or what everyone knew him as, so we have “for that is the meaning of his name” in Acts 13:8. I don’t want to get deep into the weeds on that question, but it’s a question. I did take a quick look at Toussaint in Bible Knowledge Commentary…
The word “sorcerer” (magos) could describe a counselor or honorable gentleman (e.g., the “Magi” in Matt. 2:1, 7, 16) or it could refer to a fraudulent wizard, as here. It is related to the verb “practice sorcery” (mageuō) used of Simon (Acts 8:9). BKC, Walvoord and Zuck, 1985.
- I’m not convinced, off-hand, that Elymas was a fake. Toussaint doesn’t explain how he arrived at that conclusion, so I’d have to study it further. But it’s of secondary importance.
The most solid point there (because it’s clear) is that Elymas was revered and feared as a man of supernatural power.
I strongly disagree with your take on this point. You are reading into the passage the notion that we cannot know whether he was a fake or he was a real professional occultist. There isn't anything in the text that even remotely supports approaching the text that way.
This points to what I believe is a very serious, faulty, widespread, contemporary skepticism among believers today that holds that authentic occult activity is rare or hardly even exists. The only way to know that is true would be to have supernatural abilities to examine all occult activities around the whole world and somehow know that there isn't any real demonic activity going on.
Neither you nor anyone else has such ability. Holding such a viewpoint (that authentic occult activity is rare or hardly even exists) is a totally unwarranted notion that has no merit.
Your own life experience is not any legitimate basis to establish the validity of such a view. The life experiences of everybody that you know or have ever known are not a legitimate basis to establish the validity of such a view.
Only divine revelation could establish the validity of such a view. So, does the Bible teach that the occult is mostly fake, sham, charlatans, etc.? If so, where and how does it teach that is true?
Aaron's reference may have some other arguments, but in my estimation, Elymas was a "fake occultist" akin to a 1st century Gene Simmons, trying to look like he was dabbling with demons for fun and profit.
Here's why. First, Luke calls him a "false prophet", following the Old Testament pattern of calling false prophets "liars". Paul repeats that by noting that he was full of "all kinds of deceit and trickery", and closes the deal by not casting out any real demon in Elymas, but by blinding him. There is none of the behavior we see from demons elsewhere like screaming, noticing Who is casting them out, etc..
There are real examples of occultism and demon possession in the Bible--Jesus casts out many demons, and of course you've got the slave girl in Acts 16:16-18--but the context of Acts 13 does not indicate this.
And as I noted before, if we are going to put together a coherent theology of demon possession, sorcery, and the like (let's use the Biblical categories instead of "occult", please), we need to go through the breadth of Scripture. We will start to see a pattern if we do.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rajesh,
Does it give you pause that we have reached the foundational hermeneutical issues and no one is agreeing with you? Please don’t take this as disrespectful, but does it concern you at all that you can’t convince anyone else? Could you perhaps be wrong?
Does it give you pause that we have reached the foundational hermeneutical issues and no one is agreeing with you? Please don’t take this as disrespectful, but does it concern you at all that you can’t convince anyone else? Could you perhaps be wrong?
No, it does not concern me at all. I take seriously exactly what the Spirit has said. Many dismiss or explain away the details of what He has said by claiming automatically without any biblical warrant that those details have no significance other than to make a "story" interesting. I reject that view categorically.
For the record, there are people who agree with me in the things that I say are true. They just are either not on SI or if they are, they choose not to comment.
In addition, I have many strong recommendations from pastors of churches where I have preached and taught, including for many messages on the Bible and music. I also have taught a college-level class on acceptable music for corporate worship and received the full support of the pastor of the church where I taught that class as he interpreted my teaching to his Hispanic students.
Here's why. First, Luke calls him a "false prophet", following the Old Testament pattern of calling false prophets "liars". Paul repeats that by noting that he was full of "all kinds of deceit and trickery", and closes the deal by not casting out any real demon in Elymas, but by blinding him. There is none of the behavior we see from demons elsewhere like screaming, noticing Who is casting them out, etc.
Actually, no, these things do not show that he was a "fake" occultist. The Spirit chose to reveal that Elymas was a false prophet; the Spirit could easily have done the same thing concerning his being an occultist by saying that he was a false sorcerer. Because the Spirit did not do so, the burden of proof is on you.
As for his being full of deceit, etc. Satan is the consummate deceiver. By your faulty reasoning, we would have to hold that he is not an authentic demon.
Your claim that Paul did not cast out any real demon, so Elymas was not a real occultist has no biblical support. The Bible never teaches that witches, wizards, sorcerers, etc. are possessed. Being demon-possessed is not a biblical characteristic of being an authentic occultist.
Using the term "occultist" to speak of sorcerers, witches, wizards, and other biblically mentioned practitioners of such demonic activities is fully warranted because the Bible makes clear that God has not given us exhaustive information about all such practitioners (cf. "witchcraft . . . and such like" [Gal. 5:20-21]). Furthermore, according to your faulty reasoning in this regard, we cannot use terms such as gambling, pornography, and your favorite term, "racism," because they are not biblical terms, right?
I also have taught a college-level class on acceptable music for corporate worship
Great! So, theoretically, it should be possible for you to give us a few basic conclusions that you draw from the passage in question or any of the other passages that have been mentioned in this thread.
What specific music is conclusively acceptable or unacceptable for public worship?
Great! So, theoretically, it should be possible for you to give us a few basic conclusions that you draw from the passage in question or any of the other passages that have been mentioned in this thread.
What specific music is conclusively acceptable or unacceptable for public worship?
I already answered this question earlier in the thread.
I guess we have different ideas of what the word "specific" means.
So the fact that Acts 13 does not have any of the characteristics of the known interaction with demons as seen in the Gospels and Acts does not seem to mean anything to you, nor do clear statements from Luke and Paul indicating that Elymas was a fraud.
As I've noted before, this is Humpty Dumpty exegesis, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less." Really, Rajesh, there ought to be a point where some of these things penetrate, but I'm not seeing it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert Perry claims that because Elymas was a false prophet who was "full of all subtilty and all mischief," he was a false sorcerer who just pretended to be a sorcerer but in reality had no authentic interaction or contact with demons.
Four books of the NT refute this faulty notion that a false prophet who uses deception cannot be involved in authentically demonic activities, etc.
1. Matthew and Mark both record that Jesus taught that false prophets who deceive multitudes will be workers of great demonic miracles:
Matt. 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mk. 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
The words used for "signs" and "wonders" in both these Gospels are words that are used to speak of authentic miracles that can only be done through either the power of God and His angels or through the power of Satan and his demons. Such miraculous works never are and cannot merely be sleight-of-hand trickery by slick, human charlatans, etc. Obviously, Jesus did not teach that these false prophets will do these miracles through the power of God and His angels.
2. 1 Jn. 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
John warns believers that many false prophets are in the world whose false prophetic speech/activities are from spirits that are not of God.
3. Rev. 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
Rev. 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
John revealed that the consummate false prophet who will deceive vast multitudes all over the world with demonic miracles in the end times will be a person out of whom an unclean spirit will come.
Furthermore, he will exercise demonic power when he engages in all his demonically empowered activities as the consummate false prophet of the end times:
Revelation 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast [the Antichrist]: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?)
Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast [the false prophet] coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
The teaching of these NT passages (as well as some OT passages) categorically refutes the notion that Elymas had to have been a "false" sorcerer because he was a false prophet who greatly used deception, lies, etc. In actuality, the NT teaching about false prophets speaks of such people as being authentically in contact with demons and doing their deceptive miracles/activities through demonic power.
Concerning the theological importance of Acts 13:6-12, consider the following that I have written elsewhere:
We must solemnly consider that Scripture reveals the horrific extent to which demons can corrupt humans in a passage that makes several key revelations about an ancient sorcerer:
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?
This profound revelation is noteworthy for many reasons because of what it reveals about the fearful malignity of a professional occultist.
First, it says that he was a professional occultist (who was also a false prophet) who sought to turn away from the faith an unbeliever who wanted to hear God’s truth. Such people thus are profoundly dangerous to unbelievers.
Second, it infallibly reveals key truths about the sorcerer by infallibly recording what the leader of the apostolic company *being filled with the Spirit* [text between the asterisks is in italics in the original] said to the sorcerer. This shows that the statements that Paul made about the sorcerer were exactly what the Spirit directed him to say about the sorcerer. None of Paul’s statements about him were in any way just his own thinking, perspectives, or even possible biases against a particular kind of person because of that person’s ethnicity or any other important aspects of his person.
Third, it shows how consummately this human being was a corrupted human being.
Elymas was “full of all subtilty and all mischief.” He was a profoundly crafty and fraudulent person who used deceit to accomplish his objectives.
He was an “enemy of all righteousness.” He actively opposed everything that was an aspect of righteousness before God. He thus openly fought against the doing of anything that was righteous in the sight of God.
He also would “not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord.” This man continually did whatever he could to corrupt the doing of something in a way that was right before God.
Because Scripture reveals that there are occultists in the world who are such incredibly corrupt people, believers must not dabble with things of the occult in any manner and must reject all products and practices that are distinctively of occultists, including their musical products and practices.
Discussion