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
including their musical products and practices.
Why single out this as a primary emphasis? Is there anything in Acts 13 to suggest that Elymas was using music in his opposition to Paul and the gospel?
Again, literally no one here believes we should use occult elements in Christian worship, so I don't understand why you are so hyper-focused on proving something that isn't directly related to this particular passage.
Rajesh, looking through your comment, I see precisely zero citations that would apply to what I wrote. To start, you write as if you are only responding to one bit of evidence that I provided, when in reality what I'm noting is that both Luke and Paul describe him in effect as a fake, a reality buttressed by the reality that Paul blinds him instead of casting out a demon. There is also no response from the demon at the presence of an apostle of Christ, which there ought to be if indeed a demon is being cast out.
This really addresses the core of what this thread was supposed to be about; the degree to which the use of narrative is troublesome. Your response actually changes the genre being used from narrative to prophecy, and does not include critical aspects like "what happens when a sorcerer possessed by demons encounters the Savior or an apostle?", and more importantly ignores the passages where precisely this happens. It violates all kinds of rules of inductive logic, really.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Why single out this as a primary emphasis? Is there anything in Acts 13 to suggest that Elymas was using music in his opposition to Paul and the gospel?
Again, literally no one here believes we should use occult elements in Christian worship, so I don't understand why you are so hyper-focused on proving something that isn't directly related to this particular passage.
Look again at the title of the thread. My purpose in pointing attention to the details of Acts 13:6-12 is to bring out its implications for why believers must categorically reject bringing into Christian worship music of the occult.
Your claim in the second paragraph is false. There are people on SI who deny that instrumental music that is from occultists must be rejected.
Rajesh, looking through your comment, I see precisely zero citations that would apply to what I wrote. To start, you write as if you are only responding to one bit of evidence that I provided, when in reality what I'm noting is that both Luke and Paul describe him in effect as a fake, a reality buttressed by the reality that Paul blinds him instead of casting out a demon. There is also no response from the demon at the presence of an apostle of Christ, which there ought to be if indeed a demon is being cast out.
This really addresses the core of what this thread was supposed to be about; the degree to which the use of narrative is troublesome. Your response actually changes the genre being used from narrative to prophecy, and does not include critical aspects like "what happens when a sorcerer possessed by demons encounters the Savior or an apostle?", and more importantly ignores the passages where precisely this happens. It violates all kinds of rules of inductive logic, really.
Your entire approach to this passage is deeply flawed because you wrongly claim that anyone who is involved in demonic activities will be a demon-possessed person. The Bible never teaches that is true.
I have not changed any "genre." "False prophet" in the Greek text of Acts 13 is not an adjective modifying a noun. It is a noun. What I examined is all the occurrences of that noun in the NT.
You want to claim that Elymas was a total fake who had no interaction with demons. The other occurrences of that Greek word do not support your faulty interpretation.
There are people on SI who deny that instrumental music that is from occultists must be rejected.
No, there are no members of SI who are advocating for using occult music in Christian worship. While it is not explicitly stated in the community guidelines, I doubt anyone could be an SI participant and support occult music.
I have read the title of the thread, and still don't why you think Acts 13 is talking about music.
No, there are no members of SI who are advocating for using occult music in Christian worship. While it is not explicitly stated in the community guidelines, I doubt anyone could be an SI participant and support occult music.
I have read the title of the thread, and still don't why you think Acts 13 is talking about music.
I never said that Acts 13 is talking about music.
What I am saying is that Acts 13 provides truth that shows that Christians must reject music of the occult because it is music of people who are exceedingly depraved people. Acts 13 teaches us that there are professional occultists who are enemies of all righteousness and continually pervert the right ways of God (Acts 13:10). People who are such corrupt people can and have been "inventors of evil things" (Rom. 1:30), including such wicked things as human skull drums and the vile occult music that is played on such vile musical instruments.
Rock music and all music derived from it is occult music. There are SI members who say that the use of rock music and its derivatives, etc. in Christian worship is acceptable to God if it has Christian words that it is accompanying.
Bert Perry asserts that authentic demonic activity in a human being requires that the person be possessed. Luke 13 shows that view is false.
Luke 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? 17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.
Jesus infallibly and inerrantly declared that this woman had been bound by Satan for 18 years. The passage provides no evidence that she was demon-possessed. It also does not speak of a demon or demons crying out when this encounter with the Savior that led to the full healing of the woman took place.
The notion that authentic demonic activity in a human being requires that the person be possessed is false.
You're responding to my comments on a passage about a false prophet and sorcerer by referencing a passage where Jesus heals a woman's physical infirmity, Rajesh?
Does "comparing apples and oranges" mean anything to you? I would at least hope that any freshman level Bible college professor would give you a big red F for that one.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
You're responding to my comments on a passage about a false prophet and sorcerer by referencing a passage where Jesus heals a woman's physical infirmity, Rajesh?
Does "comparing apples and oranges" mean anything to you? I would at least hope that any freshman level Bible college professor would give you a big red F for that one.
You are the one who needs an F for mishandling the Bible. The passage explicitly says that Satan bound her for 18 years. According to your faulty theology, that would mean that the woman was demon-possessed for 18 years. The passage, however, gives no indication that she was demon-possessed.
Scripture provides plain revelation that refutes the notion that genuine demonic activity in false prophets requires demonic possession:
2 Chronicles 18:20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? 21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so. 22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. 23 Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee?
Four hundred false prophets gave false prophecy to Ahab (2 Chron. 18:5; 18:10-11) that led to his doom (2 Chron. 18:28-34). A true prophet made known that what had taken place in the giving of those false prophecies by all of those false prophets was the working of "a lying spirit in the mouth of all his [Ahab's] prophets" (2 Chron. 18:21-22).
The passage does not provide any evidence that any of those false prophets manifested in any way that they were demon-possessed when they gave their false prophecies that were the working of a demon in all of their mouths. In reality, had any of these false prophets displayed such evidences of demon-possession, it would likely have tipped Ahab off that their prophecies were not to be heeded.
In particular, Zedekiah was a leader among these prophets in the giving of false prophecy (2 Chron. 18:10-11). Tellingly, he wrongly believed that he actually had the Spirit of the Lord on him prior to Micaiah's giving true prophecy to Ahab (2 Chron. 18:23).
Zedekiah thus seemingly attests to how a leading false prophet was himself deceived and appears to have thought that he was a true prophet of the Lord. Nonetheless, we know with certainty that the false prophecy that he gave on this occasion was the work of a demon in his mouth.
Tellingly, neither Zedekiah nor any of the other 399 false prophets who prophesied falsely at the working of a demon on this occasion gave any evidence of their being demon-possessed. This passage plainly shows that the notion that false prophets who are genuinely involved in demonic activities certainly will be demon-possessed people is categorically false.
Discussion