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.)
- 5609 views
(There is no evidence here that the “shameful” of Eph 5:12 has something to do with occult. Paul’s point seems to be that some especially disgraceful things people do in private reveal the true nature of all the works of darkness—that is, all sin.)
I am not certain what claim you are making about the occult with these statements. If you are claiming that Eph. 5:11-12 excludes the occult just because the occult is not mentioned explicitly, your view is certainly wrong. To use that method of interpretation, you would have to say that 1 Cor. 5:9-10 has no application to practitioners of the occult because the occult is not mentioned there--which, unless I have misunderstood what you believe, is directly contrary to what you believe is the teaching of 1 Cor. 5:9-10.
You will have to prove this claim about Satan's most damaging work, etc. biblically.
We're all still waiting for you to prove biblically specific forms and instances of modern Christian worship music is really occult music and therefore off-limits to believers. Your constant demand that others do what you refuse to is pretty tiring.
Throughout the world contemporary Christian music has captured countless churches, absorbing them into the domain of semi-charismatic, worldly evangelicalism. Sometimes the preaching has largely remained sound, but for how long now that the worship ethos of such churches has so dramatically changed? Whether its victims realise it or not, the contemporary worship movement is the instrument of the hour to pull down both the conduct and the doctrinal walls of Zion. How the arch-enemy of the churches of Christ and of human souls will be straining to speed on such a catastrophe! . . .
Even the partial adoption of contemporary worship will inevitably constitute a bridge to the total acceptance of 'Christian' rock culture. Composers and writers of 'sounder' modern genre songs say themselves that their primary aim is to draw conservative churches into the fold of Christian rock, and also to hasten ecumenical advance.
--Peter Masters, "Worship or Entertainment?," 95-96
You are using supernatural as if all it means is pertaining to something that is spiritual. That is not how I am using the term
Spiritual is not measurable by the five senses. It is not material. It is not natural. It is, therefore, supernatural.
It also fits your dictionary definition.
I am not certain what claim you are making about the occult with these statements. If you are claiming that Eph. 5:11-12 excludes the occult just because the occult is not mentioned explicitly, your view is certainly wrong
Yes, that would be wrong.
I was clear in my post that all sin is in view there and that all sin—when humans are involved—is both natural and supernatural. The Bible does not use the word ‘occult’ or the word ‘supernatural,’ so I think there is some baggage muddying your thinking on these topics. Nonbiblical baggage.
So my post was aimed at some biblical worldview issues. Biblical cosmology might be the right term.
There doesn’t seem to be much chance of making myself understood on any of these topics, though, so I should probably just move on to other projects.
I’ll summarize my most recent argument one more time for any who might benefit from it.
Categorical reasoning is fragile if your premises are not either (a) obvious and accepted by all or (b) inspired revelation. But premises with unclear and freighted terms also make the argument fragile.
So arguing against music styles based on association with “the occult” is inherently fragile. There is a great deal to clarify and prove in the premises, and even then, the conclusion would need clarifying and applying to specific musical elements, etc.
I feel bad for anyone setting out to do that, because it’s a very, very tall order to make that kind of argument successfully and then another tall order to make it practical.
On “the supernatural” and “supernatural evil” and “evil people” and “the occult” (all key terms in the argument), only one of these is a biblical term (evil people) and the Bible doesn’t support limiting it to people involved in “the occult” or “supernatural evil.”
The Bible also does not separate the natural and supernatural into tidy separate categories. The supernatural overlaps entirely with the natural.
The reality of “spirit,” and the spiritual realm (see Eph 6.12), etc., is the closest thing the Bible has to the term “supernatural.” As a biblical category, it completely overlaps the physical and natural, though it extends well beyond it.
The point of all that: an argument to treat music associated with “the occult” in a special way can’t be sustained if “the occult” is not a special thing. Biblically, you’d have to argue that “music associated with any kind of evil or any kind of evil people must be avoided.”
With categories that broad, it’s even more clear why a categorical argument is not going to work.
It would fail the test of internal consistency, since literally everything is associated with some kind of evil or evil people. (e.g., a hundred posts or so ago, I noted that some atheists wear socks.)
Finally, advice to Rajesh: If you want to have a belief, that’s great. But if you want to be persuasive, you’ll get a lot further if you make a smaller probabilistic claim and rally evidence for that. This is better than trying to support a sweeping generalization that is, itself, based on reasoning from other sweeping generalizations.
My own view on music styles and associations…
I do believe that music styles, like styles of anything else (painting, poetry, architecture, fashion, sculpture—you name it), carries meaning in the context of a culture.
I also believe that meaning is complex, both in expression and interpretation on the receiving end.
That meaning is lost as the context changes: different time, different place, etc.
“Meaning” is not itself an ethical switch. That is, you can hear a message and simply decide to reject it. It is not automatically a sin to hear a message—even on purpose.
We are receiving cultural messages all the time, and also participating in repeating them. The clothes we wear, our hairstyles, our language idioms, the styling of the cars we drive—on and on it goes. The meanings involved and the impacts of those messages are complex and involved. It’s a living ecosystem.
We can sometimes spot something—especially something new—in a culture that is incompatible with Christian participation/use. A whole lot of the time, we can’t. The culture is the sea we’re swimming in. There’s a built in perspective problem.
So… case by case basis with all this stuff, and lots of grace and humility toward people who see it differently. I’m all for making claims and trying to prove them and disprove them. It’s part of the pursuit of truth, but with things like “styles” and their fitness for various purposes—wisdom calls for appropriate levels of certainty.
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.
Many churches that have included singable, doctrinally sound CCM (Getty, CityAlight, Sovereign Grace, etc.) and a contemporary style of worship that allows for more casual attire have been actively involved in building relationships within the local body, have been aggressive in church planting and revitalization, and have embraced confessional Christianity. They have also written and published books, etc. that have been of benefit to the wider Body of Christ. They are also not distancing themselves from other Christians over secondary cultural issues.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
@Ron’s comment:
It seems like part of the curse of sin on the world—along with the finiteness of being human—means there are tradeoffs with every option. The church I am part of now is more casual and uses a good bit of Getty, CityAlight, Sovereign Grace, etc.
It has its advantages. In my heart of hearts, I’m stuck in the 17th century or so. I think I’d love it if everything we sang was that century or older, if we had a gloria patri and responsive readings and other high-church liturgical stuff every Sunday. And we all wore dark suits and long dresses.
The tradeoffs there are a) stronger continuity with Christian history (and the humility that goes with that), b) better connection with the transcendence of God, and c) better elevation of our identity above ‘ordinary life’/’the world.’
But with the more relaxed, newish approach we have a) stronger connection to living out the faith right now and b) better connection with the immanence of God, and also c) better familial, one-another life. A ‘relaxed’ place of worship is a lot more like a home than a cathedral could ever be.
The ideal set of tradeoffs, in my view, would somehow incorporate both into church life. But that’s a lot to ask of your typical small local church.
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.
The Bible does not use the word ‘occult’ or the word ‘supernatural,’ so I think there is some baggage muddying your thinking on these topics. Nonbiblical baggage.
Nope. You are not taking into account biblical truths that apply to evil done by Satan and his demons that do not ever apply to evil done by humans alone.
Satan and his demons are incomparably superior beings to human beings. The fact that both are spirit beings does not mean that they are spirit beings in all the same ways. The evil done by humans where there is no involvement of Satan and his demons is not the same as the evil done where there is involvement of Satan and his demons.
The occult is therefore most certainly different in character than all other evil done by humans because it involves the actions of Satan and his demons in ways that all other evil done only by humans does not.
For example, no humans have ever or will ever be able to put into the heart of other humans to sin in the way that Satan and his demons have done, can do, and do. Scripture explicitly attests in several passages to such human sinfulness resulting from demonic activity in those humans so that their sinfulness is not just human sinfulness.
In addition, no humans on their own have supernatural knowledge of heavenly realities that are not revealed in the Bible, but Satan and all his demons do have such knowledge. They are able to impart knowledge to sinful humans that the sinful humans would never have had apart from that demonic input. Through the demonic impartation of such knowledge, humans involved in the occult engage in supernatural evil that is entirely different from all other human evil.
For example, through their enchantments, the miraculous evil deeds of Pharaoh's magicians that they did in opposition to Moses and Aaron were sinful deeds of an entirely different character than anything any humans have ever done or ever will do or ever can do on their own.
I could go on about such things and provide Scripture to fully support those truths. We will never come to a meeting of the minds until you are willing to acknowledge that the Bible reveals such human sinfulness that involves the activities of Satan and his demons in ways that all other human sinfulness does not.
The evil done by humans where there is no involvement of Satan and his demons is not the same as the evil done where there is involvement of Satan and his demons.
Out of curiosity, Rajesh, how would you know if an evil act is committed without any demonic involvement? Is there any objective, biblical criteria for differentiating between them besides the obvious and clear incidents in Scripture where Satan or demons are said to act?
Out of curiosity, Rajesh, how would you know if an evil act is committed without any demonic involvement? Is there any objective, biblical criteria for differentiating between them besides the obvious and clear incidents in Scripture where Satan or demons are said to act?
In contrast to the passages where there is direct revelation given about demonic involvement in human sinfulness, the Bible relates a vast number of other specific, actual instances of human sinfulness where no revelation is given about any demonic involvement in those acts of sinfulness. In my understanding, the Spirit intends that we learn from this notable difference among the recorded acts of human sinfulness that we do not have a legitimate basis to attribute all acts of human sinfulness to (direct) demonic involvement.
In confirmation of this understanding, the NT tells us that Eve was deceived by the serpent so that she transgressed, but Adam was not deceived when he sinned.
In the world today, the main basis that we seem to have to hold that there is demonic involvement in human sinfulness is when people engage in activities that put humans in contact with demons (through sorcery, witchcraft, divination, and other such occult activities or through eating in a worship context what has been offered to an idol). Given what Scripture reveals about all such demonic practices, the believer must categorically reject any and all activities and their products where the participants themselves say that their intent is contact and interaction with demons.
Factual information from various sources informs us that there are many such occult musical practices in nearly all parts of the world. All such practices and their distinctive musical products (such as human skull drums) must be categorically rejected.
Factual information from various sources informs us that there are many such occult musical practices in nearly all parts of the world.
This vague answer is pretty much what I'd expect. It's simply not possible to specify that one action is demonically influenced and another is not.
Of course an evil act in which someone says they're being influenced by Satan would be clear, but otherwise you still haven't given any objective, biblical criteria for showing that an evil act is demonic as opposed to being exclusively human. Besides the obvious (for which we don't really need the categories like the ones you've asserted), I don't see how this is helpful at all.
This vague answer is pretty much what I'd expect. It's simply not possible to specify that one action is demonically influenced and another is not.
Of course an evil act in which someone says they're being influenced by Satan would be clear, but otherwise you still haven't given any objective, biblical criteria for showing that an evil act is demonic as opposed to being exclusively human. Besides the obvious (for which we don't really need the categories like the ones you've asserted), I don't see how this is helpful at all.
If you were to do a thorough study of what God has revealed in His Word about demonic activities that humans engage in, you might better understand how being non-specific, etc. is part of divine wisdom when it comes to dealing with demonic activities.
Consider the following list of all the passages in which the Spirit tells us about enchantments:
Exod. 7:11 Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
Exod. 7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
Exod. 8:7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.
Exod. 8:18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
Lev. 19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
Num. 23:23 Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!
Num. 24:1 And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness.
2 Ki. 17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Ki. 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Chr. 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Eccl. 10:11 Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.
Isa. 47:9 But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments.
Isa. 47:12 Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail.
Notice the following points that are true based on an objective examination of every one of these 13 references:
1. God never defines what the enchantment or enchantments were/are.
2. God never gives any details or any specifics about what exactly those enchantments were.
3. God yet categorically prohibits having anything to do with enchantments.
Faced with these facets of perfect divine revelation about the occult, you have a choice.
You can either sit in judgment of God's wisdom and say that information is useless because He never defines what those things are and never gives specifics or details about them.
The alternative and the right way to receive this divinely inspired information is to submit to divine wisdom and accept that not giving definitions and specific information is the right approach to things that are demonic. Divine wisdom mandates categorical rejection of occult practices and products without our having to have definitions of them and without our having to know or provide any details or specifics about them.
Rajesh, so anything you decide is an enchantment is an enchantment? On what authority?
I notice that none of your vague passages mentions music at all. None. Not even vaguely. What are we to make of that?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Rajesh, so anything you decide is an enchantment is an enchantment? On what authority?
No. I did not say anything even remotely to such effect in my statements. These questions are unwarranted based on what I wrote and have no merit in connection to what I wrote.
I notice that none of your vague passages mentions music at all. None. Not even vaguely. What are we to make of that?
I did not make any claims that they did.
I stated plainly why I treated those passages and what they teach us about God's wisdom in dealing with occult practices and practitioners.
Divine wisdom mandates categorical rejection of occult practices and products without our having to have definitions of them and without our having to know or provide any details or specifics about them.
I think you are just plain wrong here. The Israelites were under no illusions as to the precise nature of idolatrous and demonic worship practices of their neighbors. The reason Moses and the other writers do not specify them in detail is that they were easily recognized by everyone. The Canaanites were not hiding their idolatry, neither were the Egyptians their sorcery. Yet you want us to believe that Christian musicians are smuggling in demonic worship elements like skull drums to pollute the praise of Christ. Absurd.
Discussion