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
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.
You missed my point. The point was not whether the Israelites knew what those things were or not. The point is that we do not have definitions, specifics, or details about those occult practices.
We do not have any information in Scripture about those occult practices, yet we must accept that those practices are prohibited for God's people.
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.
This is a patently false claim. I never said anything to the effect that we are to believe that any people are smuggling in anything. You are being absurd in making such a claim that does not have anything to do with anything that I said.
The point is that we do not have definitions, specifics, or details about those occult practices.
Right. The Israelites knew exactly the kinds of practices God was telling them about. Since he has not seen fit to tell us what those were in specific detail, you can't even make a reasonable assertion of any specific acts which are prohibited except those which are obviously and openly demonic.
As I've said before in this thread, no one is arguing in favor of idolatry or demon-worship. So what exactly is your purpose here? What modern day church practices are so obviously demon-influenced that they constitute a special category of sins?
Right. The Israelites knew exactly the kinds of practices God was telling them about.
At most, the Israelites knew what those practices were only in general terms--there is zero evidence in Scripture that they knew any detailed information about the enchantments of Pharaoh's magicians or any of the other occultists in view in those passages.
Since he has not seen fit to tell us what those were in specific detail, you can't even make a reasonable assertion of any specific acts which are prohibited except those which are obviously and openly demonic.
Wrong. It is you who cannot deny that specific things are prohibited by God simply on the basis that they are not specifically mentioned in Scripture. God could have included the details of all the forbidden occult practices spoken of in Scripture, but He chose not to do so.
Claiming that none of those practices included any music that is thereby also prohibited has no factual basis and is mere assertion on the part of any who try to argue from silence in that respect. Since God did not give any details, you cannot make any objective, legitimate claim that no music was involved in those practices.
As I've said before in this thread, no one is arguing in favor of idolatry or demon-worship.
You appear to have a serious error in your understanding. Occult practices such as sorcery, witchcraft, divination, etc. are never spoken of in Scripture as being the same thing as either idolatry or demon-worship.
So what exactly is your purpose here? What modern day church practices are so obviously demon-influenced that they constitute a special category of sins?
Rock music and all of its derivatives, etc. are all occult music that is categorically unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
Are there any specific examples of Christian music that is influenced in any way by the occult that we can hear? What derivatives of rock music can we hear that are occult music or influenced by occult music? Are there any specifc examples of Christian music that is influenced by occult music with which any of us would be familiar?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
In reply to me, Rajesh said
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.
Then just recently he said:
Rock music and all of its derivatives, etc. are all occult music that is categorically unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
Like I said, Rajesh, you are the arbiter of truth. You say that rock music in all forms are occult music. I don't like any of these forms of music, but you have never proven this point. I don't think you can prove the point.
It's all on your say so.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don Johnson said:
In reply to me, Rajesh said
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.
Then just recently he [Rajesh] said:
Rock music and all of its derivatives, etc. are all occult music that is categorically unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
Don Johnson said:
Like I said, Rajesh, you are the arbiter of truth. You say that rock music in all forms are occult music. I don't like any of these forms of music, but you have never proven this point. I don't think you can prove the point.
It's all on your say so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are more false claims that you are making. I never said that I am the arbiter of truth.
It's bad enough that you wrongly believed earlier in this thread that you were warranted in pronouncing judgment on me that I "strain at gnats," am "foolish," and routinely have poor reading comprehension.
Now you falsely assert that what I said about rock music is essentially the same as thinking that I can just decide whatever is an enchantment and it becomes so.
Those two things are entirely different.
Rock music and all of its derivatives, etc. are all occult music that is categorically unacceptable to God for any use in corporate worship.
Ok, Rajesh, you say you are not just arbitrarily deciding this point.
Yet you offer no evidence or proof. This is the point everyone is getting at with you. You make dogmatic statements and offer no proof.
We can only conclude that you are making arbitrary decisions without proof. Unless you deign to enlighten us.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
These are more false claims that you are making. I never said that I am the arbiter of truth.
It's bad enough that you wrongly believed earlier in this thread that you were warranted in pronouncing judgment on me that I "strain at gnats," am "foolish," and routinely have poor reading comprehension.
Now you falsely assert that what I said about rock music is essentially the same as thinking that I can just decide whatever is an enchantment and it becomes so.
Those two things are entirely different.
It doesn't matter that you never said the words, "I am the arbiter of truth" or "you can just decide whatever is an enchantment and it becomes so." You are demonstrating it to all of us by making such dogmatic statements and offering no proof. When it comes to your views on music, you come across as if you have some secret knowledge on music and the occult and we should just take your word for it. It comes across as somewhat gnostic (notice I didn't call you a gnostic, but that your approach communicates to the rest of us on SI as akin to some forms of gnostic thinking).
It doesn't matter that you never said the words, "I am the arbiter of truth" or "you can just decide whatever is an enchantment and it becomes so." You are demonstrating it to all of us by making such dogmatic statements and offering no proof. When it comes to your views on music, you come across as if you have some secret knowledge on music and the occult and we should just take your word for it. It comes across as somewhat gnostic (notice I didn't call you a gnostic, but that your approach communicates to the rest of us on SI as akin to some forms of gnostic thinking).
Consecrated believers have been denouncing the occult abomination of rock music for more than 50 years now. Many have set forth abundantly the proof of its wickedness.
As recently as 35 years ago, my views were the majority position among believers in conservative Christian churches. The fact that many have moved away from the truth of the evils of rock music does not in any way require that I and others also bow down at the same altar of Christian "political correctness," evangelical compromise, etc.
As always, those who disagree with the positions that I and others hold dogmatically are free to set forth their own positions as dogmatically as they may choose to do so.
50 years ago I was working in the rock/country/pop music business. I was in radio as well as music and concert promotion. The Lord saved me and I found myself in conservative fundamentalism where I soon encountered the "consecrated believers" who were warning us about the evils of popular music. Some of their claims were obviously false (rock music kills plants and listening to good music can improve your eyesight) and many of the stories they told about performers I knew were falsehoods or fictions involving unsubstantiated stories (pot smoking hippies who listened to rock music killed a hitchhiker and ate his heart or the Africans who recognized their demonic music in pop music and let's not forget playing records backwards for demonic messages). I learned quickly that I was not allowed to challenge these "experts" if I were to remain in fellowship with my brethren. Eventually their stuff fell out of favor but the effects still linger. (You may listen what was the foundational message of that movement by accessing "The Big Beat A Rock Blast" on YouTube)
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I remember as a kid watching some tapes of an evangelist who went on about violence and the occult in rock music. I didn't really have any way to verify any of the wild stories, but to a kid they were pretty fascinating.
But even if they were true, I'm not sure what relevance they would have to popular worship music today by people like the Gettys, Sovereign Grace, CityAlight, etc.
As an 8 year-old 47 years ago, I was first exposed to Fundamentalist Christian "so-called" experts and authorities on rock and pop music, beginning with the media presentations of Sketch Erickson who attempted to connect the dots of rock and pop music to the Occult and other sinful practices. What I found was alot of cherry-picked research (if you could call it research) built on logical fallacies, and twisted interpretations of scripture, blended with revivalism tactics. As a child, I've even participated in record and tape burnings.
Not to say there isn't a dark underbelly of evil that many rock and pop artists freely and willingly participate in. You can find plenty of evidence of this throughout its history. In a band that I used to play the keyboard for, our lead singer and bass player told me stories about his previous band in the late 80's early 90's that was part of the LA glamor rock scene for a spell right as the grunge genre exploded. It was downright sexual and wicked and many of the glamor rock bands used their music and fame to manipulate audiences and live out their hedonistic fantasies. However, you can find evidence of music artists and their sensuality throughout every genre of music (even classical).
Full Disclosure: I played the keyboard in a Christian rock band for 7 years in my late 20s and 30s and currently I participate in local rock music jam sessions as my hobby now that I'm fifty-five---and it has been very therapeutic for me.
I rarely engage the music conversation on SI because its old, tiring, and even kooky at times. As I mentioned before, no evidence and proof....only declarative statements and assumptions built on faulty logic and reasoning. But that's expected since that was what much of the cultural fundamentalism was like for me growing up in the 1970s and 1980s.
I rarely engage the music conversation on SI because its old, tiring, and even kooky at times. As I mentioned before, no evidence and proof....only declarative statements and assumptions built on faulty logic and reasoning.
The great tragedy is that through faulty presuppositions, assumptions, assertions, hermeneutics, logic, and reasoning, advocates of Christian use of rock music have explained away or denied what God has to say so that they have deprived themselves of the truth of God on the subject of what music is acceptable to Him for corporate worship.
The great tragedy is that through faulty presuppositions, assumptions, assertions, hermeneutics, logic, and reasoning, advocates of Christian use of rock music have explained away or denied what God has to say so that they have deprived themselves of the truth of God on the subject of what music is acceptable to Him for corporate worship
For several years you've been trying to prove this and all you've shown is that the Bible passages you offer are usually taken out of context to prove your cultural preferences. In the process you come across as having more in common with the 1st century Gnostics that Paul warns against in I Timothy 4:1-4, who were forbidding creation activities such as marriage and eating certain foods than Biblical Christianity. All of culture activities (including the creation of music) must begin with the premise that everything God created is good (including the basic elements of music-Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm). Everything. Marriage in itself is good. Food in itself is good. Music in itself is good. Of course the fall distorted and maimed God good creation and we see people misuse music for their own idolatry and wickedness. Yet those who minimize the the goodness of creation will often get sin and redemption wrong. As Walsh and Middleton have said “without an understanding of the Biblical view of creation our understanding of both sin and redemption will inevitably be distorted.”
For several years you've been trying to prove this and all you've shown is that the Bible passages you offer are usually taken out of context to prove your cultural preferences. In the process you come across as having more in common with the 1st century Gnostics that Paul warns against in I Timothy 4:1-4, who were forbidding creation activities such as marriage and eating certain foods than Biblical Christianity. All of culture activities (including the creation of music) must begin with the premise that everything God created is good (including the basic elements of music-Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm). Everything. Marriage in itself is good. Food in itself is good. Music in itself is good. Of course the fall distorted and maimed God good creation and we see people misuse music for their own idolatry and wickedness. Yet those who minimize the the goodness of creation will often get sin and redemption wrong. As Walsh and Middleton have said “without an understanding of the Biblical view of creation our understanding of both sin and redemption will inevitably be distorted.”
It's easy to claim that something that you disagree with is wrong because it is supposedly taken out of context. As I recall, you have hardly ever substantively interacted with my treatment of the Bible to prove such an assessment.
Music is not mentioned at all in 1 Timothy 4:1-4 or in its context. Your claiming, therefore, that passage applies to music is something that you have prove biblically. Merely asserting that it is so is not proof and would then be your taking something out of its context.
You further claim that melody, harmony, and rhythm are the basic elements of music as God created them. I look forward to your showing just exactly how the Bible teaches that these are the basic elements that God created. Merely asserting that they are so is not proof at all.
Furthermore, even if your claim about these three things being the basic elements of music is true, that does not prove anything about the divine acceptance of the use of all combinations of these so-called basic elements of music in corporate worship. I look forward to your detailed demonstration from Scripture that shows that all such combinations are acceptable to God for use in corporate worship. Mere assertion would not prove anything.
Discussion