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.)
- 5671 views
When I say that God created music, what I mean is that God gave his image-bearers the creative capacity as part of their image mandate to develop this aspect of culture (Cultural Mandate in Gen. 1 & 2) Its part of God's good creation, orchestrated by God himself as a gift to humanity to put sounds together (melodies, harmonies, and rhythm) because they are made in God's image and can't help but image God this way.
Of course music isn't mentioned in I Timothy 4:1-5. It doesn't need to. Everything means everything (much more intended than only food and marriage).
I don't plan on getting drawn into any more of your frivolous and petty debates on music, especially since we are just recycling the same debate points.
Of course music isn't mentioned in I Timothy 4:1-5. It doesn't need to. Everything means everything (much more intended than only food and marriage).
If this reasoning is sound, the same applies to passages that have universal "negative" applications but do not mention music . . . What's more, using 1 Tim. 4:1-5 to defend Christian use of rock music in corporate worship is flawed for many more reasons . . .
I don't plan on getting drawn into any more of your frivolous and petty debates on music, especially since we are just recycling the same debate points.
Using pejorative remarks ("frivolous," "petty") is an easy way to not have to provide substantive, detailed treatment of Scripture in defense of one's positions.
I Samuel 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
To some this verse proved that there is music (sans words) that Satan doesn't like. It also proved that music (sans words) affects people emotionally, physically, and spiritually. To some it also proved that the spirit of the performer affects the spirit of the hearer.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
...we are confronted by the fact that in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10, believers are permitted to eat meats that everybody knew had been sacrificed to false Greco-Roman "gods". So I am at a loss to explain why it would be acceptable to do this, but not to use musical genre, methods, and instruments that superficially resemble those hypothetically used by pagan Africans. It's OK to use something that's actually been sacrificed in the pagan temples, but not OK to use something that only superficially resembles the same? Really?
It seems (especially the 1 Corinthians 10 passage) that the overall approach of Paul is not to declare anything connected with idolatry to be permanently tainted, but rather to encourage God's people to use God's bounty for His glory while denying any power of the idols. I think that's a reasonable approach to music as well. As I've noted many, many times before in these threads with Rajesh, if we eliminate everything associated with idolatry, we've got nothing.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
To some this verse proved that there is music (sans words) that Satan doesn’t like. It also proved that music (sans words) affects people emotionally, physically, and spiritually. To some it also proved that the spirit of the performer affects the spirit of the hearer.
It’s a good example of the kinds of ambiguities are inherent in narrative details. We are often told “This happened. Then that happened,” without explanations of whether the sequence was causation, or how the causation worked if there was any, etc.
Often things that happen after are not caused by what came before. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc.)
Always, context is key, and in this case there is clear evidence of a causal relationship between David’s music and Saul’s experience.
What we’re not told is why it worked or what in particular about it worked.
We are not told there were no words. We are told David played, but unless I’m remembering wrong (haven’t reread that recently), we are not told “he did not sing.”
So maybe it really was the lyrics.
Or maybe any music at all would have had that result.
Maybe that particular demon just doesn’t like music at all.
Maybe it was the instrument, but again, an instrument all evil spirits dislike or just that spirit? (Do we have evidence that they are not all the same in every way?)
Maybe the music changed Saul’s mood and the mood change drove the spirit away?
There are so many possibilities.
So I’ll quote myself: We should hold to our views with appropriate levels of uncertainty.
It’s OK to use something that’s actually been sacrificed in the pagan temples, but not OK to use something that only superficially resembles the same? Really?
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.
To some this verse proved that there is music (sans words) that Satan doesn’t like. It also proved that music (sans words) affects people emotionally, physically, and spiritually. To some it also proved that the spirit of the performer affects the spirit of the hearer.
It’s a good example of the kinds of ambiguities are inherent in narrative details. We are often told “This happened. Then that happened,” without explanations of whether the sequence was causation, or how the causation worked if there was any, etc.
Often things that happen after are not caused by what came before. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc.)
Always, context is key, and in this case there is clear evidence of a causal relationship between David’s music and Saul’s experience.
What we’re not told is why it worked or what in particular about it worked.
We are not told there were no words. We are told David played, but unless I’m remembering wrong (haven’t reread that recently), we are not told “he did not sing.”
So maybe it really was the lyrics.
Or maybe any music at all would have had that result.
No, the text is not full of "ambiguities." The text is very clear that David's skillful playing of the harp was what was in focus in the entire event.
1 Samuel 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well. 17 And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. 18 Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him. 19 Wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son, which is with the sheep. . . . 23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
The passage speaks 5x (either explicitly or implicitly) about the playing of a harp. No mention is made of singing. That does not prove that he did not sing, but it certainly shows that any singing that he did was not what brought about the effects stated in 1 Sam. 16:23.
Suggesting that the same effect might have happened with some other kind of music has zero basis in Scripture and is pure speculation. David's skillful playing of harp music is explicitly in focus in the entire account.
It’s OK to use something that’s actually been sacrificed in the pagan temples, but not OK to use something that only superficially resembles the same? Really?
Seems like a solid argument to me. And one Paul uses frequently: the argument from greater to lesser. If this bigger thing is possible/given/permitted, etc. then this smaller thing certainly is. Or to put it another way, if these larger barriers to [whatever] have been overcome, then smaller barriers are surely also overcome.
Using passages about the eating as food of things offered to idols to make claims about instrumental music that is used in worship is flawed for many reasons.
I. The foods that are in view as being eaten after they had been offered to idols were (1) "divinely created," (2) "divinely declared to be good," (3) "divinely authorized for a specific purpose," and (4) "divinely commended for Christian use."
There is zero evidence in Scripture that any of these four points are true of any occult musical "genres," "styles," etc.
II. God has never commended the subsequent use in worship of anything that has been previously offered to idols.
III. There is no evidence in Romans 14 that Paul has in view foods that were offered to idols.
IV. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes between idolatry and the occult.
Discussion