"God Likes Music of All Kinds"
In his chapter God, My Heart, and Music in the book Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, Bob Kauflin writes,
Actually, it seems that God likes music of all kinds. No one style can sufficiently capture his glory or even begin to reflect the vastness of his wisdom, creativity, beauty, and order. That doesn't mean some kinds of music aren't more complex or beautiful than others. It just means no single genre of music is better than the rest in every way.
Tellingly, Kauflin offers no biblical support of his own for these statements.
I believe that wrong claims such as these (by Kauflin and others) about God and His supposedly liking "music of all kinds" is one of the chief reasons that we have the debacle that we have musically in the Church in our day.
- 1183 views
The Bible plainly teaches that supernatural, non-human spirit beings have languages that are not human languages. Your reasoning here is faulty because you seem to assert that all music only involves humans.
I agree that spirit beings have a language and they have music. The Bible doesn't tell us if this language has a name, but for the sake of this post, I'll call it "spirit-speak." I assume that humans would not be able to understand this language if they heard it, and I also recognize this is just an assumption since we don't have specific info in the Bible about it. I also don't think human voices would be able to duplicate the specific sounds of this language.
Now, what happened when the angels fell? Did the specific sounds of "angel-speak" change into something that sounded completely different when demons used it? Did the sounds get corrupted from what they had previously sounded like? The bible doesn't tell us the answer to that, does it?
So what about "spirit-music"? Just as I don't think humans can duplicate "spirit-speak," I also don't believe humans can duplicate "spirit-music" with our human instruments. Spirit-music began before any human instruments were even invented. You said, "Saying that Satan cannot corrupt entire "genres" of music begs the question that none of them are corrupt to begin with." So what was spirit-music like to begin with? At creation, both spirit-speak and spirit-music were perfect and were used to worship God. Now, what happened when angels fell? Did the sounds get corrupted from what they had previously sounded like? Just as the Bible does not tell us about the sounds of spirit language changing, it also does not tell us about the sounds of their music changing.
What kind of worship did Satan want? Satan wanted to be like the Most High God. It stands to reason, he would have wanted to be worshipped as God had been worshiped. Would Satan have accepted music that was inferior to what had been presented to God in worship? I don't think so. I admit I'm speculating, but it's also speculating to think that an entirely new "genre" was developed by demons for the worship of Satan.
There is no such thing in Scripture as "genre." It is a man-made concept into which some seek to invest meaning and necessary characteristics without any biblical evidence to support their positions.
Whether we use the word "kind" or "genre" or style," if you claim that demonic music has some "meaning" or "necessary characteristics," then by your own logic, you would need to present some biblical evidence to support that position.
What kind of worship did Satan want? Satan wanted to be like the Most High God. It stands to reason, he would have wanted to be worshipped as God had been worshiped. Would Satan have accepted music that was inferior to what had been presented to God in worship? I don't think so. I admit I'm speculating, but it's also speculating to think that an entirely new "genre" was developed by demons for the worship of Satan.
The Scripture shows that this reasoning is not correct. Satan and his demons do want worship, but because of their corrupted wisdom, they seek and accept worship that God hates and categorically rejects. Scripture reveals this truth in various ways, including the following:
1. God hates any worship that is directed to a physical object (for example, the sun, moon, idols, etc.). When evil humans worship idols and sacrifice to them, all their worship is hated by God and rejected by Him.
By stark contrast, the true recipient(s) of all such idolatrous worship are demons (1 Cor. 10:20), which shows that they want and accept worship that God hates and rejects:
1 Corinthians 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
2. Moreover, idolaters in their worship have offered as sacrifices to demons things that God detests and rejects (for example, "swine's blood" [Is. 66:3]).
3. In addition, idolaters have offered worship on unacceptable altars (Is. 65:3; etc.) on which God never accepted any worship.
These three points and other biblical revelation show decisively that it simply is not true that Satan and his demons "want to be worshipped as God had been worshiped."
Rajesh, your inability to see the point and relevance of the field/landmine analogy is why you never get anywhere with these discussions.
The field (like music) is commanded and commended. And yet in neither case is there a warning about dangerous parts of the field (or genres of music).
Not only are no styles specifically warned as dangerous, no indication is given in Scripture that dangerous or evil styles exist. Yet music is commanded. There are no landmines, or God would have warned us.
Rajesh, your inability to see the point and relevance of the field/landmine analogy is why you never get anywhere with these discussions.
No, I knew all along what you were trying to get at with your analogy. I rejected the validity of your analogy because it is faulty and does not correspond to what is true.
The field (like music) is commanded and commended. And yet in neither case is there a warning about dangerous parts of the field (or genres of music).
Not only are no styles specifically warned as dangerous, no indication is given in Scripture that dangerous or evil styles exist. Yet music is commanded. There are no landmines, or God would have warned us.
This is patently false. Scripture has passages where God judged people's music. You and others explain those passages away by saying, "Of course, God's judgment on them had nothing to do with the music itself . . ."
With circular reasoning, you and others beg key questions by saying the problem was never with the music in any such accounts and then turn around and claim that there are no passages that show that there were problems with the music.
Rajesh, your inability to see the point and relevance of the field/landmine analogy is why you never get anywhere with these discussions.
FWIW, I don't get what you are saying at all. Your parable is meaningless as far as I am concerned.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Rajesh: Scripture has passages where God judged people's music.
Well, that is what you should be quoting. (But they don't exist.)
You and others explain those passages away by saying, "Of course, God's judgment on them had nothing to do with the music itself . . ."
It is not explaining them away. If there are passages in which the objectionable feature of a sinful expression is the musical style, I'm not aware of them.
Saying that there are kinds of music that God doesn't like without providing an example we can hear of such music is like posting a sign that says "Landmines" in front of a field with none.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Saying that there are kinds of music that God doesn't like without providing an example we can hear of such music is like posting a sign that says "Landmines" in front of a field with none.
Ron, are you saying that unless Scripture specifically prohibits a cultural practice (that didn't exist when the Bible was written) that we have no guidance at all???
Suppose we try that with marijuana and the like? The Bible doesn't specifically say don't do drugs. Is it fair game?
(Let's not get off on a discussion of drugs, this is for illustration purposes only.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I just want to hear an example of music that God doesn't like.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
It’s a reasonable comparison, Don. I don’t think any of us would condone marijuana, but the Bible doesn’t address it specifically. But I actually think this goes more towards proving my point than countering it.
The Bible does understand that there is something we can ingest that inebriates us. And it prohibits drunkenness and warns that at certain times alcohol must be totally avoided. So unlike the field, God didn’t give us all an entire category of edible things without any warnings about the existence sinful options within the category.
Alcohol was allowed for medical purposes. But drunkenness and enslavement and are both warned against as sinful. It’s pretty easy to take principles from that and believe that all of God’s creation is acceptable but not drunkenness or enslavement.
With music, the category is commanded, but warnings, real or theoretical, are foreign to Scripture.
You have to deal with the arguments that people make for/against music using Biblical principles if the Bible doesn't directly address it. To demand something that isn't there isn't really an argument, it's kind of a "gotcha" propaganda device.
We make applications of the Scriptures often where the Bible doesn't directly address a contemporary subject.
You can't limit it to only those areas where it suits your preferences.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I've discussed multiple passages in my many threads on SI concerning music. In each case, the insistence has been made that whatever problems there were with the music in the account, it was never the music itself. "The only possible problem with music can be is its use for wrong ends, but all the music itself is always pure as snow and holy as God is." How do we know that is true? Because music is amoral. How do we know that music is amoral? Because the Bible never says that it isn't.
Round and round and round we go . . .
When question-begging assertions about the supposed inherent divine acceptance of all kinds of music are rejected, Amos 6 is rightly seen as a passage that plainly testifies to unacceptable kinds of music:
[Clarification: I am not the author of these remarks that I have quoted here.]
When question-begging assertions about the supposed inherent divine acceptance of all kinds of music are rejected, Amos 6 is rightly seen as a passage that plainly testifies to unacceptable kinds of music:
Let's look at the passage in context
4 “Woe to those who lie on beds of ivory
and stretch themselves out on their couches,
and eat lambs from the flock
and calves from the midst of the stall,
5 who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp
and like David invent for themselves instruments of music,
6 who drink wine in bowls
and anoint themselves with the finest oils,
but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph!
7 Therefore they shall now be the first of those who go into exile,
and the revelry of those who stretch themselves out shall pass away.
Using Rajesh's logic, we should not sleep on beds, we should get rid of our couches, stop eating lambchops and filet mignon, not "sing idle songs," (btw, this is a hapax, and the meaning is uncertain), and not invent new musical instruments, etc.
Is that really the point the author is trying to make? No. God is addressing the self-satisfied rich, who believe they are secure in their affluence while continuing to disobey God. The descriptions given in verses 4-7 are not meant to be prohibitions (e.g. note 5b, David himself invented new musical instruments. Ergo, inventing new musical instruments is not being prohibited), but demonstrations of their complacent lifestyles and attitudes.
Rajesh, you must handle God's Word better than this.
Yes, Don. I agree that Scripture must be applied.
You have to deal with the arguments that people make for/against music using Biblical principles if the Bible doesn't directly address it. To demand something that isn't there isn't really an argument, it's kind of a "gotcha" propaganda device.
We make applications of the Scriptures often where the Bible doesn't directly address a contemporary subject.
You can't limit it to only those areas where it suits your preferences.
I do think you want to tone this down somewhat. Sufficiency of Scripture is a good and necessary doctrine.
>>We make applications of the Scriptures often where the Bible doesn’t directly address a contemporary subject.<<
Of course we do. As already noted in this thread, I do so myself in regard to music. However, I don’t have scriptural proof that my music applications are universal and would apply to everyone, and in fact, I’m sure that some of them are due to my own upbringing, cultural background, etc. My authority to enforce those applications doesn’t go beyond the sphere of my authority, which is the family, and now that my children are grown and married, just myself and my wife.
The Pharisees in the NT also made some applications, like about eating with unwashed utensils or hands. I personally think that with the OT rules on what is clean and unclean, their application was perfectly reasonable given an agrarian society where insects could land and feast on animal droppings, and then land on cups, pots, or hands of the people, for example. However, Jesus taught that making a tradition into doctrine and expecting others to keep it was unacceptable. (Traditions can easily come when an application lasts long enough and is taught to children, etc.)
All of us should make applications for ourselves from what scripture says. That doesn’t give us the right to declare those applications to have scriptural weight and authority.
Dave Barnhart
Just getting tired of the constant demands “show me a verse”
It isn’t anything goes
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Just getting tired of the constant demands “show me a verse”
It isn’t anything goes
I’m just getting tired of the endless threads about music and the insistence that certain types of music are prohibited, but no actual Scriptural passages or principles (rightly derived) are produced to support said prohibition.
The only thing I think we all can agree on after the many, many words written about music is that human skull drums shouldn’t be used in church.
🤨
Rajesh, you must handle God's Word better than this.
I strongly disagree with you.
First of all, the comments that I cited in my post are not mine. They are a quote from a Biblical Viewpoint article written by Dr. Jaeggli who was for many years a member of the OT Seminary Faculty at BJU. He has his PhD in OT, taught many Hebrew exegesis classes in the Seminary, and is a published author. I am quite confident that he knows how to do Hebrew exegesis at least as well as you do.
(I have added a clarifying remark to that earlier post to say that they are not my remarks.)
Second, given your later remarks, I find it puzzling that you consistently continue to interject yourself into threads that you say that you are so tired of . . .
Third, when I have more time later (I am on my lunch break from work), I will address your other remarks.
First of all, the comments that I cited in my post are not mine. They are a quote from a Biblical Viewpoint article written by Dr. Jaeggli who was for many years a member of the OT Seminary Faculty at BJU. He has his PhD in OT, taught many Hebrew exegesis classes in the Seminary, and is a published author. I am quite confident that he knows how to do Hebrew exegesis at least as well as you do.
I think T's interpretation is obviously correct, for these reasons:
- Amos lists several things that the wealthy are doing. Most of which are clearly not sinful.
- Amos ends the list with "But they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph."
Clearly Amos is most upset with their failure, in spite of their wealth, to treat their workers fairly. The music on instruments like David expresses their personal wealth. "You have music like a king, but you don't pay your workers!"
First of all, the comments that I cited in my post are not mine. They are a quote from a Biblical Viewpoint article written by Dr. Jaeggli who was for many years a member of the OT Seminary Faculty at BJU. He has his PhD in OT, taught many Hebrew exegesis classes in the Seminary, and is a published author. I am quite confident that he knows how to do Hebrew exegesis at least as well as you do.
Appeals to authority have limited value. When you actually study the passage in context, it is clear he is over-interpreting the hapax, and his conclusion---Music that is undisciplined in its composition and performance appeals to the sensual person of any age---is a non sequitur.
(I have added a clarifying remark to that earlier post to say that they are not my remarks.)
That's fine, but you used Dr. Jaeggli's remarks to support your premise that Amos 6 teaches us what kind of music is unacceptable to God. That is not what Amos 6 teaches.
So, what other passages give us principles to follow to determine the style of music that is unacceptable to God? (And, I agree that human skull drums are unacceptable, so please let's not revisit that rabbit trail.)
You do not provide any basis for your insistence that entire categories (and not just individual instances) of things cannot be unacceptable to God. Why do you believe that?
Rajesh, I did not say that it is impossible for a genre (or style or type, whatever term you prefer) is unacceptable to God. What I said is that you cannot claim that God hates an entire genre of music categorically without evidence that every song making up that particular genre is offensive to God.
As Aaron amply demonstrated, even trying to define a kind is difficult, and specifying which songs make up that kind is near impossible. It would be different if God's word gave us specific categories and examples or identifiable characteristics, but it simply does not.
Why is it that I have to demonstrate how and why entire categories have to be rejected when the Bible has categorical prohibitions that do not provide definitions, details, specifics, etc.?
Because you are making claims that are more precise than the prohibitions recorded in Scripture. How else are we to know if a particular song/kind is appropriate or offensive unless there is some definable metric beside the presence or absence of human skull drums?
[Rajesh]These three points and other biblical revelation show decisively that it simply is not true that Satan and his demons "want to be worshipped as God had been worshiped."
Your three points had to do with humans worshipping demons. The point I was making dealt with demons themselves worshipping Satan. I don't think demons were offering swine's blood to Satan. I could be wrong, but I admitted in my post that I was speculating since we don't have a description of the initial instances of demons worshipping Satan. I have no problem with saying the demons would have added all kinds of worship elements over time, but we simply don't know the time frames of when other things were added, since the Bible doesn't tell us. Also, the fact that things got added does not "show decisively" that their worship left out the kinds of worship that had previously been given to God. I can understand Satan wanting more types of worship than what God received, but it doesn't seem reasonable to think that he would have wanted less.
[T Howard]Using Rajesh's logic, we should not sleep on beds, we should get rid of our couches, stop eating lambchops and filet mignon, not "sing idle songs," (btw, this is a hapax, and the meaning is uncertain), and not invent new musical instruments, etc.
When I looked up Amos 6, the first version google gave me was the NIV. In that version Amos 6:5 reads, "You strum away on your harps like David and improvise on musical instruments." If there is any verse in the Bible that comes close to mentioning a specific "style" of music, it would be this verse here in the NIV. I'd be very surprised if David's style of harp music was inherently displeasing to God.
Your three points had to do with humans worshipping demons. The point I was making dealt with demons themselves worshipping Satan. I don't think demons were offering swine's blood to Satan. I could be wrong, but I admitted in my post that I was speculating since we don't have a description of the initial instances of demons worshipping Satan. I have no problem with saying the demons would have added all kinds of worship elements over time, but we simply don't know the time frames of when other things were added, since the Bible doesn't tell us. Also, the fact that things got added does not "show decisively" that their worship left out the kinds of worship that had previously been given to God. I can understand Satan wanting more types of worship than what God received, but it doesn't seem reasonable to think that he would have wanted less.
The Bible does not say anything about their even being any "initial instances of demons worshipping Satan" or any subsequent ones.
What the Bible does show is that wicked people who engage in demonic worship abominate offering things that are pleasing to God:
Exodus 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?
Furthermore, Scripture explicitly reveals that a wicked occultist was an enemy of all righteousness (Acts 13:10). Such people choose to do what they know is displeasing to God when they can, including offering what they know is not acceptable to God.
Rajesh, I did not say that it is impossible for a genre (or style or type, whatever term you prefer) is unacceptable to God. What I said is that you cannot claim that God hates an entire genre of music categorically without evidence that every song making up that particular genre is offensive to God.
Really? How do you know that this is true? Who says that this is true?
God can and has declared that He condemns entire "genres" of occult practices without giving any "evidence" or specifics or details about every aspect of those practices to show how every aspect of those practices are displeasing to Him. In fact, God does not provide any information about what those practices entailed, and yet He categorically condemns them.
Because you are making claims that are more precise than the prohibitions recorded in Scripture. How else are we to know if a particular song/kind is appropriate or offensive unless there is some definable metric beside the presence or absence of human skull drums?
No, I am not doing what you say here. God puts entire realms of wicked human activities categorically off-limits to His people without specifying anything about those activities. You and others want to say that the music of those prohibited activities is exempt from those categorical prohibitions. You have to prove that biblically.
So, what other passages give us principles to follow to determine the style of music that is unacceptable to God? (And, I agree that human skull drums are unacceptable, so please let's not revisit that rabbit trail.)
You say that you agree that human skull drums are unacceptable. It is good that you accept that is true.
In the same way, there is no biblical basis to say that there are not any kinds of instrumental music that are for similar reasons unacceptable to God. What Kauflin and others who hold similar positions say along the lines of God's liking all kinds of music is biblically indefensible.
C. F. Keil comments on verse 5,
They lie stretched, as it were poured out . . . upon beds inlaid with ivory, to feast and fill their belly with the flesh of the best lambs and fattened calves, to the playing of harps and singing, in which they take such pleasure, that they invent new kinds of playing and singing. . . . Consequently the meaning of ver. 5 is the following: As David invented stringed instruments in honour of his God in heaven, so do these princes invent playing and singing for their god, the belly. (The Minor Prophets in KD, 10:299-300)
D. R. Sunukjian remarks on 6:4-8,
6:4-6. Rather than heed the prophet’s warning of judgment, the leaders of Samaria instead gave themselves to a decadent hedonism. They reclined on expensive beds whose wood was inlaid with ivory (cf. 3:15). At their opulent feasts, they “lounged” on their couches. The Hebrew word for lounge . . . conveys a sprawled stupor of satiation and drunkenness, with arms and legs hanging over the side. They ate gourmet food—choice lambs and fatted calves—the tastiest and tenderest meat they could get. In their drunken revelry they imagined themselves strumming like David as they attempted to improvise music at their parties. Yet they were vastly different from David! Not content to drink wine from goblets, they consumed it by the bowlful. Only the finest lotions would do for their skin.
Their sole concern was for their own luxurious lifestyle. They did not grieve over the coming ruin of Joseph, the Northern Kingdom (cf. 5:6, 15). They had no concern for their nation’s impending doom.
6:7. Therefore they, the first men of the first nation (v. 1), would be among the first to go to exile. Their festivities and drunken stupors would end. The sound of revelry would fade into bitter silence as they headed into captivity. (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 1443; bold in original)
People who engage in "drunken revelry" are not people who are controlled by the Spirit. Such people who play musical instruments play them in ways that are not the fruit of the Spirit and the work of His filling people to originate kinds of music that please God.
People who engage in "drunken revelry" are not people who are controlled by the Spirit. Such people who play musical instruments [necessarily] play them in ways that are not the fruit of the Spirit and the work of His filling people to originate kinds of music that please God.
I think you need that for your logic to work.
People who engage in "drunken revelry" are not people who are controlled by the Spirit. Such people who play musical instruments [necessarily] play them in ways that are not the fruit of the Spirit and the work of His filling people to originate kinds of music that please God.
I think you need that for your logic to work.
Ephesians 5:18 directly establishes that fact:
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
A drunken person is not and cannot be filled by the Spirit.
In addition, anyone who is drunken does not have control of his faculties; such a person cannot and will not have the fruit of the Spirit in his life or actions, including temperance = self-control:
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Those who would please God must be temperate in all things:
1 Corinthians 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
Musical instruments played by people who are drunkenly out-of-control produce music that is unacceptable to God. People who are drunken cannot do anything or originate anything that is acceptable to God, including inventing new musical instruments or improvising on any musical instruments.
You and others want to say that the music of those prohibited activities is exempt from those categorical prohibitions. You have to prove that biblically.
This is silly. No one here is saying that anything goes or there is nothing off-limits. The fact that we agree that there are things that are beyond the pale, does not mean we can be dogmatic about any one thing without explicit biblical warrant.
We dare not prohibit categorically what God has not prohibited. If you or anyone thinks a kind of music ought to be prohibited, then it is you who must give biblical evidence with which to bind another person's conscience.
Discussion