How does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?

Until this thread began, I always thought Exodus 32 chronicled the Israelite’s tragic idolatry at Sinai, and their defection from Yahweh’s claims to exclusive worship. Now, I know better. I now know what Exodus 32 is really about …

It’s helpful if it corrected some longheld view that were wrong.

If you think it is about exclusive worship then you have to answer questions from the text that I mentioned above about why it is a feast to YHWH (not another god), why it is about the God who led them out of Egypt (which is YHWH, not another god), and why the commandment specified as being broken is the 2nd commandment about images and not the 1st commandment about exclusive worship. These are the explicit things the text says. So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the text about other gods is there? Can you show anything that is a reference to other gods?

Do you have any answers to those?

But let’s assume you are right (which is possible though unlikely unless you can use the text to answer these questions), that still leaves the questions I asked about vv. 18-19. Do you have any answers to those questions?

[Larry]

We should just let the older men do all the leading … Why are we fooling around with younger leaders who may not be as godly?

The questions should be answered, but to discount the old guys because some didn’t answer or some gave answers that weren’t popular isn’t necessarily a feather in one’s cap. It may speak to an arrogance of heart that refuses to hear. It may speak to a lack of historical knowledge and perspective that comes with the hoary heads. It may not, but again, the biblical emphasis on elders and the wisdom of age must not be discounted.

[…]

But if the NT declares that spiritual leadership is supposed to be “elders” then we should be very cautious before we reject that.

I mostly agree with what you say about elders, except to note that what most of us are discounting is not “answers we don’t like,” or “answers that weren’t popular,” and we are not discounting that the elders among us might have more experience or understanding. What we discount are answers that can’t be (or simply aren’t) explained. Note, I’m not saying answers that might require more technical background, but answers which end up being equivalent to “I understand more than you,” or “because I said so,” or “you can’t understand if I told you,” or “I just know.” If all an elder has is a “hunch,” if I respect his discernment it might be worth listening to him explain why he has that hunch, but that doesn’t necessarily give his advice much weight, let alone the weight of facts or scripture.

As Ron said in a post earlier, the elder can’t just turn around his argument to say that because he has a hunch, it’s now required of those listening to prove why his hunch isn’t so or to then admit he must be right.

So far….no answers.

But surely you don’t judge everyone on the basis of the response of one person on SI would you? Or even on the response of the people you asked over the years? Does the fact that no one gave a satisfactory answer to you mean that there are no answers? And does the lack of specificity of answers or the idea that someone might answer them differently mean that there is nothing to consider?

The most common answer was that it was “worldly” to which my inquiring mind asked “What does worldly mean?”

Again, the lack of answers doesn’t mean that there aren’t any, right? And surely we can agree that there was a lot of stupidity masquerading as obedience can’t we?

BTW, I would define “worldly” as fallen values expressed in culture. I think the problem is that a great many people (as evidenced here) are entirely unable to even engage the question. They don’t even know it exists. I find that as much of a problem as anything.

Tyler presented some simple questions: In light of your understanding of Exodus 32 …

In light of my understanding of Exod 32, I am not sure I would answer any of those questions. I think what we can say from the text is that there was a sound of singing that worked for celebration and dancing that was distinguishable from war, triumph, and defeat. So I am curious: how would you answer those questions I asked earlier?

I provided a brief walk through Exodus 32, earlier in the thread. My remarks there will have to speak for themselves.

[TylerR]

I provided a brief walk through Exodus 32, earlier in the thread. My remarks there will have to speak for themselves.

For instance, you say that v. 1 “They sought replacements (plural) for Yahweh as soon as they believed Moses was delayed.” The plural you reference is elohim, which is grammatically plural. However, in over 2200 of the over 2500 times it is used, it is used for YHWH (using Logos search). It is widely recognized to be a reference to the singular God. There are various explanations as to why it is plural, but most often (overwhelmingly) it is a reference to the one true and living God. At best, that verse is inconclusive, bu

In context, that request of v. 1 is answered by an image that is said to be the God who led them out of Egypt, YHWH to whom they were having a feast. This seems to confirm the point that this is not polytheistic. I don’t know of any case to be made that they believed that the God who led them out of Egypt was any one other than YHWH. I could entertain an argument for that, but it would have to be made. It seems more likely that Moses was God’s representative and in his prolonged absence, they felt lost. I wonder how Aaron felt that he wasn’t the next in line in their mind, but that’s another issue.

Lastly, the very words of YHWH himself identify the sin as the making of an image. In other words, YHWH seems to clearly say this is a 2nd commandment violation not a 1st commandment violation. He doesn’t condemn them for worshipping other gods, but for worshipping the God who led them out of Egypt by means of a molten calf (NASB).

So I think your position suffers in this respect. It doesn’t deal with the context.

In addition, I noticed that you didn’t address the very question at hand, namely, the sounds and how they were identified and what they signified. That would seem to be a pretty significant piece of this particular discussion.

Let’s get down to brass tacks - how does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20? I say he doesn’t want us to worship a golden calf. I’m not aware of any implications for music.

how does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20? I say he doesn’t want us to worship a golden calf.

But how is that profitable for us today (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17)? Are there a lot of Christians out there emptying their jewelry box so their pastor can build a golden calf? Is that a big deal in your church? How would you apply this to today’s world?

I’m not aware of any implications for music.

So what is your take on vv. 17-18 and the various distinct sounds there? How would you teach those verses as a part of this text while showing its profitability for today (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17)? Or would you just skip those verses?

It seems to me that part of hte problem is the people’s unwillingness to trust an unseen God though his works surround them. Their solution was not another god, but a form of God, and a form of worship that conveyed their hearts desire while it betrayed their commitment to the Law.

I mostly agree with what you say about elders, except to note that what most of us are discounting is not “answers we don’t like,” or “answers that weren’t popular,” and we are not discounting that the elders among us might have more experience or understanding. What we discount are answers that can’t be (or simply aren’t) explained. Note, I’m not saying answers that might require more technical background, but answers which end up being equivalent to “I understand more than you,” or “because I said so,” or “you can’t understand if I told you,” or “I just know.” If all an elder has is a “hunch,” if I respect his discernment it might be worth listening to him explain why he has that hunch, but that doesn’t necessarily give his advice much weight, let alone the weight of facts or scripture.

As Ron said in a post earlier, the elder can’t just turn around his argument to say that because he has a hunch, it’s now required of those listening to prove why his hunch isn’t so or to then admit he must be right.

^That

I’m not an elder in my local church, but I’ve been around enough, both on SI and IRL, to know when elders are actually leading and shepherding and warning for legitimate reasons. I understand that and do it myself with some of my younger friends and associates. By no means am I attacking the Biblical principles of elders.

What I AM saying is that:

1. If Rajesh wants to build a structure of elder lead worship, I’m OK with that, but he needs to be consistent across the board with it. I don’t think he’s singling that area out alone for elder leadership, but I do think he’s not being consistent. I may be mistaken.
   
2. I am absolutely opposed - as many others also are - to human authoritarianism of any kind. Maybe it’s because I’m the first generation fundamentalist in my family and maybe it’s an independent streak and maybe it’s because I’ve been burned by bad leaders on several occasions. It’s probably all of those and more…I don’t know for sure. But when the teaching is “because I say so”, that’s not good enough, and “because I say so” is not the same as “Scripture says”. It’s never driven me to a fuller understanding of Scripture and it generally (as others have said) invites more questions, some of which can be answered and some of which cannot. I reject Rajesh’s teaching because it is a misapplication and misappropriation of the text. He disagrees, but it seems like my view is by far the large majority on this board and agrees with commentaries I’ve cited…the debate about ‘god’ or ‘gods’ notwithstanding.
   
3. Whatever we may land at with music, I completely reject the idea that someone must be trained as a musician (or in seminary, or whatever) to have the calling and skills necessary to discern between good and evil, right and wrong. The Scripture is our guide for that. Other believers can be helpful as well. But that, and that alone, is the rulebook. Period. Full stop.

The point of the GCI (to borrow from Rajesh) is to illustrate how easily corruptible men are, even men who were brought out of Egypt with a powerful hand. The calf illustrates how quickly our hearts are to turn from God (see 32:1. 32:22-24).

The calf is almost irrelevant. The story is the Israelites’ rejection of YHWH who saved them from Egypt in chapter 14 and who had made a covenant with them barely ten chapters before.

That’s my $.02.

[RajeshG]

If it was a song speaking about pagan deities and lauding them for delivering the Israelites out of Egypt, that would be a blasphemous song that would not be a good song to begin with, period. I do not see any way to suggest that the lyrics of such songs could be that of “an otherwise good song.”

So you’re saying that the fact that the Mormons sing our great hymns of the faith to their false god/gods means that none of those hymns are really good or can be used by true Christians? After all, according to you those songs are “blasphemous song[s] that would not be … good song[s] to begin with, period.”

If you are planning to tell me that the Mormons are actually just worshipping the true God, but falsely (so those songs can actually be OK), that’s what I would argue the Israelites were doing in Exodus 32. After all, Aaron did declare a feast to the LORD.

In light of your understanding of Exodus 32, pretend you’re preaching a sermon and tell us, in concrete detail without abstractions:

• What the singing was
• Why it was sinful
• What we should do to avoid making the same mistake
• What holy and acceptable music is and what it looks like

HT: Tyler

School us?

But I already answered that question above.

Here’s the bigger question: Why does no one want to talk about what the text actually says?

Let’s get down to brass tacks - how does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?

Let’s get down to brass tacks - how does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?

First, this question is secondary. We haven’t yet decided what the passage even means because you nor anyone else have answered certain questions yet.

But as I said above in answer to this question, it seems to me that part of hte problem is the people’s unwillingness to trust an unseen God though his works surround them. Their solution was not another god, but a form of God, and a form of worship that conveyed their hearts desire while it betrayed their commitment to the Law.

If you want to hear it preached you can here Exodus 32:1-15 and Exodus 32:15-35.

God expects his people to worship him as he says we should worship and not to worship him in some other way as we see fit. We are not permitted to make up our own means of worship, even if we don’t like what God is doing.

Now, it’s your turn to answer the questions I have asked: What is your take on vv. 17-18 and the various distinct sounds there? How would you teach those verses as a part of this text while showing its profitability for today (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17)? Or would you just skip those verses?

I asked:

Let’s get down to brass tacks - how does God want Christians to profit concerning worship from Exodus 32:17-20?

You answered:

God expects his people to worship him as he says we should worship and not to worship him in some other way as we see fit. We are not permitted to make up our own means of worship, even if we don’t like what God is doing.

I agree. Discussion over!

I agree. Discussion over!

How is the discussion over? Vv. 17-18 are part of the worship and part of the questions. Are you one of those that Ron mentioned who like to pontificate but not answer questions? (I jest, but only slightly.) Surely you see the need to address the verses in some fashion don’t you? Your “exposition” seemed to skip right over them.

I see no practical relevance for the passage to worship, beyond the generic statement you made.

When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a noise of war in the camp.” 18 But he said, “It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear.”

This is what I see from the passage:

• I don’t know what the noise of war is. It’s evidently a really loud noise, and Joshua is confused initially. Moses has to straighten him out.
• It’s actually the sound of singing.

What do we glean from this? I have no idea! I honestly want someone to tell me. I truly don’t see what you want from these verses. If you can tell me what the singing was (beyond the fact is was loud), then we can get somewhere.

I beg, implore, beseech, plead and grovel for you to tell me what practical, concrete implications you draw for worship from Exodus 32, based on your study so far. Please tell me. I’m not trying to be rude - I just have no idea what you’re thinking.

[RajeshG]

Any songs that speak explicitly about false deities are songs with blasphemous lyrics.

There is no comparison with such actions and what the Mormons do when they sing good songs that do not name any false gods in the lyrics themselves.

Does that make sense?

Yes, that’s the obvious case. But we don’t know that that is what was happening in Exodus 32.

I’m saying I have no idea what the lyrics were in Exodus 32. If they were singing to the LORD (as Aaron called a feast to the LORD) but through the golden calf, then their worship was false, and even if the lyrics and music were otherwise good, it was still an idolatrous act. But again, we don’t have any idea what or exactly how the people were singing, other than Joshua being confused by what he heard.

The same applies if, as I posted before, I call any idol “God” and then sing one of our hymns which mentions “God” to that idol. Whether or not the idol is a representation of the true God (wrong because it’s a graven image) or a false god (against the 1st commandment), the act is wrong, no matter the style, lyrics, or instrumentation of the music.

So again, we have no idea if the music in Exodus 32 was a problem. Moses would have been angry at any false worship, whether the music was bad or good. If you believe the music itself was wrong, you’re going to have to give more evidence than that music being used in the golden calf worship, or that it sounded to Joshua like a battle.

The practical implications of Exodus 32 for worship are (insert concrete implication[s] here) …

Ok. Got it.

There is no possibility that this verse can be handled properly if you say that Moses only became angry at seeing the calf and that the dancing was not a problem.

If the dancing is a problem, then why do you keep talking about the music?

Please take the four or five questions that have been repeatedly raised and apply them to the dancing:

• What the dancing was
• Why it was sinful
• What we should do to avoid making the same mistake
• What holy and acceptable dancing is and what it looks like

I cannot support properly at this time what I see as the practical, concrete implications of this passage for worship because the passage has not been fully treated.

Horsefeathers. We’re on five/six pages of discussing this thread and I think we’ve hashed through everything outside of the color of Aaron’s beard. And if your answer is that we have to exegete this passage enough to write a dissertation on, then I’d argue even more strongly that this isn’t a serious conversation.

Any believer coming through this passage ought to be able, with a little bit of study, discern the practical implications for worship without consulting other resources. That’s what we mean when we talk about the perspicuity of Scripture. God doesn’t take principles of worship and hide them from us within OT narrative like some sort of bizarre shell game.

A little bit of study of a passage that is 35 verses long and an incident that 5 other books of the Bible speak about and is cited by a NT apostle in vital teaching to NT believers?

1 Corinthians 10:7 is pretty clear…do not be idolaters. The discussion on “eating”, “drinking”, and “playing” is subordinate to that first clause. You have even cited the appropriate verses yourself earlier in the thread here.

By the way, what are the ramifications for eating and drinking, while we are on that subject?

It’s not hard, Rajesh, and it’s not something that requires years of study and effort to understand. You are adding something to this narrative that even Paul didn’t by focusing so heavily on a tree in the proverbial forest. While God does give teachers for instruction, He doesn’t give them the right to distort what He originally says in the first place.

Perspicuity of Scripture. It’s a wonderful concept.

How does God want Christians to profit concerning unleavened bread from Mark 8:14-15? This is an account echoed in Mt 16:5-6, so we cannot wish it away, as though it were unimportant. This warning against leavened bread repeats in two of our Gospels, so God must want us to consider the impact these passages have on our diet.

Dost thou object? I reply:

• Really? A little bit of study of a passage that 2 Gospels of the Bible speak about? God gave preachers and teachers as gifts to His church to explain to them what the Bible says and teach them many things that they would not otherwise come to understand by themselves.

If you ask me what implications I am suggesting, I reply thus:

• I cannot support properly at this time what I see as the practical, concrete implications of this passage for worship because the passage has not been fully treated. This is not a cop-out. You and many others are wanting applications prematurely when there is so much more in the passage (and parallel passages) that is vital to discuss carefully.

  As Proverbs 2:1-9 and other passages teach, God only reveals His truth fully to us when we immerse ourselves in His Word and are willing to dig way beyond what is only on the surface. Let’s give God the opportunity to illumine this discussion further through a willingness to persevere in detailed discussion of relevant details of the passage.

I am anxious to discuss the implications for a Godly diet from Mk 8:14-15. It was clearly Mark’s didactic intent to discuss this topic in this passage, and I await the ensuing discussion.

We’re on five/six pages of discussing this thread and I think we’ve hashed through everything outside of the color of Aaron’s beard.

I missed where you (or anyone else) discussed the types of sounds in vv. 17-18 and the implications of that. Maybe you could just link to that for me so I could see how you handle that. What do you think the difference is and what are the implications of that?

And if your answer is that we have to exegete this passage enough to write a dissertation on, then I’d argue even more strongly that this isn’t a serious conversation. Any believer coming through this passage ought to be able, with a little bit of study, discern the practical implications for worship without consulting other resources.

So what is the point of teachers and books? And pastors who devote themselves to study? I am fairly well educated by most standards and I often find myself needing the types of exegesis that produces dissertations in order to teach and preach. I can’t imagine you don’t.

Where did you get this idea that understanding the Bible should be so simple? Faithful believers for generations have wrestled through issues of doctrine and application and yet you seem to think it should be a lot easier. What are the rest of us missing?

[RajeshG]

There is no possibility that this verse can be handled properly if you say that Moses only became angry at seeing the calf and that the dancing was not part of what caused his anger to wax hot. That is not what the text says. The text says that Moses was angry at seeing both the calf and the dancing. Why did Moses anger wax hot at seeing the dancing and what does that tell us about the nature of the dancing given that the larger context is one of idolaters who are immorally playing?

On what legitimate basis can you say that the dancing was not immoral dancing when the entire context of the dancing was permeated by idolatrous immoral playing? How can it be that we have to say that even though the whole atmosphere was sensual to the core the dancing was not? Shouldn’t it be the other way around—we must understand that the dancing was immorally sensual unless there is compelling evidence in the passage to the contrary?”

Are you saying that Moses’s anger would not have grown hotter if he had seen the people using a dance they used to the LORD to dance to a golden calf? Again, their dancing would have been immoral in context when dancing to the golden calf, regardless of how good that dancing may have been in other circumstances. That’s why I believe Moses’ anger at their dancing does not tell us unambiguously that the dancing itself was immoral. Since the object of their worship was false, anything done in worship to it would have been wrong, and, I would argue, would make Moses angry.

So no, I don’t see how the dancing must be understood as “immorally sensual” on its face. Things that are otherwise good can lead to immorality all the time, due to misuse, and the depravity of the human heart. We humans can take pretty much any aspect of God’s good creation and turn it to evil. We consider things like anger, hatred, and jealousy to be more or less completely negative. And yet, God expresses all of those emotions in a holy way, thus showing that anger, jealousy, and hatred are not wrong of themselves. It’s just that probably better than 99% of the time, humans express those in a wrong way.

I’ve not said that the dancing in Exodus 32 must have been good and moral. It may have been as you say. I’m simply pointing out how the context does not insist that either the dancing or music were immoral, even though the false worship clearly was.

[dcbii]

Are you saying that Moses’s anger would not have grown hotter if he had seen the people using a dance they used to the LORD to dance to a golden calf? Again, their dancing would have been immoral in context when dancing to the golden calf, regardless of how good that dancing may have been in other circumstances. That’s why I believe Moses’ anger at their dancing does not tell us unambiguously that the dancing itself was immoral. Since the object of their worship was false, anything done in worship to it would have been wrong, and, I would argue, would make Moses angry.

No, we aren’t going to understand ever going to understand everything fully.

That being said, when 1 Cor. 10:7 says “Do not be idolaters, as they were…” there isn’t exactly a ton of room for ambiguity or confusion. Adding things to it by pulling apart the music, dance, eating, and drinking - especially when we have no other details about those activities - is wrong from an exegetical and hermeneutical standpoint. We don’t do this with any other passages (that I’m aware of), and that’s why TylerR’s post from Mark was spot on, although I expect many to just ignore what he’s said. We certainly don’t spiritualize texts like Exodus 32, so at least there is that.

Rajesh (and others) are creating confusions and doubts by pulling principles out of it that the text doesn’t give us. That’s why I feel strongly about this. We don’t know what the sound of war was, and the sound of war in Moses’ day is a lot different from the sound of war in our day. So why are we even eisegeting that into Exodus?

I don’t get it.

Rajesh (and others) are creating confusions and doubts by pulling principles out of it that the text doesn’t give us. That’s why I feel strongly about this. We don’t know what the sound of war was, and the sound of war in Moses’ day is a lot different from the sound of war in our day. So why are we even eisegeting that into Exodus?

I don’t get it.

Maybe to try to find that “Biblical” smoking-gun that will finally end any debate or any diversity of thought among Fundamentalists to what constitutes worldly and sensual music.

[AndyE]

I”m not so sure about this, Dave. For example, when I watched the Scalia funeral I was struck by how much I appreciated certain elements of it, like the music and the scripture reading by Justice Thomas, and let totally disgusted by the very Catholic, false-gospel nature of the overall ceremony. My “anger” or disapproval was not directed towards the music or reading but the false worship. So I tend to think, by adding the comment about the dancing, that that element was immoral, too.

Your language alone (“not so sure”, “tend to think”) make my point for me. I know you and how careful you are. If you were sure from the text that the dancing mentioned there must have been immoral, you wouldn’t hesitate to say so. I’ve admitted that it’s possible you and Rajesh are correct about the dancing. However, “possible” is not “likely,” and “likely” is not “must be.”

Let’s say I accept your interpretation, and say even that it’s very likely the dancing was immoral. That’s still not the same as “must have been.” That’s all I’m pointing out. We can’t make an implied biblical command out of something based on “very likely.” On this point, I don’t even have a dog in the fight. I haven’t, don’t, and mostly likely will never use dancing of any kind as part of worship. (In point of fact, I don’t dance at all.) At some point, it might be nice to be able to decide the difference between good and bad dancing in worship, since the Bible does mention praising God with timbrel and dance, but the reality is that even if I accept your view, this text doesn’t really help me know what good dancing would look like as opposed to the dancing in Exodus 32, assuming they are, in fact, actually different.

So what would this passage be teaching us about dancing and music beyond the fact that God doesn’t want false worship either in form or substance? It certainly would instruct us to present to God only what he wants in worship, and to only worship Him. However, giving an example of doing it wrongly doesn’t show us how to do it rightly, and in this case, doesn’t give much, if anything, for us to know exactly what’s wrong with either their music or dancing.