We Must Heed the Vital Message of 1 Corinthians 10:18-20
1 Corinthians 10:18-20 provides vital instruction that every believer must heed:
1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 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.
To eat in a worship context of what has been sacrificed on an altar to an idol is to be a partaker of the altar. To do so is also to have fellowship with demons!
Such fellowship with demons is not contingent upon a person’s having to offer the sacrifices himself. Anyone who eats of such sacrifices comes into fellowship with demons.
The passage also does not provide any basis to say or to hold that this only happens sometimes—in a worship context, anyone who eats what has been sacrificed to an idol has fellowship with demons. God does not want any humans to have fellowship with demons!
- 666 views
[RajeshG]The Bible does not use specific terms of this sort to characterize instrumental music. In the context of my comment that you are asking about, you could substitute “style” or “genre” or something of such sort to denote more or less the same thing.
Of far greater importance is the undeniable truth that God prohibited the Israelites even from inquiring about any facet of how these Canaanite idolaters served their gods, which certainly included the instrumental musical forms/styles/genres that they used to do so.
Thank you for the answer. The way you used the term is foreign to musicologists because to them, “form” refers to song structure. In fact, I only see people I see use the word “form” in the way you do are music conservatives like yourself. I note that you want to remain a bit squishy on the definition of the word you have (mis)appropriated and based on your agenda here, I can understand why. But definitions are important and you should define the ones you are using before making your sweeping “undeniable” dogmatic statements as you have done here.
If you are going to say that Israel was not allowed to use the styles of the Egyptians/Canaanites, perhaps you could explain why they were allowed to use the theory/scales of those people. Why would that be different? Or perhaps you want to believe that they came up with their own music theory or scales.
And then while you are at it, perhaps you can explain why we today are allowed to use the scales and theory developed over the past few thousand years starting with the pagan ancient Greeks. As you know there are infinite scale possibilities, all of which come with their own theory system. I note that on your website, you attempt to teach some rudimentary music theory. Why should I not be appalled that you misappropriated it from the pagan Greeks?
[GregH]Whether your claims here about how the term “musical form” is to be used would stand up to critical scrutiny is not something that I have much time to devote to at this time. I did find the following which states that “musical form” is regularly used in two senses, one of which is “to denote a standard type, or genre”:Thank you for the answer. The way you used the term is foreign to musicologists because to them, “form” refers to song structure. In fact, I only see people I see use the word “form” in the way you do are music conservatives like yourself.
“Musical form, the structure of a musical composition. The term is regularly used in two senses: to denote a standard type, or genre, and to denote the procedures in a specific work. The nomenclature for the various musical formal types may be determined by the medium of performance, the technique of composition, or by function.”
From: https://www.britannica.com/art/musical-form
Apparently, “musical form” is regularly used to denote something similar to “genre.”
[RajeshG]But what if i don’t understand HOW music itself could be sensual? I can’t prove it is possible or impossible if I don’t know HOW it could be. Suppose you were telling me that some music is “tasty.” I would ask you to tell me HOW it is tasty. If you answered that I have to prove it is impossible for it to be tasty, I would think you are just trying to tap dance around the question. You would need to be the one telling me HOW it is tasty, if you were to make that claim.It’s not necessary to show “how the music itself, apart from the performance style of the harlot, is sensual” because a harlot, by definition, is one who engages in immoral sexual activities. In keeping with the nature of her activities, she will do what she can to maximize her sensual appeal so as to put herself in the best position either to allure as many customers as possible or to satisfy her customers maximally or both. Because that is true, she will choose to play music that is itself sensual so that it will most benefit her in her activities.
Those who say that she will not or cannot because it is impossible for instrumental music itself to be sensual have to prove their views.
The defintion of “sensual” is “relating to or involving gratification of the senses and physical, especially sexual, pleasure.” The harlots performance can certainly be done in a sensual way. As you said, she is maximizing her sensual appeal, but then you said she uses music to benefit her.. So HOW does instrumental music itself maximize sensual appeal? Are there some characteristics of the music itself that cause this to happen?
Here’s Biblehub on the matter. Note carefully that while the terms discussed DO discuss the lusts of the flesh and excess in material things, they do NOT suggest that music falls into this category.
I would submit that the onus is on Rajesh, if he truly believes that music can be “sensual” in the way the New Testament uses the word (or Old Testament, really), the onus is on him to demonstrate that. And in that light, assuming that (a) there was music at the golden calf incident, that (b) it differed from Godly music in some ways, and (c) those differences can be inferred by guilt by association comparisons with modern music amounts to three gigantic leaps in logic that simply cannot be sustained.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin Miller]I am preparing to speak 7 times this weekend at a friend’s church so I will not be interacting further on this thread until early next week. May it please the Lord to bless us all to please Him in all our ways in the days to come.But what if i don’t understand HOW music itself could be sensual? I can’t prove it is possible or impossible if I don’t know HOW it could be. Suppose you were telling me that some music is “tasty.” I would ask you to tell me HOW it is tasty. If you answered that I have to prove it is impossible for it to be tasty, I would think you are just trying to tap dance around the question. You would need to be the one telling me HOW it is tasty, if you were to make that claim.
The defintion of “sensual” is “relating to or involving gratification of the senses and physical, especially sexual, pleasure.” The harlots performance can certainly be done in a sensual way. As you said, she is maximizing her sensual appeal, but then you said she uses music to benefit her.. So HOW does instrumental music itself maximize sensual appeal? Are there some characteristics of the music itself that cause this to happen?
[Kevin Miller]But what if i don’t understand HOW music itself could be sensual? I can’t prove it is possible or impossible if I don’t know HOW it could be. Suppose you were telling me that some music is “tasty.” I would ask you to tell me HOW it is tasty. If you answered that I have to prove it is impossible for it to be tasty, I would think you are just trying to tap dance around the question. You would need to be the one telling me HOW it is tasty, if you were to make that claim.
The defintion of “sensual” is “relating to or involving gratification of the senses and physical, especially sexual, pleasure.” The harlots performance can certainly be done in a sensual way. As you said, she is maximizing her sensual appeal, but then you said she uses music to benefit her.. So HOW does instrumental music itself maximize sensual appeal? Are there some characteristics of the music itself that cause this to happen?
So many rock musicians and others have spoken about this matter. If you do some research, you can find numerous statements giving you information about instrumental music that is sensual. Here is a sampling [bold added to the original in several quotes below]:
In his “Discourse to the Greeks,” Justin Martyr stated:
“Do not suppose, ye Greeks, that my separation from your customs is unreasonable and unthinking; for I found in them nothing that is holy or acceptable to God.” (Chapter 1)
As well:
“And your public assemblies I have come to hate. For there are excessive banquetings, and subtle flutes which provoke to lustful movements, and useless and luxurious anointing, and crowning with garlands.” (Chapter 4)
From this early church father who lived (100-165 AD) to our day, people have testified to instrumental music that is sensual:
”Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body’s [sexual] rhythms … Rock and roll has largely been seen as a form of rebellious music for just about as long as it has existed.” (Frank Zappa, Life, June 28, 1968)
”That’s what rock is all about—sex with a 100 megaton bomb, the beat!” (Gene Simmons, Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987)
“There is a great deal of powerful, albeit subliminal, sexual stimulation implicit in both the rhythm and lyrics of rock music.” (Dr. David Elkind, American child psychologist, The Hurried Child, 2001)
This very small sampling of statements that span more than 1800 years makes it plain that many people have no difficulty knowing that there is instrumental music that is sensual.
For specific info of the type that you seem to be most interested in, John Makujina has a section titled “Encoding Eroticism” that discusses “how rock music expresses sensuality” (Measuring the Music, 130-133; italics in original)
[RajeshG]I think it’s worth discussing the definition of musical form that you posted earlier when you were showing that musical form is used the same way as genre. Here’s the definition you posted.So many rock musicians and others have spoken about this matter. If you do some research, you can find numerous statements giving you information about instrumental music that is sensual. Here is a sampling [bold added to the original in several quotes below]:
In his “Discourse to the Greeks,” Justin Martyr stated:
“Do not suppose, ye Greeks, that my separation from your customs is unreasonable and unthinking; for I found in them nothing that is holy or acceptable to God.” (Chapter 1)
As well:
“And your public assemblies I have come to hate. For there are excessive banquetings, and subtle flutes which provoke to lustful movements, and useless and luxurious anointing, and crowning with garlands.” (Chapter 4)
From this early church father who lived (100-165 AD) to our day, people have testified to instrumental music that is sensual:
”Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body’s [sexual] rhythms … Rock and roll has largely been seen as a form of rebellious music for just about as long as it has existed.” (Frank Zappa, Life, June 28, 1968)
”That’s what rock is all about—sex with a 100 megaton bomb, the beat!” (Gene Simmons, Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987)
“There is a great deal of powerful, albeit subliminal, sexual stimulation implicit in both the rhythm and lyrics of rock music.” (Dr. David Elkind, American child psychologist, The Hurried Child, 2001)
This very small sampling of statements that span more than 1800 years makes it plain that many people have no difficulty knowing that there is instrumental music that is sensual.
For specific info of the type that you seem to be most interested in, John Makujina has a section titled “Encoding Eroticism” that discusses “how rock music expresses sensuality” (Measuring the Music, 130-133; italics in original)
“Musical form, the structure of a musical composition. The term is regularly used in two senses: to denote a standard type, or genre, and to denote the procedures in a specific work. The nomenclature for the various musical formal types may be determined by the medium of performance, the technique of composition, or by function.”
From: https://www.britannica.com/art/musical-form
According to the definition, there are three ways to determine a genre, and these three ways are likely not even exhaustive. One is by “the medium of performance.” I take it that this genre would be something like “trumpet music” or “harp music.” I do not believe God would be displeased with this particular kind of genre, since God is not displeased with musical instruments. I think the only way for God to be displeased with this genre is if it is combined with the “by function” method of determining genre. If the function of a piece of music is inappropriate, then God would be displeased with that particular function. A displeasing function could be “sensual music.” In this regard, some “flute music” could be played sensuously, but God wouldn’t be displeased with the ‘flute” part of the music, only with the sensuous use. Someone could play music in a rebellious manner, whether that was with the lyrics or with gestures, but it would be the rebellion that God would be displeased with not the particular instrument tha was being used.
The determining factor I haven’t covered yet is “the technique of composition.” In this regard, you could have minor key styles or styles related to a particular beat. This is where I would place rock music. How do we know something is rock music? Well, there is a particular beat, a particular “technique of composition,” that determines if something is rock music. Does God tell us anywhere that He is displeased with particular composition techniques? Are minor keys, for example, displeasing to God? Besides having a beat, rock music is often played loudly. Is loud volume displeasing to God? Where would we get the idea that a particular beat is displeasing to God? It seems to me that this is where people start mixing the “by function” aspect with the “composition technique ” aspect. As I’ve mentioned before, pretty much ANY music can be played sensuously, but this doesn’t mean all aspects of composition to all music becomes displeasing simply because a particular performance can be sensual. We would have to look at the function of each performance rather than make a blanket condemnation of everything that could be played sensuously. Have some rock musicians played their music sensuously (or rebelliously)? Sure, but I don’t see as how those uses can condemn a particular aspect of musical composition any more than loudness can be condemned due to it’s use by rock musicians. I think some of those rock musicians you quoted wanted to claim their music was sensual or rebellious in order to sell more of their music to kids who wanted to make their parents uncomfortable.
My point is that if music is actually being used in a sensual or rebellious fashion, than God is displeased with the sensuality or rebellion. If a composer of CCM is simply using composition techniques that are nowhere specifically condemned by Scripture and he has no intent of sensuality or rebellion in the production of the work, then I don’t see as how any one could claim that that music is displeasing to God.
It’s worth noting that the musicians Rajesh quotes—Frank Zappa and Gene Simmons—really made their careers more on being a provocation than by their music. It has the same relationship to musical reality as James Bond movies have to the reality of spying.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]So many rock musicians and others have spoken about this matter. If you do some research, you can find numerous statements giving you information about instrumental music that is sensual. Here is a sampling [bold added to the original in several quotes below]:
In his “Discourse to the Greeks,” Justin Martyr stated:
“Do not suppose, ye Greeks, that my separation from your customs is unreasonable and unthinking; for I found in them nothing that is holy or acceptable to God.” (Chapter 1)
As well:
“And your public assemblies I have come to hate. For there are excessive banquetings, and subtle flutes which provoke to lustful movements, and useless and luxurious anointing, and crowning with garlands.” (Chapter 4)
From this early church father who lived (100-165 AD) to our day, people have testified to instrumental music that is sensual:
”Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body’s [sexual] rhythms … Rock and roll has largely been seen as a form of rebellious music for just about as long as it has existed.” (Frank Zappa, Life, June 28, 1968)
”That’s what rock is all about—sex with a 100 megaton bomb, the beat!” (Gene Simmons, Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987)
“There is a great deal of powerful, albeit subliminal, sexual stimulation implicit in both the rhythm and lyrics of rock music.” (Dr. David Elkind, American child psychologist, The Hurried Child, 2001)
This very small sampling of statements that span more than 1800 years makes it plain that many people have no difficulty knowing that there is instrumental music that is sensual.
For specific info of the type that you seem to be most interested in, John Makujina has a section titled “Encoding Eroticism” that discusses “how rock music expresses sensuality” (Measuring the Music, 130-133; italics in original)
Rajesh, please allow me to walk you through my thinking after reading your latest post. These are just my thoughts; no need to respond. Here goes:
1. Do the two musicians Rajesh quotes (Zappa and Simmons) speak for all musicians? Are they authorities with the ability to represent the thoughts of all musicians? Why should I listen to these two? If these two are authorities, why are they authorities?
2. Do any rock musicians disagree with Zappa and Simmons? Do at least a few musicians reject the idea that their music is about sex? If any disagree with Zappa and Simmons, who is correct? Does Rajesh have any musicians who disagree with Zappa and Simmons and what weight does he give them in his teaching?
3. Is Rajesh “cherry picking” his sources to get the results he wants?
4. Are Zappa and Simmons good sources on which Rajesh relies? That is, were they under demonic influence when they said these things and therefore unreliable? How might Rajesh tell? Mighty they have misspoken? Perhaps they later changed their minds? Might they be lying? Might they be using hyperbole, irony, or any number of rhetorical devices that Rajesh is misunderstanding? Did they know they were speaking as authoritative? Why should Rajesh take their statements as authoritative?
5. Why would three lost people be good sources for Rajesh to determine what is, and is not, sensual music? Doesn’t God address this clearly in His Word? If He does, why the need to use unsaved authorities? If He doesn’t clearly address this in His Word, should the opinions of Zappa, Simmons and Elkind mean anything to Rajesh?
6. Might Dr. David Elkind be wrong? How does he know this? Why should Rajesh listen to him and why use him as an authority? That was almost 20 years ago, has there been any new research done in this area? Would other psychologists disagree with Dr. Elkind? If any disagree, how might Rajesh tell who is correct? Why quote a Dr. if God’s Word clearly addresses this? If God’s Word doesn’t clearly address this, then should Dr. Elkind’s opinion mean anything to Rajesh?
7. Does Rajesh think other genres of music also sensual? Was Frank Sinatra’s music not sensual? Is this phenomena limited to rock music? If only rock, why rock? If all genres, then why focus on rock?
8. Does Rajesh think Makujina is a good source? Why is he a good source?
Just food for thought.
[Kevin Miller]I did not cite that definition because I believe that definition is the correct way to understand what is true about music. I cited it only in relation to a comment made about my supposed misuse of the term “musical form.”I think it’s worth discussing the definition of musical form that you posted earlier when you were showing that musical form is used the same way as genre. Here’s the definition you posted.
[Kevin Miller]This is just a roundabout way of denying that the instrumental music itself has any morality to it.A displeasing function could be “sensual music.” In this regard, some “flute music” could be played sensuously, but God wouldn’t be displeased with the ‘flute” part of the music, only with the sensuous use. Someone could play music in a rebellious manner, whether that was with the lyrics or with gestures, but it would be the rebellion that God would be displeased with not the particular instrument tha was being used.
[Kevin Miller]God tells us that the whole universe was corrupted by the Fall. Somehow, apparently in your thinking, the realm of instrumental music itself is the one realm that was exempted in some mysterious way from the Fall and its effects. If that is your view, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is true.Does God tell us anywhere that He is displeased with particular composition techniques? … Where would we get the idea that a particular beat is displeasing to God?
[Kevin Miller]The supposed lack of specific statements condemning whatever you mean by “composition techniques” does not mean that all “composition techniques” are inherently good and acceptable to God. There is no biblical basis for such a view. In fact, God tells us that reprobate humans are “inventors of evil” (Rom. 1:30) and does not qualify that statement by saying that they are inventors of evil in all realms except for instrumental music.My point is that if music is actually being used in a sensual or rebellious fashion, than God is displeased with the sensuality or rebellion. If a composer of CCM is simply using composition techniques that are nowhere specifically condemned by Scripture and he has no intent of sensuality or rebellion in the production of the work, then I don’t see as how any one could claim that that music is displeasing to God.
Those who hold that all instrumental music itself (apart from its use in wrong contexts, etc.) is inherently exempt from any effects of the Fall and exempt from being something created by wicked humans who have rejected God and invented evil things under demonic influence have to prove how the Bible specifically teaches that instrumental music is such an incorruptible realm in the universe.
[RajeshG]I guess I need to get something straight here in regards to what things God is displeased with. I asked you to tell me what makes a particular beat displeasing to God. You insist that that question means I think instrumental music is exempt from the Fall and it’s effects. I’m not sure how you are making that leap. It’s my understanding that all of God’s creation has been affected by the Fall and Romans 8 tells us creation is groaning until it’s redemption happens at the Second Coming. Since all of God’s creation is affected by the Fall, does this mean, in your perspective, that God is displeased with all of creation as it currently exists?God tells us that the whole universe was corrupted by the Fall. Somehow, apparently in your thinking, the realm of instrumental music itself is the one realm that was exempted in some mysterious way from the Fall and its effects. If that is your view, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is true.
Are you saying that a particular beat gets affected by the Fall, by other aspects of music do not? Are musical keys affected by the Fall? Are notes affected by the Fall? Is pitch affected by the Fall? How does the Fall affect one particular beat, making it displeasing, but not affect another beat? Wouldn’t every aspect of all music be affected by the Fall in some way until the Second coming happens and all of creation is made new?
I always find the use of this Frank Zappa quote kind of funny. Doesn’t anyone think that his judgment that his music was sensual was either based on or in anticipation of his own sexual behavior? In other words, he found that as a famous musician, girls threw themselves at him, so he irrationally (but understandably) believed that this was due to his musical style? Or that he hoped that it would continue?
P.S. I find it amazing that you’re still going…
[Kevin Miller]No, God is not displeased with all of creation as it currently exists. He has commanded humans to use musical instruments to worship Him so we know that there are instrumental musical styles/genres/forms that are acceptable to Him. There is, however, no biblical revelation that teaches that all instrumental musical genre/styles/forms are pleasing to Him and acceptable to Him for use in worship.I guess I need to get something straight here in regards to what things God is displeased with. I asked you to tell me what makes a particular beat displeasing to God. You insist that that question means I think instrumental music is exempt from the Fall and it’s effects. I’m not sure how you are making that leap. It’s my understanding that all of God’s creation has been affected by the Fall and Romans 8 tells us creation is groaning until it’s redemption happens at the Second Coming. Since all of God’s creation is affected by the Fall, does this mean, in your perspective, that God is displeased with all of creation as it currently exists?
Are you saying that a particular beat gets affected by the Fall, by other aspects of music do not? Are musical keys affected by the Fall? Are notes affected by the Fall? Is pitch affected by the Fall? How does the Fall affect one particular beat, making it displeasing, but not affect another beat? Wouldn’t every aspect of all music be affected by the Fall in some way until the Second coming happens and all of creation is made new?
Properly speaking, a beat is not an entity in and of itself. Beat is a property of some collections of sounds, including but not limited to just collections of musical sounds.
There is no biblical reason that all beats must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. In fact, because of the existence of supernatural evil beings who are musical beings, both vocally and instrumentally, and because of their incorrigibly evil character, any music sourced in demonic influence must be categorically rejected.
Demons know far more about music that pleases God and music that does not please God than humans do. We know that demons seeks to corrupt divine worship in every way possible. The music of demonically influenced human beings, therefore, is entirely off limits for righteous people.
In particular, we have testimonies form rock musicians themselves who have said that rock music is the devil’s music:
”Rock has always been the devil’s music… I believe that rock & roll is dangerous… I feel that we’re only heralding something even darker than ourselves.” (David Bowie; bold added to the original)
With testimonies such as these, consecrated believers have an obligation to reject rock music and all music derived from it or based upon it. We must have no fellowship with rock and rock-based music because they are the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11).
[RajeshG]Ok, so you acknowledge that God is not displeased with all of creation. So why did you bring up the Fall when I asked you how God could be displeased with a particular beat? You stated to me that “God tells us that the whole universe was corrupted by the Fall.” Wouldn’t the whole universe include the instruments invented by man? Are you saying that the instruments God commands us to use are somehow exempt from the effects of the Fall? I’m just still confused as to how you thought I was making a statement about the Fall when I asked you to show me how a particular beat could be displeasing. How has the Fall affected music? Would you say that the Fall has made most musical styles/genres unacceptable to God unless God has commanded a proper use? Or would you say that even with the Fall, most musical styles/genres are acceptable to God unless God has given us a reason for His displeasure? I would tend toward the second choice, which is why I asked you for a reason why God would be displeased with a particular beat. But then you brought up the Fall affecting the whole universe, which made me think you might hold to everything being displeasing to God because of the Fall. After all, you did say the whole universe was corrupted.No, God is not displeased with all of creation as it currently exists. He has commanded humans to use musical instruments to worship Him so we know that there are instrumental musical styles/genres/forms that are acceptable to Him. There is, however, no biblical revelation that teaches that all instrumental musical genre/styles/forms are pleasing to Him and acceptable to Him for use in worship.
Properly speaking, a beat is not an entity in and of itself. Beat is a property of some collections of sounds, including but not limited to just collections of musical sounds.I realize, of course, that a beat is just a property of some collection of sounds. This is why I asked you about other properties of collections of sounds. Does demonic influence just limit itself to beats but have no effect on any other property? Is it also your position that: 1. There is no biblical reason that all key signatures must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. and 2. There is no biblical reason that all musical pitches must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. and 3. There is no biblical reason that all tempos must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. Wouldn’t the incorrigibly evil demons also affect those properties?There is no biblical reason that all beats must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. In fact, because of the existence of supernatural evil beings who are musical beings, both vocally and instrumentally, and because of their incorrigibly evil character, any music sourced in demonic influence must be categorically rejected.
Demons know far more about music that pleases God and music that does not please God than humans do. We know that demons seeks to corrupt divine worship in every way possible. The music of demonically influenced human beings, therefore, is entirely off limits for righteous people.As we’ve discussed previously, there is a wide spectrum of demonic influence in the world. Wouldn’t ALL unsaved people be in the category of “demonically influenced human beings”? I believe I have asked you if we need to reject the music of ALL unsaved people, and you have said “no.” Yet here you are, once again, making the general statement that righteous people have to reject the music of demonically influenced people, which would in reality be all unsaved people. Then we start discussing the levels of demonic influence, with only a higher-level-almost-possessed-but-maybe-not-quite person being the one whose music we must reject. So how do we know that a particular style has been produced by this higher-level type of demonically influenced person that requires us to reject it?
This is where your logic seems to me to be circular reasoning. How do we know a higher-level demonically influenced person has produced music that is displeasing to God? Because the music contains a rock beat. How do we know a rock beat is displeasing to God? Because it was put into the music by a higher-level demonically influenced person.
[RajeshG]Here are a few more quotes from that same interview with David Bowie:In particular, we have testimonies form rock musicians themselves who have said that rock music is the devil’s music:
”Rock has always been the devil’s music… I believe that rock & roll is dangerous… I feel that we’re only heralding something even darker than ourselves.” (David Bowie; bold added to the original)
With testimonies such as these, consecrated believers have an obligation to reject rock music and all music derived from it or based upon it. We must have no fellowship with rock and rock-based music because they are the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11).
“I never got into acid either. I did it three or four times and it was colourful, but my own imagination was already richer. I never got into grass at all. Hash for a time, but never grass. I guess drugs have been a part of my life for the past 10 years, but never anything very heavy … I’ve had short flirtations with smack and things, but it was only for the mystery and the enigma. I like fast drugs. I hate anything that slows me down.”
“I fell for Ziggy too. It was quite easy to become obsessed night and day with the character. I became Ziggy Stardust. David Bowie went totally out the window. Everybody was convincing me that I was a messiah, especially on that first American tour. I got hopelessly lost in the fantasy.”
“Somebody asked me in an interview if I ever had a gay experience and I said, ‘Yes, of course, I am a bisexual.’ … . I had no idea my sexuality would get so widely publicized. It was just a very sort of off-the-cuff little remark. Best thing I ever said, I suppose.”
With testimonies such as these, I don’t think David Bowie’s credibility is to be trusted when he makes proclamations about rock music. He was on drugs, living in a fantasy world, and very, very confused.
[Kevin Miller]When a demonically influenced person says that he has made his music to promote wickedness, we do not have any basis to say that his music must still be pleasing to God even though he himself says that he has specifically created it to promote evil. Many rock musicians have testified to the evil character of their own music and of their intent to promote evil through their instrumental music. Such music must be rejected.This is where your logic seems to me to be circular reasoning. How do we know a higher-level demonically influenced person has produced music that is displeasing to God? Because the music contains a rock beat. How do we know a rock beat is displeasing to God? Because it was put into the music by a higher-level demonically influenced person.
[Kevin Miller]We have already had a very long discussion in another thread in which I have provided evidence from Scripture that shows that testimonies from unbelievers or even openly evil people is not inherently invalid because they are unbelievers or even openly evil people. Scripture records that a man who was possessed by many demons still accurately testified to profound spiritual truths (Mark. 5:7).Here are a few more quotes from that same interview with David Bowie:
“I never got into acid either. I did it three or four times and it was colourful, but my own imagination was already richer. I never got into grass at all. Hash for a time, but never grass. I guess drugs have been a part of my life for the past 10 years, but never anything very heavy … I’ve had short flirtations with smack and things, but it was only for the mystery and the enigma. I like fast drugs. I hate anything that slows me down.”
“I fell for Ziggy too. It was quite easy to become obsessed night and day with the character. I became Ziggy Stardust. David Bowie went totally out the window. Everybody was convincing me that I was a messiah, especially on that first American tour. I got hopelessly lost in the fantasy.”
“Somebody asked me in an interview if I ever had a gay experience and I said, ‘Yes, of course, I am a bisexual.’ … . I had no idea my sexuality would get so widely publicized. It was just a very sort of off-the-cuff little remark. Best thing I ever said, I suppose.”
With testimonies such as these, I don’t think David Bowie’s credibility is to be trusted when he makes proclamations about rock music. He was on drugs, living in a fantasy world, and very, very confused.
To be consistent, you would have to say that any testimonies about the evils of drug use from people who have abused drugs cannot be trusted because of their prior drug use. Such a claim would be patently false.
In what you quote above, Bowie specifies, “Drugs have been a part of my life for the past 10 years, but never anything very heavy.” By his own words, he asserted that he was never a very heavy drug user who would thereby have been completely mentally incapacitated by such excessive use of drugs.
It’s also very telling that you claim that Bowie’s testimony about the nature of the music that he chose to play is not credible because “he was on drugs, living in a fantasy world, and very, very confused,” but you would still apparently maintain that the music that he regularly played while he was in such a state was still instrumental music that was acceptable to God.
[Kevin Miller]I have not made any specific claims about what properties of collections of musical sounds incorrigibly evil demons affect and what properties they do not. The Bible does not provide us with such specifics about demonically influenced music.I realize, of course, that a beat is just a property of some collection of sounds. This is why I asked you about other properties of collections of sounds. Does demonic influence just limit itself to beats but have no effect on any other property? Is it also your position that: 1. There is no biblical reason that all key signatures must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. and 2. There is no biblical reason that all musical pitches must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. and 3. There is no biblical reason that all tempos must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship. Wouldn’t the incorrigibly evil demons also affect those properties?
More importantly, we do not have to know such specifics. We know from Scripture that demonically influenced humans produced music in the GCI. We do not have to be able to analyze it to know it was evil; in fact, God commanded the Israelites not to even inquire about any such things that wicked idolaters used in their idolatrous worship, and He commands us likewise not to have any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
“In an interview in 1983 [Malcolm] McLaren [former manager of the rock group Sex Pistols] reminded everyone that ‘we live in a Christian society concerned with order: rock ‘n’ roll was always concerned with disorder. Punk rock promoted blatantly the word chaos. Cash from Chaos.’”
—Quoted in John Makujina, Measuring the Music, 179; bold added to the original
This statement speaks of the fundamentally ungodly nature of rock music and is further evidence that its use in worship must be categorically rejected because such use violates explicitly stated divine mandates for what we must do in our worship:
1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
The demonically controlled idolaters in the GCI who were wildly out-of-control in their wicked worship played music and danced wickedly in their ungodliness. We must not be like them (cf. 1 Cor. 10:7) by using any music in our worship that is sourced in demonic influence on corrupt humans and is music that at its essence has always been concerned with disorder.
1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
I grew up listening to country music and part of the reason I like it is because it sounds orderly to me. Perhaps it seems more orderly because it is simply more familiar. Still, most of the country songs have a message and tell a story through the lyrics in an orderly way. Many of those messages promote virtues like hard work, family, and worshipping God. These songs would be good. Others promote sinful activities like drunkenness and adultery. These songs are bad. Still they tend to be orderly.
Part of the reason I do not like classical music is because it sounds so disordered to me, yet I do not hear that being preached against. I thought it was just a “me” thing and that perhaps others do not hear the disorder that I hear in classical music. The question that I have is, “who gets to decide what music is disordered and what it not and how can we speak with authority concerning the criteria we choose to use if scripture does not spell out that criteria?” Even if the golden calf music were disordered and had other evil elements, if we are not allowed to look into those things, then we cannot even know the elements involved.
Obviously music can be used for evil or for good as country music lyrics prove, but much of our personal thoughts tend to be based more on what we are exposed to rather than specific guidance from scripture. I personally could not even tell you what David Bowie or Kiss sang to even comment on those things. As a kid, it appeared to me that Kiss (Gene Simmons etal) were intentionally promoting themselves as evil as an advertising gimmick and that is enough reason for me to steer clear of them. Ironically I think they did more damage to the church by sowing discord over music than they did with their actual music.
P.S. I don’t think I know either Kevin or Dan even though we are all Millers. I did meet a Kevin Miller at a Bible camp in MN years ago, but have no idea if it is the same Kevin who has been posting here.
… if we could just agree to get rid of jazz.
[Dan Miller]… if we could just agree to get rid of jazz.
I know that you are tongue-in-cheek but it reminded me that many would consider jazz disorderly when it is actually based on very ordered and complex systems of theory. It can only work because of the underlying order. I think improvised jazz is the most cerebral music we have. It just happens to take a ton of musical background to understand what is going on, which is why there are like 30 people left in the country who still like it. :) I love it but I still get lost at times when listening.
Mistaken post …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[josh p]I love old jazz but the Miles Davis/Charlie Parker era on sounds like a car crash. It is amazing that they can improvise so well though.
I get that. I think jazz musicians are their own worse enemy, starting in that era with Miles when they went to modal theory. It is like they spend all their time trying to impress each other with their cerebral abilities and technique and have forgotten to make music for everyone else. So, they play their 1,000 chords in front of 3 people while other musicians play 3 chords in front of 1,000 people.
1 Cor. 14:40 is about speaking in tongues and prophecy, and how they ought to be used in the church, not the musical genre which are, and are not, appropriate. Context, context, context. Someone with (ahem) a “PhD” in New Testament interpretation ought to be able to do better than that.
And if we’re going to follow Garlock and Makujina in using some rock & roll artists to defame the entire genre—I believe that would be “guilt by association” and “hasty generalization”—we need to remember that Buddy Holly was a faithful Baptist to the day of his death, and despite a very short career, was far more influential than KISS, Zappa, and the Six Pistols combined. Holly formulated the typical band structure—singer, lead & rhythm guitar, bass, drums—that is followed by many/most rock & roll bands to this day, and the people he influenced, like Holly himself, achieved something that KISS, Zappa, and the Sex Pistols rarely if ever achieved: records that went gold, platinum, and diamond. Among the people strongly influenced by Holly were Bob Dylan, some guys from Liverpool, Eric Clapton, and the Rolling Stones.
Really, if Gene Simmons, Frank Zappa, or Sid Vicious is representative of rock & roll as a whole, we may as well with the same logic say that Yugo is representative of the entire car industry. Praise be to God, that just ain’t true.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]Ah, so “promoting evil” becomes part of the circle. I am right with you in condemning the promotion of wickedness. If the rock beat actually makes people commit sins and do wickedness, then it needs to be condemned. Are you saying that the rock beat makes people commit sins? Couldn’t it be the composite performance of those demonically influenced rock stars that promotes wickedness rather than just one element of their music such as the beat?When a demonically influenced person says that he has made his music to promote wickedness, we do not have any basis to say that his music must still be pleasing to God even though he himself says that he has specifically created it to promote evil. Many rock musicians have testified to the evil character of their own music and of their intent to promote evil through their instrumental music. Such music must be rejected.
[RajeshG]On a different thread, I mentioned that the demoniac seemed to be speaking understandably even though he was demon controlled, and you told me that this was just the demon speaking through him. Would you say that when rock musicians give testimony of their own music it is really just demons speaking through them? If that is not the situation, then I don’t know why you are bringing up this example.We have already had a very long discussion in another thread in which I have provided evidence from Scripture that shows that testimonies from unbelievers or even openly evil people is not inherently invalid because they are unbelievers or even openly evil people. Scripture records that a man who was possessed by many demons still accurately testified to profound spiritual truths (Mark. 5:7).
To be consistent, you would have to say that any testimonies about the evils of drug use from people who have abused drugs cannot be trusted because of their prior drug use. Such a claim would be patently false.Well, we actually have Biblical support for saying that overindulgence of alcohol or drugs is sinful, so people relaying the evils of such overuse would be reflecting a Biblical principle. Where would one find the same sort of command against rock music? I don’t see it. The rock beat might still be unacceptable, but if God doesn’t proclaim it to be such, then it is rather hard to make a case for it being unacceptable. Regarding alcohol, I just see the overuse being condemned. Perhaps the same is true for rock music. Perhaps God gives it to us as a blessing as long as we don’t overuse it.
In what you quote above, Bowie specifies, “Drugs have been a part of my life for the past 10 years, but never anything very heavy.” By his own words, he asserted that he was never a very heavy drug user who would thereby have been completely mentally incapacitated by such excessive use of drugs.I never said he was “mentally incapacitated.” I simply said he was “on drugs.”
It’s also very telling that you claim that Bowie’s testimony about the nature of the music that he chose to play is not credible because “he was on drugs, living in a fantasy world, and very, very confused,” but you would still apparently maintain that the music that he regularly played while he was in such a state was still instrumental music that was acceptable to God.I “apparently maintain” that? How so? We haven’t really talked specifically about the music itself that David Bowie regularly played. What is it about his music that makes it unacceptable. I’m not denying that it is unacceptable, but I think it is his composite performance and the way he used music that was unacceptable rather than some element of his music that one could separate out.
[RajeshG]I know you haven’t made any claims yet about those other properties. That’s why I was asking you about them. You have seemed to make the claim about the rock beat, though. Unless I am misunderstanding you. You did say “There is no biblical reason that all beats must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship.” and then you talked about “music sourced in demonic influence.” You were talking about the rock beat, weren’t you? Now you’re telling me that you didn’t make any claims about properties of music that demons affect because the Bible doesn’t provide us with specifics. Are you willing to admit that the Bible doesn’t provide us with specifics that link the rock beat to demonically influenced music?I have not made any specific claims about what properties of collections of musical sounds incorrigibly evil demons affect and what properties they do not. The Bible does not provide us with such specifics about demonically influenced music.
More importantly, we do not have to know such specifics. We know from Scripture that demonically influenced humans produced music in the GCI. We do not have to be able to analyze it to know it was evil; in fact, God commanded the Israelites not to even inquire about any such things that wicked idolaters used in their idolatrous worship, and He commands us likewise not to have any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
[JD Miller]I’m not related to the Dan Miller who’s been posting in the thread, but if the Minnesota camp is Camp Shiloh, then I would be the same Kevin. I see from your profile that you attended Pillsbury College, but I’m 11 years older than you, so we weren’t there together. You probably know my older brother Randy Miller who worked at Pillsbury for many years..P.S. I don’t think I know either Kevin or Dan even though we are all Millers. I did meet a Kevin Miller at a Bible camp in MN years ago, but have no idea if it is the same Kevin who has been posting here.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, you are the same Kevin then. I counseled at Camp Shiloh for years during the time your daughter went there. I remembered she was an outgoing kid, but cannot remember her name (other than that her last name was Miller). I went to Pillsbury later in life, so Randy was no longer there, but I heard others talk of him. It is a small world.
[Kevin Miller]You are missing the larger point. There is no reason from Scripture to hold that God accepts or would accept the use of any aspect of their performance of how they combine musical sounds together, regardless of what lyrics they use. The most important consideration is not what effects it has on humans—does God accept it or not is the ultimate criterion.When a demonically influenced person says that he has made his music to promote wickedness, we do not have any basis to say that his music must still be pleasing to God even though he himself says that he has specifically created it to promote evil. Many rock musicians have testified to the evil character of their own music and of their intent to promote evil through their instrumental music. Such music must be rejected.
Ah, so “promoting evil” becomes part of the circle. I am right with you in condemning the promotion of wickedness. If the rock beat actually makes people commit sins and do wickedness, then it needs to be condemned. Are you saying that the rock beat makes people commit sins? Couldn’t it be the composite performance of those demonically influenced rock stars that promotes wickedness rather than just one element of their music such as the beat?
[Kevin Miller]Saying that its his composite performance and the way he used the music but not the music itself is asserting that the music itself was not objectionable to God. You do not have any biblical basis to make such an assertion.I “apparently maintain” that? How so? We haven’t really talked specifically about the music itself that David Bowie regularly played. What is it about his music that makes it unacceptable. I’m not denying that it is unacceptable, but I think it is his composite performance and the way he used music that was unacceptable rather than some element of his music that one could separate out.
[Kevin Miller]I said what I said about no biblical reason that all beats must be or are acceptable to God because you have made it the focus of your questions. What I have said all along is that rock music is evil and must be rejected in its totality.I know you haven’t made any claims yet about those other properties. That’s why I was asking you about them. You have seemed to make the claim about the rock beat, though. Unless I am misunderstanding you. You did say “There is no biblical reason that all beats must be or are acceptable to God for use in worship.” and then you talked about “music sourced in demonic influence.” You were talking about the rock beat, weren’t you? Now you’re telling me that you didn’t make any claims about properties of music that demons affect because the Bible doesn’t provide us with specifics. Are you willing to admit that the Bible doesn’t provide us with specifics that link the rock beat to demonically influenced music?
The Bible does provide us with multiple bases to reject rock music as demonically influenced music. First, the Bible attests to the reality of demonically influenced music through what we know about the GCI. Second, God commands us to reject things that are connected to any human activities that put them in contact with supernatural evil. Many rock musicians have testified of the demonic nature of rock music. Because they have done so, we must reject it categorically.
Beyond that, Scripture makes it plain that sensuality is a work of the flesh that has no place in godly worship. Because of the numerous testimonies from rock musicians and others who have commented about rock music that rock music is sensual to the core, we must reject it categorically.
[RajeshG]I’m not trying to miss the larger point. I see you trying to make a larger point while disregarding all sorts of smaller factors that make up the larger point. How can I possibly get the larger point if the underlying factors are so jumbled with confusion? You specifically say “There is no reason from Scripture to hold that God accepts or would accept the use of any aspect of their performance.” Do you really mean to use the word “any” in that statement? “Any” would include aspects such as pitch and key and volume and beat and notes and instruments. The important consideration is whether God had declared his displeasure to the use of any of those aspects. Has he? If he hasn’t, then how can you make a claim that He wouldn’t accept “any aspect” of the performance? Now don’t try putting words in my mouth by telling me I have to prove that He would accept them. That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t know if He would accept the use of those aspects if the Bible doesn’t tell us if He would or wouldn’t accept them. At least with instruments, we have clear understanding that God accepts their use even if they might also be used by rock stars who promote wickedness. With the other aspects, we don’t have such clarity, so I’m at a loss to figure out why you make a declarative assessment that God is displeased with the use of “any” of those aspects. There is no reason from scripture to hold that God is displeased with them.You are missing the larger point. There is no reason from Scripture to hold that God accepts or would accept the use of any aspect of their performance of how they combine musical sounds together, regardless of what lyrics they use. The most important consideration is not what effects it has on humans—does God accept it or not is the ultimate criterion.
[RajeshG]I was talking about “some element of the music that could be separated out,” such as pitch or key or volume or beat or specific notes. Do you have a basis to claim that any of those are objectionable to God? For all I know from Scripture, those things could be neutral to God, since God doesn’t command or prohibit their use, but you seem to want to claim that they are objectionable without any Biblical support. You should really stop trying to make your point by pretending that I’ve made certain claims and then telling me to find a Biblical basis for what you falsely say I’m claiming.Saying that its his composite performance and the way he used the music but not the music itself is asserting that the music itself was not objectionable to God. You do not have any biblical basis to make such an assertion.
[JD Miller]I have 4 daughters who attended Camp Shiloh, but you likely are referring to one of the older two, either Tegan or Brianna.Yes, you are the same Kevin then. I counseled at Camp Shiloh for years during the time your daughter went there. I remembered she was an outgoing kid, but cannot remember her name (other than that her last name was Miller). I went to Pillsbury later in life, so Randy was no longer there, but I heard others talk of him. It is a small world.
[RajeshG]And I have spent many. many pages trying to get you to provide actual Scriptural support for that view. When we have talked about music that is used to promote wickedness, I have agreed that the use of music to promote wickedness is wrong. You have gone farther, however, to make the claim that rock music used to sing glory to God is also wrong. The reasons you give are simply not logical nor convincing.I said what I said about no biblical reason that all beats must be or are acceptable to God because you have made it the focus of your questions. What I have said all along is that rock music is evil and must be rejected in its totality.
The Bible does provide us with multiple bases to reject rock music as demonically influenced music. First, the Bible attests to the reality of demonically influenced music through what we know about the GCI.How does this relate to rock music, since we don’t know what style of music was used in the GCI? The use of music by wicked people to accompany idolatry is certainly wrong since idolatry is wrong, but I don’t see as how this use would condemn an entire style, whatever that style might be.
Second, God commands us to reject things that are connected to any human activities that put them in contact with supernatural evil. Many rock musicians have testified of the demonic nature of rock music. Because they have done so, we must reject it categorically.You are making a few leaps of logic here. God commands us to reject supernatural evil. You haven’t actually shown from Scripture that “things that are connected” to the supernatural become evil outside the context of their use in regards to the supernatural. Tea leaves are used in occult readings. According to your logic here, then tea leaves must be rejected since they are “connected to any human activities that put them in contact with supernatural evil.” I take it, though, that you are referring just to the beat aspect of rock music, but you haven’t logically explained why this would relate to just the beat aspect of the music, when there are so many other aspects involved in a musical performance. Also, the testimonies of these rock musicians can certainly be seen as advertising gimmicks for particular composers and performers. The composers of CCM would certainly NOT claim any demonic influence in regards to the composing of their CCM songs. Why wouldn’t you accept the testimonies of these believers who write songs of praise to God?
Beyond that, Scripture makes it plain that sensuality is a work of the flesh that has no place in godly worship. Because of the numerous testimonies from rock musicians and others who have commented about rock music that rock music is sensual to the core, we must reject it categorically.I have agreed that music which is used sensuously is not appropriate in worship. Again, the use is what makes for God’s condemnation, not any aspect of the music itself. We have numerous testimonies from CCM musicians that they use their music to glorify God. Why would you reject their testimonies?
[Kevin Miller]You need to do a better job of reading what I say. I specifically said, “There is no reason from Scripture to hold that God accepts or would accept the use of any aspect of their performance of how they combine musical sounds together, regardless of what lyrics they use.”I’m not trying to miss the larger point. I see you trying to make a larger point while disregarding all sorts of smaller factors that make up the larger point. How can I possibly get the larger point if the underlying factors are so jumbled with confusion? You specifically say “There is no reason from Scripture to hold that God accepts or would accept the use of any aspect of their performance.” Do you really mean to use the word “any” in that statement? “Any” would include aspects such as pitch and key and volume and beat and notes and instruments. The important consideration is whether God had declared his displeasure to the use of any of those aspects. Has he? If he hasn’t, then how can you make a claim that He wouldn’t accept “any aspect” of the performance? Now don’t try putting words in my mouth by telling me I have to prove that He would accept them. That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t know if He would accept the use of those aspects if the Bible doesn’t tell us if He would or wouldn’t accept them. At least with instruments, we have clear understanding that God accepts their use even if they might also be used by rock stars who promote wickedness. With the other aspects, we don’t have such clarity, so I’m at a loss to figure out why you make a declarative assessment that God is displeased with the use of “any” of those aspects. There is no reason from scripture to hold that God is displeased with them.
Here is what you claim I said, “There is no reason from Scripture to hold that God accepts or would accept the use of any aspect of their performance.” By leaving out the remainder of my sentence, you are attacking a straw man.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will say that you did not intend to distort what I said. Nonetheless, you did leave out the most important part of what I said: “of how they combine musical sounds together.”
When you properly read what I said, pitch, notes, and instruments are completely removed from the discussion because pitch is a property of individual sounds, and I have never stated that individual sounds or specific instruments can be evil.
By strong contrast, key and beat are not properties of individual sounds. When it comes to manmade combinations of musical sounds, there is zero Bible that you can use to claim that God has to accept or will accept whatever combinations human beings choose to make. Furthermore, when those combinations are made under demonic influence, we have explicit biblical basis and explicit biblical commands to reject all such combinations.
The burden of proof is not on those of us who choose to take God at His Word and obey Him that we are not to even inquire about such things and that we are not to have any fellowship with such things.
[RajeshG]The Spirit revealed 1 Cor. 10:18-20 to profit us concerning the demonic fellowship that humans come into whenever in a worship context they eat what has been sacrificed to idols. To understand further how God wants us to profit from this revelation and heed its vital message, we must examine carefully the Spirit’s perfect wisdom in how He has crafted the surrounding context of this passage.
Although there are many biblical accounts of humans eating what has been sacrificed to idols, the Spirit chose to direct our attention to one specific account earlier in this passage and use that passage to issue a categorical demand for us not to engage in idolatry:
1 Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
We can be certain, therefore, that He wants us to use 1 Cor. 10:18-20 to understand properly the significance of the event that 10:7 directs our attention to. In 10:7, Paul quotes from Exodus 32:6, which is part of the inspired record of the Golden Calf Incident (GCI).
Applying 1 Cor. 10:18-20 to 10:7 reveals to us therefore that the people who ate and drank what was sacrificed to the idol in the GCI were all people who came into fellowship with demons by their doing so!
Furthermore, we must not fail to pay attention to the fact that the Spirit does not just direct our attention to their eating and drinking what was sacrificed to the idol—He also directs our attention to their idolatrous playing! Because their idolatrous playing only took place after they had consumed what was offered to the idol, we know for certain that their playing was the playing of humans who were in fellowship with demons and influenced by them.
Because the Spirit chose in 1 Corinthians 10 to quote directly from Exodus 32, we know for certain that the GCI is a passage of premier importance for us to know more about the unfruitful works of darkness with which we are commanded not to have any fellowship. Therefore, for us to profit fully from 1 Cor. 10:18-20 we must use what it reveals to illumine what God has revealed to us about what took place in the GCI after the people had eaten and drunk what had been offered to the idol.
Rajesh, just a quick question for you about the demonic influence during the worship at the golden calf incident. From your study, who is the first person in Scripture to write about the demonic influence during the worship at the Golden Calf Incident?
Discussion