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!

44702 reads
RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

You just told Jay " Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth." There are some things the Bible just isn't clear about, so I don't think it's necessary for him or me to come up with a whole different scenario of inferred assertions in order to tell you that the Bible isn't clear enough to support your own assertions.

His assessments of the lack of support for my positions are based on his presuppositions about what the Bible teaches about instrumental music. He continues to comment on my threads about how poor of an interpreter of the Bible I am. When someone repeatedly makes such remarks, they need to be able to defend their remarks.

In any case, I really would like to get back to the original discussion and not discourse about his assessments, etc. Thanks for your on-going remarks that have been on the topic of the thread.

Jay's picture

Not coming into fellowship with demons is a premier obligation for all humans, especially believers. 

If it's obligations that you want to discuss, I again would disagree with you.  The premier obligations for all humans are laid out in Mark 12:

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices

If you live in such a way that avoiding all contact with demons is one of your primary motivations, I truly feel sorry for you.  Your life will be characterized by fearfulness and anxiety, which is not at all the kind of life that Paul tells us to strive for in Romans 14:

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jay's picture

Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth.

Since it's so hard for you to speak plainly about what is and isn't acceptable, I will take you up on this at some point in the future, but I can tell you right now that I'm a thousand percent certain you won't agree with any of it.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

RajeshG's picture

Jay wrote:

Since you are such an advocate of what you say is proper interpretation of the Bible and of using popular musical styles in worship, do set forth in a new thread clear, direct biblical proof of your position without the use of any inferences or any begging of the truth.

Since it's so hard for you to speak plainly about what is and isn't acceptable, I will take you up on this at some point in the future, but I can tell you right now that I'm a thousand percent certain you won't agree with any of it.

It's great that you are going to take up that discussion elsewhere. It would be much appreciated if you stopped commenting on my threads with comments that do not directly pertain to the topic of the thread.

Dan Miller's picture

Here’s my take on the GCI:

17 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.”

At this point in the story, there is ZERO record of any negative response to the noise of singing. Nor is there any attempt to categorize the type of music being heard. 

 19 And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. 20 He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.

Moses became angry based on what he saw: calf worship

There is no evidence that the music style was bad.

RajeshG's picture

Dan Miller wrote:

Here’s my take on the GCI:

17 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.”

At this point in the story, there is ZERO record of any negative response to the noise of singing. Nor is there any attempt to categorize the type of music being heard. 

 19 And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. 20 He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it.

Moses became angry based on what he saw: calf worship

There is no evidence that the music style was bad.

There is another lengthy thread that you might want to consult, if you are really interested, to see why I disagree: https://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-how-does-god-want-christians-to-pro...

Briefly, to say that demonically influenced people were still producing godly music begs a key question.

Also, the text says that Moses became extremely angry when he saw the calf and the dancing:

Exodus 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

He was not just angry because he saw the calf but the dancing was God-honoring so he was not angry at the dancing.

Finally, the passage records that the enemies of God's people regarded what these demon-influenced, wildly-out-of-control Israelites were doing as shameful, which plainly points to the perversity of what they were doing:

Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:

NAU Exodus 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control-- for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies.

When unbelieving enemies of God's people observing what was taking place judged that their being wildly-out-of-control was shameful, there is no basis for saying that what they were doing in their music and dancing was God-honoring and the only problem was they were directing it to an idol.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

His assessments of the lack of support for my positions are based on his presuppositions about what the Bible teaches about instrumental music. He continues to comment on my threads about how poor of an interpreter of the Bible I am. When someone repeatedly makes such remarks, they need to be able to defend their remarks.In any case, I really would like to get back to the original discussion and not discourse about his assessments, etc. Thanks for your on-going remarks that have been on the topic of the thread.you seem to make

Rajesh, I wasn't talking about Jay's assessments in my post. I was making my own assessment that "I find it odd when I see you make declarative assertions about your own inferences." I see you make these assertions about things that aren't clear in Scripture and then you challenge other people to make their own assertions even though you've just been told that the Bible isn't clear enough to make an assertion. The only reason I mentioned Jay was because you had just used that tactic with Jay moments earlier.

I'd love to get back to the discussion, but it seems that the deeper I try to go into the verses, the more I find that "intrinsic meaning vs assigned meaning" comes into play. The Bible isn't totally clear about what items or what actions have intrinsic or assigned meanings. At that point, you then tell me, "This is a vast subject and I need to study more." You've done that to me twice now, but I'll keep attempting to further the discussion. A friend and I went 23 pages on a different forum discussing a single subject, so I'm not anywhere near to wearing down.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Dan Miller wrote:

Moses became angry based on what he saw: calf worship

There is no evidence that the music style was bad.

 

 

When unbelieving enemies of God's people observing what was taking place judged that their being wildly-out-of-control was shameful, there is no basis for saying that what they were doing in their music and dancing was God-honoring and the only problem was they were directing it to an idol.

Wait a minute. Dan said "There is no evidence the music style was bad," He didn't say the music style was God-honoring. We don't have enough information about the style itself to make a declarative assertion either way, yet you like to make these declarative assertions and insist they are proven because a different declarative assertion can't be made. Why not just admit that the Bible isn't clear but you have an educated opinion about the matter?

We know just as much about the style of music and dancing in the GCI as we know about the music and the style of music and dancing 2 Samuel 6 when David danced. Verse 15 says "So David and all the people of Israel brought up the Ark of the Lord with shouts of joy and the blowing of rams’ horns." This makes it sound like the style would remind someone of the sounds of war from a distance. Verse 16 says David was "leaping and dancing." Michel accused David in verse 20 of "shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls like any vulgar person might do." So while total nakedness did not happen, there was some perceived shamefulness. In both situations, we have no specifics about the particular style of music or dancing that was used.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Wait a minute. Dan said "There is no evidence the music style was bad," He didn't say the music style was God-honoring. We don't have enough information about the style itself to make a declarative assertion either way, yet you like to make these declarative assertions and insist they are proven because a different declarative assertion can't be made. Why not just admit that the Bible isn't clear but you have an educated opinion about the matter?

We know just as much about the style of music and dancing in the GCI as we know about the music and the style of music and dancing 2 Samuel 6 when David danced. Verse 15 says "So David and all the people of Israel brought up the Ark of the Lord with shouts of joy and the blowing of rams’ horns." This makes it sound like the style would remind someone of the sounds of war from a distance. Verse 16 says David was "leaping and dancing." Michel accused David in verse 20 of "shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls like any vulgar person might do." So while total nakedness did not happen, there was some perceived shamefulness. In both situations, we have no specifics about the particular style of music or dancing that was used.

No, Michal's assessment was not a valid assessment, as seen by both David's rebuke of her and the subsequent statement that she died childless. The valid assessment by God's enemies that what the Israelites were doing in the GCI was shameful is recorded by the Spirit as factual information.

You are merely guessing that shouts of joy and blowing of horns will sound like war from a distance. Moreover, you are not accounting for the most important difference: the people in the GCI were in fellowship with demons and influenced by them.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Rajesh, I wasn't talking about Jay's assessments in my post. I was making my own assessment that "I find it odd when I see you make declarative assertions about your own inferences." I see you make these assertions about things that aren't clear in Scripture and then you challenge other people to make their own assertions even though you've just been told that the Bible isn't clear enough to make an assertion. The only reason I mentioned Jay was because you had just used that tactic with Jay moments earlier.

I'd love to get back to the discussion, but it seems that the deeper I try to go into the verses, the more I find that "intrinsic meaning vs assigned meaning" comes into play. The Bible isn't totally clear about what items or what actions have intrinsic or assigned meanings. At that point, you then tell me, "This is a vast subject and I need to study more." You've done that to me twice now, but I'll keep attempting to further the discussion. A friend and I went 23 pages on a different forum discussing a single subject, so I'm not anywhere near to wearing down.

When you do examine the biblical data, we find that there are recorded instances of sounds that did have meaning that were not humanly knowable. That's why in my previous comments, I kept saying it that way. Unless God reveals them to us, as humans, we cannot know the meanings, regardless of whether they are intrinsic or assigned, that music has for supernatural beings, especially God.

When demons influence humans to produce music, those humans as well as all other humans do not have any way to assess what meanings that demonically influenced music has in the supernatural realm. All use of such demonically influenced music must be rejected for that reason as well as because of its origin in supernatural evil influence.

Dan Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Dan Miller wrote:

...

There is no evidence that the music style was bad.

Briefly, to say that demonically influenced people were still producing godly music begs a key question.

I didn’t, though. To claim the music was good and to claim it was evil are both without support in the text. 

They also probably were standing on sand. But again we cannot claim that was part of the evil of that night.

RajeshG's picture

Dan Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Dan Miller wrote:

...

There is no evidence that the music style was bad.

Briefly, to say that demonically influenced people were still producing godly music begs a key question.

 

 

I didn’t, though. To claim the music was good and to claim it was evil are both without support in the text. 

They also probably were standing on sand. But again we cannot claim that was part of the evil of that night.

Ok, so let's back up. The text tells us that their idolatry included consuming what was sacrificed to an idol. Do you believe that they came into fellowship with demons, as 1 Cor. 10:18-20 explictly teaches people do when they engage in that behavior?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Moreover, you are not accounting for the most important difference: the people in the GCI were in fellowship with demons and influenced by them.

Why do you associate "fellowship with demons" with "influence"? To me, fellowship means something like "going in the same direction," which could include influence, but I can't think of a clear Bible verse to say that it absolutely does. We as humans shouldn't be traveling in the same rebellious path as demons do, but going on that path by eating idol food does not mean the demons with which one is fellowshipping with actually influenced anyone to do anything. To make a declarative assertion that there was influence is to go beyond the specific wording of the verses.

Dan Miller's picture

Ok, so let's back up. The text tells us that their idolatry included consuming what was sacrificed to an idol. Do you believe that they came into fellowship with demons, as 1 Cor. 10:18-20 explictly teaches people do when they engage in that behavior?

Yes, but μετέχω (participate) and κοινωνός (fellowship) must also be defined without begging the question.

RajeshG's picture

Dan Miller wrote:

Ok, so let's back up. The text tells us that their idolatry included consuming what was sacrificed to an idol. Do you believe that they came into fellowship with demons, as 1 Cor. 10:18-20 explictly teaches people do when they engage in that behavior?

Yes, but μετέχω (participate) and κοινωνός (fellowship) must also be defined without begging the question.

Will do. But, first, back to Ex. 32. Do you agree that the text says that Moses became angry after seeing both the calf and the dancing and not just the calf?

Also, do you agree that 1 Cor. 10:7 shows us that their idolatry did not just include their consuming what was sacrificed to the idol but also included their subsequent playing:

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

When you do examine the biblical data, we find that there are recorded instances of sounds that did have meaning that were not humanly knowable. That's why in my previous comments, I kept saying it that way. Unless God reveals them to us, as humans, we cannot know the meanings, regardless of whether they are intrinsic or assigned, that music has for supernatural beings, especially God.

When demons influence humans to produce music, those humans as well as all other humans do not have any way to assess what meanings that demonically influenced music has in the supernatural realm. All use of such demonically influenced music must be rejected for that reason as well as because of its origin in supernatural evil influence.

It's interesting that you bring up supernatural music, since it seems to me from Ezekiel 28:13 that Satan was one of the first musicians. "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created." Verse 15 then says, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." So if Satan was perfect until he fell, then the music he played was also perfect. However, since it was supernatural music, we have no way of knowing what it sounded like or even if humans could have heard the sounds. We have no way of knowing what styles or genres were represented. We have no way of knowing if the perfection was intrinsic or assigned. We have no way of knowing if Satan, once he fell, created new supernatural styles or if Satan used perfect styles in ungodly ways. We have no way of knowing if humans, even under the influence of demons, can mimic supernatural music of any intrinsic or assigned variety. In this post of yours that I quoted, you used "When demons influence humans to produce music" as an adverbial clause, as if it's totally logical to you that demons influence humans to produce music. This might be true, but until we examine in depth what "demonic influence" actually means and what it entails, then I find it hard to just accept your assumption/inference/opinion that demons can influence humans to produce music.

I see you did admit that "humans do not have any way to assess what meanings that demonically influenced music has in the supernatural realm." However, you went to to say that because we can't know something, we have to reject certain music. How can we reject without knowledge? How can we even know if demonically influenced music actually exists if we haven't fully discussed the Scripture-based mechanics of demon influence? Just giving examples of wicked people who used music does NOT give us proof that demons were actually influencing the production of a whole style that then needs to be rejected, especially since those examples don't mention a specific style.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

It's interesting that you bring up supernatural music, since it seems to me from Ezekiel 28:13 that Satan was one of the first musicians. "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created." Verse 15 then says, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." So if Satan was perfect until he fell, then the music he played was also perfect. However, since it was supernatural music, we have no way of knowing what it sounded like or even if humans could have heard the sounds. We have no way of knowing what styles or genres were represented. We have no way of knowing if the perfection was intrinsic or assigned. We have no way of knowing if Satan, once he fell, created new supernatural styles or if Satan used perfect styles in ungodly ways. We have no way of knowing if humans, even under the influence of demons, can mimic supernatural music of any intrinsic or assigned variety. In this post of yours that I quoted, you used "When demons influence humans to produce music" as an adverbial clause, as if it's totally logical to you that demons influence humans to produce music. This might be true, but until we examine in depth what "demonic influence" actually means and what it entails, then I find it hard to just accept your assumption/inference/opinion that demons can influence humans to produce music.

Translational uncertainties make the use of Ezek. 28:13 problematic:

KJV Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

NAU Ezekiel 28:13 "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared.

NET Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, the ruby, topaz, and emerald, the chrysolite, onyx, and jasper, the sapphire, turquoise, and beryl; your settings and mounts were made of gold. On the day you were created they were prepared.

NKJ Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

CSB Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every kind of precious stone covered you: carnelian, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and emerald. Your mountings and settings were crafted in gold; they were prepared on the day you were created.

ESV Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.

NIV Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.

NLT Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone-- red carnelian, pale-green peridot, white moonstone, blue-green beryl, onyx, green jasper, blue lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald-- all beautifully crafted for you and set in the finest gold. They were given to you on the day you were created.

Bert Perry's picture

.....we're not going far enough.  I mean, we're talking here about rejecting music used by idolaters, but if we must--leaving aside the question of what the particular characteristics of that music might have been--why would we then fail to impugn the other things the idolaters did?

For example, some idolaters make offerings of meat.  Others use bread or wine, and still others use potatoes or rice or raisins.  Buddhists in Nepal use dairy in their idolatry.  We should of course avoid all of these.

Some idolaters wear woolen garments, others used linen or cotton, some used leather, some use synthetics or hemp today, and (Druids) some wear blue paint/nothing at all.  We should avoid all of these, of course.  Might.be.difficult, to put it mildly.  

In the same way, some idolaters worship in temples of stone or brick, or in frame buildings, or even in tents or outside altogether.  I'm sure that, per the reasoning presented here, we ought to avoid all of these.  

Either that, or we could remember that the ancients knew everything I just mentioned, and they rightly rejected guilt by association arguments that would force them to reject good gifts God had created for their enjoyment.  Including music which included a beat and percussive instruments, and to which one might dance.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Why do you associate "fellowship with demons" with "influence"? To me, fellowship means something like "going in the same direction," which could include influence, but I can't think of a clear Bible verse to say that it absolutely does. We as humans shouldn't be traveling in the same rebellious path as demons do, but going on that path by eating idol food does not mean the demons with which one is fellowshipping with actually influenced anyone to do anything. To make a declarative assertion that there was influence is to go beyond the specific wording of the verses.

in the context of the seriousness of what is discussed in 1 Cor. 10, we can be confident that "fellowship" does not mean something like "going in the same direction." Allowing Scripture to interpret itself, consider the divine instruction in Eph. 4:

KJV Ephesians 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil.

NAU Ephesians 4:26 BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not give the devil an opportunity.

NET Ephesians 4:26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on the cause of your anger. 27 Do not give the devil an opportunity.

NKJ Ephesians 4:26 "Be angry, and do not sin": do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil.

CSB Ephesians 4:26 Be angry and do not sin. Don't let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and don't give the Devil an opportunity.

ESV Ephesians 4:26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil.

NIV Ephesians 4:26 "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold.

NLT Ephesians 4:26 And "don't sin by letting anger control you." Don't let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 for anger gives a foothold to the devil.

Interpreters connect letting the sun go down on one's anger with giving the devil an opportunity, providing him a foothold, etc. in one's life. Although not dealing with anger properly is a sin, it is hardly comparable to the sinfulness of eating foodstuffs offered to an idol in a worship context. Arguing from the lesser to the greater, if not dealing with anger properly gives the devil an opportunity to influence one's life to sin further, certainly putting oneself in fellowship with demons by eating meat offered to an idol in a worship context is far worse in leading to demonic influence in one's life.

God commands us not to give the devil any opportunities in our lives for him to influence us to sin. When the idolaters in the GCI engaged in false worship, including consuming what had been offered to the idol, they certainly engaged in an act that led to demonic influence upon them to engage in further wickedness.

Jay's picture

Although not dealing with anger properly is a sin, it is hardly comparable to the sinfulness of eating foodstuffs offered to an idol in a worship context.

Rajesh are you seriously arguing that some sins are...more sinful...than other sins?  On what authority do you claim this?  Does God say anything like this anywhere in the Bible?

Sins have different consequences but I don't think God gives us a taxonomy for deciding some sins are better than others.  I think you might be conflating the two.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

RajeshG's picture

Jay wrote:

Although not dealing with anger properly is a sin, it is hardly comparable to the sinfulness of eating foodstuffs offered to an idol in a worship context.

Rajesh are you seriously arguing that some sins are...more sinful...than other sins?  On what authority do you claim this?  Does God say anything like this anywhere in the Bible?

Sins have different consequences but I don't think God gives us a taxonomy for deciding some sins are better than others.  I think you might be conflating the two.

John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Ezekiel 8:6 He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations.

Ezekiel 8:13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.

Ezekiel 8:15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Translational uncertainties make the use of Ezek. 28:13 problematic:

KJV Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

NAU Ezekiel 28:13 "You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared.

NET Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, the ruby, topaz, and emerald, the chrysolite, onyx, and jasper, the sapphire, turquoise, and beryl; your settings and mounts were made of gold. On the day you were created they were prepared.

NKJ Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

CSB Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every kind of precious stone covered you: carnelian, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and emerald. Your mountings and settings were crafted in gold; they were prepared on the day you were created.

ESV Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.

NIV Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.

NLT Ezekiel 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone-- red carnelian, pale-green peridot, white moonstone, blue-green beryl, onyx, green jasper, blue lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald-- all beautifully crafted for you and set in the finest gold. They were given to you on the day you were created.

Oh, I'm aware of the translational uncertainties. That's one of the reasons I used "it seems to me" when making my statement. I was even hoping someone would mention the uncertainty, since the uncertainty adds support to my position that sometimes the Bible is unclear about an issue. Here we have a couple of Hebrew words (translated tabrets and pipes in the KJV)  that are only used a few times in the Bible, so it's really hard to make definitive assertions about their meaning. I read one webpage that said that even though the NIV translated the first word as "settings" in Ezekiel 28:13, the NIV translates it as "timbrels" in Jeremiah 31:4. So I'm going to continue to hold to my perspective that Satan was a minister of music in heaven, but I do so with an open mind, knowing there's a good chance I'm wrong.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Oh, I'm aware of the translational uncertainties. That's one of the reasons I used "it seems to me" when making my statement. I was even hoping someone would mention the uncertainty, since the uncertainty adds support to my position that sometimes the Bible is unclear about an issue. Here we have a couple of Hebrew words (translated tabrets and pipes in the KJV)  that are only used a few times in the Bible, so it's really hard to make definitive assertions about their meaning. I read one webpage that said that even though the NIV translated the first word as "settings" in Ezekiel 28:13, the NIV translates it as "timbrels" in Jeremiah 31:4. So I'm going to continue to hold to my perspective that Satan was a minister of music in heaven, but I do so with an open mind, knowing there's a good chance I'm wrong.

The Bible is not unclear in demanding in both Testaments that people not having anything to do with things connected to idolatry or the occult. No fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness means exactly that--zero, none, never, not at all, not in any way, etc.

RajeshG's picture

Scripture reveals that humans can hear some supernatural musical sounds and correctly know that they are musical sounds:

1. At Sinai, no humans were allowed to come near the mount, but trumpet sounds proceeded out from Sinai that were humanly heard and recognized to be trumpet sounds.

There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. (Exod. 19:13)

And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled. (Exod. 19:16)

 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice. (Exod. 19:19)

And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. (Exod. 20:18)

2. John heard the sound of harpers harping with their harps in heaven

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: (Rev. 14:2)

RajeshG's picture

Scripture records an account of human inability to correctly perceive supernatural sounds that had meaning:

John 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

This passages shows that humans did hear the supernatural sounds but misperceived them as thunder when it was actually divine communication between Members of the Godhead.

This account points to the folly of thinking that an accurate musicological analysis of demonically influenced music must be humanly possible. We do not have that ability, and we do not have the authorization to analyze such music. We are to reject it categorically.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

The Bible is not unclear in demanding in both Testaments that people not having anything to do with things connected to idolatry or the occult. No fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness means exactly that--zero, none, never, not at all, not in any way, etc.

What does "fellowship" mean in your statement? You suggest that it means "not having anything to do with things connected," but that's not a very clear definition because it includes such a wide spectrum of life. For example, tea leaves are used in occult readings. Does no "fellowship" with "things connected" mean that I must not have anything to do with tea? I looked up Hindu worship, and I found out that Hindus offer water, fruit, and flowers to their gods. Am I supposed to not have "anything to do with" water, fruit, and flowers because they are used in idolatrous worship? When I was young, I wasn't allowed to play with a deck of playing cards because the cards have been referred to by some as "The Devil's picture book." From what I remember, the King was supposed to represent the devil, the Queen was supposed to represent Mary, and the Joker was supposed to represent Christ. Am I supposed to stay away from games that use playing cards because there exists a "connection" to the occult?

The Bible is clear that I must not practice idolatry and I must not practice the occult. The actual specifics of "anything to do with things connected" are not as clear as you make it out to be. We live in a world where wicked people have used a multitude of different items in idolatrous worship and occult practices. Staying away from all such things would require living in a monastery, and even then you'd fail to live up to the standard.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Scripture records an account of human inability to correctly perceive supernatural sounds that had meaning:

John 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

This passages shows that humans did hear the supernatural sounds but misperceived them as thunder when it was actually divine communication between Members of the Godhead.

This account points to the folly of thinking that an accurate musicological analysis of demonically influenced music must be humanly possible. We do not have that ability, and we do not have the authorization to analyze such music. We are to reject it categorically.

So you're comparing the voice of the Godhead to demonically influenced music. I don't think you have comparable things there. Where does the Bible describe people hearing supernatural music played by demons? Wicked people can play music, but we have no way of knowing if supernatural sounds that demons make are audible to humans, or if they are then reproduceable by human instruments. 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Scripture records an account of human inability to correctly perceive supernatural sounds that had meaning:

John 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

This passages shows that humans did hear the supernatural sounds but misperceived them as thunder when it was actually divine communication between Members of the Godhead.

This account points to the folly of thinking that an accurate musicological analysis of demonically influenced music must be humanly possible. We do not have that ability, and we do not have the authorization to analyze such music. We are to reject it categorically.

 

So you're comparing the voice of the Godhead to demonically influenced music. I don't think you have comparable things there. Where does the Bible describe people hearing supernatural music played by demons? Wicked people can play music, but we have no way of knowing if supernatural sounds that demons make are audible to humans, or if they are then reproduceable by human instruments. 

The point of talking about this passage is to show that supernaturally produced sounds were humanly audible but not humanly understood.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

So you're comparing the voice of the Godhead to demonically influenced music. I don't think you have comparable things there. Where does the Bible describe people hearing supernatural music played by demons? Wicked people can play music, but we have no way of knowing if supernatural sounds that demons make are audible to humans, or if they are then reproduceable by human instruments. 

 

 

The point of talking about this passage is to show that supernaturally produced sounds were humanly audible but not humanly understood.

But you're trying to make a point using two things that can't be compared logically

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

The Bible is not unclear in demanding in both Testaments that people not having anything to do with things connected to idolatry or the occult. No fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness means exactly that--zero, none, never, not at all, not in any way, etc.

 

What does "fellowship" mean in your statement? You suggest that it means "not having anything to do with things connected," but that's not a very clear definition because it includes such a wide spectrum of life. For example, tea leaves are used in occult readings. Does no "fellowship" with "things connected" mean that I must not have anything to do with tea? I looked up Hindu worship, and I found out that Hindus offer water, fruit, and flowers to their gods. Am I supposed to not have "anything to do with" water, fruit, and flowers because they are used in idolatrous worship? When I was young, I wasn't allowed to play with a deck of playing cards because the cards have been referred to by some as "The Devil's picture book." From what I remember, the King was supposed to represent the devil, the Queen was supposed to represent Mary, and the Joker was supposed to represent Christ. Am I supposed to stay away from games that use playing cards because there exists a "connection" to the occult?

 

The Bible is clear that I must not practice idolatry and I must not practice the occult. The actual specifics of "anything to do with things connected" are not as clear as you make it out to be. We live in a world where wicked people have used a multitude of different items in idolatrous worship and occult practices. Staying away from all such things would require living in a monastery, and even then you'd fail to live up to the standard.

None of these things that you talk about are talked about in the Bible as being produced by demons or by humans influenced by demons. The same cannot be said about music.

I have already talked some about what fellowship with demons is in a previous post. Did you somehow miss it?

Pages