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!

44710 reads
RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Moses first said, “It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery.” Saying this, Moses explained that when people who have been engaging in a battle gain mastery over their opponents, they respond to their triumphing with shouting in a manner that communicates their succeeding in being victorious in the battle.

The sound emanating from the camp was not the recognizable sound of people shouting in their singing to celebrate their mastery. Such people sing joyfully with a shout of triumph that Moses’ response shows is distinctly recognizable even from a distance.

 

Wait a minute. The sound of triumph after a battle is not the only possible "shout for mastery" that exists. During the Civil War, the Confederates had their Rebel Yell that they used during a battle as a shout for mastery. I suppose they sometimes did it after a battle as well, but it was mainly used to distract and throw fear into their opponents during a battle.

You are really grasping at straws to support your position. Who cares whether people in the Civil War did something? What is your biblical evidence that the Israelites ever did such a thing as part of their godly worship music in a feast to the Lord?

Kevin Miller wrote:

Quote:
Moses then added, “Neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome.” Saying this, Moses explained that there is a distinctively recognizable sound that people produce when they have been overcome in a battle and are mourning at their defeat.

 

People who have been defeated in a battle do not sing joyfully with a shout of triumph because they did not win the battle. Their shouting is the mournful sound of people bemoaning their having lost the battle.

Wait a minute again. The sound of mourning after a battle is not the only "cry for being overcome" that is possible. People in the middle of the battle can cry out in pain and beg for mercy and call out for help.

Being overcome is not "in the middle of the battle."

Kevin Miller wrote:

Quote:
Taken together, the inspired revelation in Exodus 32:17-18 about the sound of the singing in the GCI shows us that the musical composite sound emanating from the camp was neither the sound of people joyfully shouting in celebrating their victory nor the sound of people mournfully shouting in lamenting their defeat. This revelation, therefore, tells us that the war-like musical composite sound emanating from the camp sounded like the uncertain, indistinct, chaotic sounds of people engaged in a battle where neither side is winning the battle and the battle is still raging. 

Now you are really just making things up. There is no indication from the comment of Moses that your description of battle sounds would apply. Another possible battle sound we haven't mentioned is the sound of people marching into battle. That is another battle sound that would be potentially indistinct if heard from a distance. You are trying to assert something, a "battle is still raging" sound, that just isn't shown in the verses. After all, the sounds that Moses mentioned as NOT being heard can both happen while the battle is raging.

 

The way I interpret it, in my admittedly human and therefore fallible way, is that Moses is not saying, "That sound is not like X war sound or like Y war sound, but it is like Z war sound." That was not the message of Moses. Instead, he was saying, "Joshua, clean out your ears. That is not  the sound of war in any way. It's the sound of singing (in a corporate shouting type way)" Israelites DID practice shouting in the worship of God, and I'm sure other nations practiced shouting in the worship of their gods. The style of "shout-singing" is not inherently ungodly just because it sounds uncertain from a distance.

This explanation does not explain why Joshua did not recognize the sound of the Israelites "shout-singing" in a godly way that you claim was taking place. He knew very well what that sounded like.

Also, how does Moses' specifying that the sound was not the sound of two specific sounds of war amount to his saying "that is not  the sound of war in any way"? As you have said more than once, there are other sounds of war so Moses' specifying that it was not those two sounds does not equal his asserting that it was not the sound of any kind of sounds of war.

Or, to put it differently, Moses' specifying that the sound was not the sound of those two possible endpoints for the outcome of a battle is not tantamount to his saying that it also was not the sound of a battle that was in progress with an uncertain outcome.

Dave White's picture

Can someone "net" this out in a sentence (or a short paragraph):

WHAT is the vital message?

Kevin Miller's picture

Dave White wrote:

Can someone "net" this out in a sentence (or a short paragraph):

WHAT is the vital message?

Rajesh can add a bit extra if he wants, but what I see as the vital message that Rajesh is trying to get across is summed up in these clips from the opening post, the third post and the sixth post of the thread.

[OP]"God does not want any humans to have fellowship with demons!"

[Third]"Because the Spirit chose in 1 Corinthians 10 to quote directly from Exodus 32, we know for certain that the GCI {Golden Calf Incident} 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."

[Sixth]"Exodus 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

From this passage, we know that these people shouted (32:17) in producing a very loud sound that Moses discerned to be the noise of their singing (32:18). We know, therefore, that these demonically influenced people were producing music.

Exodus 32:17-18 is an inspired record of demonically influenced music! God wants us to know that there is such a thing as demonically influenced music produced by human beings."

So Rajesh and I have been examining in detail the foundational issues of "fellowship" with demons, of what demons actually do in relation to humans, of what demons might do in relation to music, of what style of music may have been played at the GCI, of what the "noise of war" actually might be, along with some other rabbit trails that aren't coming to me at the moment. In a very general sense, we've discussed what these issues mean as we decide on worship music for today, but application isn't a primary focus of the thread (although I do think we've discussed enough of the foundations that application does need to be more of a focus).

(Rajesh, please correct me if I am misunderstanding your "vital message" or if I have let out an important facet of your point.)

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You are really grasping at straws to support your position. Who cares whether people in the Civil War did something? What is your biblical evidence that the Israelites ever did such a thing as part of their godly worship music in a feast to the Lord?

And you are making up definitions to support yours. What is your biblical evidence that a "shout for mastery" is the sound of triumph after a battle? I've shown you from historical evidence that shouts for mastery can occur during a battle, but as you've just told me, you don't care. You just want to make your own points without considering other possibilities.

 

Quote:
Being overcome is not "in the middle of the battle."
Yeah, right. Are you saying that people who die in the middle of a battle haven't been overcome? Are you saying that people who die in the middle of a battle are just silent while they are dying or while the enemy is approaching to finish them off?

Quote:
This explanation does not explain why Joshua did not recognize the sound of the Israelites "shout-singing" in a godly way that you claim was taking place. He knew very well what that sounded like.
Can you show me where I claimed the shout-singing was taking place in a godly way? I specifically said that the Israelites practiced shouting in worship to God AND that other nations did as well. Perhaps you've forgotten that Joshua heard it from a distance. You can't tell what someone is shouting from a distance. It just sounds like shouting.

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

Is there any indication from scripture that this particular feast was predetermined by God ahead of time? I don't see it in the passage. Would God have also predetermined ahead of time that Aaron collect earrings so that a golden calf could be made?

 

I'm not going to dignify your second question with any kind of response other than this because it is so outrageous that it does not deserve a response.

The point is that Aaron did not have the authority to declare arbitrarily at his whim that there would be a national feast to the Lord. Those were predetermined by God, and Aaron was merely announcing what was already scheduled to be observed.

In fact, Moses and Aaron testified to Pharaoh that they had to go into the wilderness to observe a feast to the Lord (Ex. 5:1; 10:9). In the flow of the narrative, the feast that Aaron talked about is the only feast that is recorded that they were going to observe.

You don't want to "dignify" my second question with a response, because you know that the logical response would undermine your argument.

We have no indication that the feast Moses told Pharaoh to let them have was a time-dated feast that had to take place on a specific date. The Law hadn't even been given yet which contained the feast dates that they were to observe. Please show me the Scriptures that indicate to you that this was a dated feast that Aaron had to start even though Moses was still up in the mountain. If Aaron could start collecting earrings on his own authority and could fashion a calf for the people to worship on his own authority, then how can you insist that he would never "declare arbitrarily at his whim that there would be a national feast to the Lord." If he was as concerned about following God's plans as you claim he was, he never would have made the golden calf. The indication we have from Scripture here is that Aaron was going rogue. He was acting on his own authority. He even lied to Moses about the making of the idol. The passage says Aaron fashioned it himself, but Aaron told Moses "Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” As if it just came out of the fire that way without Aaron having anything to do with it.

I just thought of a question I hadn't though to ask when we discussing "fellowship with demons." Since Aaron fashioned the idol himself, wouldn't the making of the idol have put Aaron into fellowship with demons himself? Fashioning an idol certainly seems like an unfruitful work of darkness.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

I see. So Moses was more "spiritual" than God. God's anger was burning because the people were engaging in vile idolatry that was profaning His name, but a Spirit-filled Moses was not angry at their sinfulness? The Holy Spirit is God, and when He controls a person, that person will respond in the same perfect ways that God does. It makes zero sense to try to assert that Moses was not angry.

It makes zero sense to assert that people can "respond in the same perfect ways that God does," even with the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible doesn't describe Moses as being angry until he saw the calf and the dancing. That's the long and the short of it. If you want ot insist on something happening that the Bible doesn't say happened, go right ahead, but it rather diminishes any other point you might want to claim as coming from the Bible. If I was going to guess at any emotion, I would say that Moses was fearful for his people. He was begging God to spare their lives. I would also guess at a great deal of embarrassment, shame on behalf of the people, and even sadness. Of course, i can't definitively assert those emotions as being present while talking to God, any more than you can assert anger. The emotions of Moses at that time simply weren't mentioned.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

And you are making up definitions to support yours. What is your biblical evidence that a "shout for mastery" is the sound of triumph after a battle? I've shown you from historical evidence that shouts for mastery can occur during a battle, but as you've just told me, you don't care. You just want to make your own points without considering other possibilities.

 

Quote:
Being overcome is not "in the middle of the battle."

Yeah, right. Are you saying that people who die in the middle of a battle haven't been overcome? Are you saying that people who die in the middle of a battle are just silent while they are dying or while the enemy is approaching to finish them off?

Here's some evidence that shows that what Moses said was not about what takes place in the middle of a battle:

NAU Exodus 32:18 But he said, "It is not the sound of the cry of triumph, Nor is it the sound of the cry of defeat; But the sound of singing I hear."

NET Exodus 32:18 Moses said, "It is not the sound of those who shout for victory, nor is it the sound of those who cry because they are overcome, but the sound of singing I hear."

NKJ Exodus 32:18 But he said: "It is not the noise of the shout of victory, Nor the noise of the cry of defeat, But the sound of singing I hear."

CSB Exodus 32:18 But Moses replied: It's not the sound of a victory cry and not the sound of a cry of defeat; I hear the sound of singing!

ESV Exodus 32:18 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."

NIV Exodus 32:18 Moses replied: "It is not the sound of victory, it is not the sound of defeat; it is the sound of singing that I hear."

NLT Exodus 32:18 But Moses replied, "No, it's not a shout of victory nor the wailing of defeat. I hear the sound of a celebration."

GNV Exodus 32:18 Who answered, It is not the noyse of them that haue the victorie, nor the noyse of them that are ouercome: but I do heare ye noyse of singing.

As the data from all of these translators of the Hebrew text clearly shows, the words in a question are words that communicate victory and defeat, not two things that are happening in the middle of a battle. Moreover, if as you are trying to argue, these are both terms for what is going in the middle of a battle, then Moses statements would be saying that the sounds are not the sounds of the middle of the battle.

Moses' statements pairing these two opposite outcomes clearly show that he is talking about the endpoints of a battle.

Furthermore, if what Moses was really communicating was that the sounds were not at all like the sounds of a battle, he simply could have said, "It's not the sound of war that I hear . . ." To make your understanding work, explain why Moses specifically talked about only the endpoints of a battle when he could have just much more simply said that it wasn't the sound of war at all.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

Is there any indication from scripture that this particular feast was predetermined by God ahead of time? I don't see it in the passage. Would God have also predetermined ahead of time that Aaron collect earrings so that a golden calf could be made?

 

I'm not going to dignify your second question with any kind of response other than this because it is so outrageous that it does not deserve a response.

The point is that Aaron did not have the authority to declare arbitrarily at his whim that there would be a national feast to the Lord. Those were predetermined by God, and Aaron was merely announcing what was already scheduled to be observed.

In fact, Moses and Aaron testified to Pharaoh that they had to go into the wilderness to observe a feast to the Lord (Ex. 5:1; 10:9). In the flow of the narrative, the feast that Aaron talked about is the only feast that is recorded that they were going to observe.

 

You don't want to "dignify" my second question with a response, because you know that the logical response would undermine your argument.

 

We have no indication that the feast Moses told Pharaoh to let them have was a time-dated feast that had to take place on a specific date. The Law hadn't even been given yet which contained the feast dates that they were to observe. Please show me the Scriptures that indicate to you that this was a dated feast that Aaron had to start even though Moses was still up in the mountain. If Aaron could start collecting earrings on his own authority and could fashion a calf for the people to worship on his own authority, then how can you insist that he would never "declare arbitrarily at his whim that there would be a national feast to the Lord." If he was as concerned about following God's plans as you claim he was, he never would have made the golden calf. The indication we have from Scripture here is that Aaron was going rogue. He was acting on his own authority. He even lied to Moses about the making of the idol. The passage says Aaron fashioned it himself, but Aaron told Moses "Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” As if it just came out of the fire that way without Aaron having anything to do with it.

I just thought of a question I hadn't though to ask when we discussing "fellowship with demons." Since Aaron fashioned the idol himself, wouldn't the making of the idol have put Aaron into fellowship with demons himself? Fashioning an idol certainly seems like an unfruitful work of darkness.

I did not want to dignfiy your second question with a response because I consider your statement to be coming dangerously close to an inappropriate assertion about what God supposedly would have done: "Would God have also predetermined ahead of time that Aaron collect earrings so that a golden calf could be made?"

You assert, "The Law hadn't even been given yet which contained the feast dates that they were to observe." That is a factually erroneous statement. The Law had already been given and did stipulate the feasts:

Exodus 23:14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. 15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:) 16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. 17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.

Notice that this was given before the GCI took place.

Regarding Aaron, we do not have specific Scripture to say that the making of an idol puts a person in partnership with demons. The specific biblical revelation that we do have says that offering sacrifices to an idol, etc. is what does so (1 Cor. 10:18-20).

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Quote:
This explanation does not explain why Joshua did not recognize the sound of the Israelites "shout-singing" in a godly way that you claim was taking place. He knew very well what that sounded like.

Can you show me where I claimed the shout-singing was taking place in a godly way? I specifically said that the Israelites practiced shouting in worship to God AND that other nations did as well. Perhaps you've forgotten that Joshua heard it from a distance. You can't tell what someone is shouting from a distance. It just sounds like shouting.

Nearly your entire argument in much of this thread has been your speculation that these people who were under demonic influence were somehow still worshiping in a godly way by playing instruments and singing in a godly Israelite way.

If you are now claiming that this "shout-singing" was not taking place in a godly way that the Israelites practiced or that it was taking place in the ungodly way that other nations practiced it, you are agreeing with me that the music of the GCI was being produced in an ungodly way. If so, great, and let's move on.

MF's picture

This whole argument is rather silly because even though the Apostles encourage us no to eat food sacrificed to idols, they also make allowance for it. 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 says, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience for “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”" And Acts 10:9-13 says, ""Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”" The point is, both sides are right. The only thing lacking is humility. 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Moses' statements pairing these two opposite outcomes clearly show that he is talking about the endpoints of a battle.

Furthermore, if what Moses was really communicating was that the sounds were not at all like the sounds of a battle, he simply could have said, "It's not the sound of war that I hear . . ." To make your understanding work, explain why Moses specifically talked about only the endpoints of a battle when he could have just much more simply said that it wasn't the sound of war at all.

No, I don't see Moses talking about the endpoints of a battle. Your argument seems to be that no side is ever winning or losing in the middle of a battle. Is every battle really a stalemate until the very end? I don't think so. Moses is saying "I don't hear the Israelites winning a battle and I don't hear the Israelites losing a battle, therefore, I don't hear a battle. It's just singing."

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Regarding Aaron, we do not have specific Scripture to say that the making of an idol puts a person in partnership with demons. The specific biblical revelation that we do have says that offering sacrifices to an idol, etc. is what does so (1 Cor. 10:18-20).

So when we start to make application regarding our choice of worship music for today, we only have to worry about composers who have offered sacrifices to an idol, since they are the ones who would be producing music while in partnership with demons. Is that correct?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Nearly your entire argument in much of this thread has been your speculation that these people who were under demonic influence were somehow still worshiping in a godly way by playing instruments and singing in a godly Israelite way.

If you are now claiming that this "shout-singing" was not taking place in a godly way that the Israelites practiced or that it was taking place in the ungodly way that other nations practiced it, you are agreeing with me that the music of the GCI was being produced in an ungodly way. If so, great, and let's move on.

Actually, if you've been reading my comments closely, you would see that I've consistently put "neutral" in the list of possibilities for how God views music. The very same style of shout-singing could be godly if directed toward God and ungodly if directed toward an idol. If the same thing can be used in both godly and ungodly ways, then the thing itself is neutral. Since we have no explicit verse relating the exact sound of the instruments, we cannot definitively assert that Egyptian music was being used as opposed to normal Israelite music, My contention is that if they used their normal worship music, they would be offending God by using that music in an idol-directed way. God would not be pleased with the people's action of playing music to an idol no matter how much he may be pleased when people play that music to Him.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You assert, "The Law hadn't even been given yet which contained the feast dates that they were to observe." That is a factually erroneous statement. The Law had already been given and did stipulate the feasts:

Exodus 23:14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. 15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:) 16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. 17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.

Notice that this was given before the GCI took place.

I had forgotten that Moses came down from the mountain for a short period of time between Exodus 20 and Exodus 32. So which of these three feasts from Exodus 23:14 is the one that you think was taking place during the GCI? Was it the feast of unleavened bread or the feast of harvest or the feast of ingathering?

Jay's picture

Actually, if you've been reading my comments closely, you would see that I've consistently put "neutral" in the list of possibilities for how God views music.

If I remember correctly, Rajesh rejects the possibility of 'neutral' music.  It's either godly music or it's not.

"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

Kevin Miller's picture

Jay wrote:

Actually, if you've been reading my comments closely, you would see that I've consistently put "neutral" in the list of possibilities for how God views music.

If I remember correctly, Rajesh rejects the possibility of 'neutral' music.  It's either godly music or it's not.

That's correct. When I list the possibilities, I always say godly, ungodly, or neutral. However, when I don't want to rehash the "neutral music" issue, I go along, for the sake of the discussion, with calling music either godly or ungodly. Usually, we are talking, in those cases, about ways in which music is being used, so godly or ungodly would fit with the ways in which people can use music. And, of course, I do see the possibility of some music being inherently godly or ungodly, but God would be the ultimate judge of that. I'm skeptical that we humans could distinguish inherent godliness or ungodliness in music just from the sounds of it. We have no indication from Scripture what would make a particular sound ungodly. Rajesh has pointed out a verse about a sound being "uncertain," but I don't think being "uncertain" from a distance is what would make a sound displeasing or sinful to God.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Moses' statements pairing these two opposite outcomes clearly show that he is talking about the endpoints of a battle.

Furthermore, if what Moses was really communicating was that the sounds were not at all like the sounds of a battle, he simply could have said, "It's not the sound of war that I hear . . ." To make your understanding work, explain why Moses specifically talked about only the endpoints of a battle when he could have just much more simply said that it wasn't the sound of war at all.

 

No, I don't see Moses talking about the endpoints of a battle. Your argument seems to be that no side is ever winning or losing in the middle of a battle. Is every battle really a stalemate until the very end? I don't think so. Moses is saying "I don't hear the Israelites winning a battle and I don't hear the Israelites losing a battle, therefore, I don't hear a battle. It's just singing."

 

You have provided no explanation for why Moses did not just say, "It is not the noise of war but the noise of them that sing do I hear." You do not get to leave explicit statements of Scripture unexplained as if they were not there in the text. Why did Moses talk about two specific things that it was not when he did not need to do so to say that it is not the sound of war.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Nearly your entire argument in much of this thread has been your speculation that these people who were under demonic influence were somehow still worshiping in a godly way by playing instruments and singing in a godly Israelite way.

If you are now claiming that this "shout-singing" was not taking place in a godly way that the Israelites practiced or that it was taking place in the ungodly way that other nations practiced it, you are agreeing with me that the music of the GCI was being produced in an ungodly way. If so, great, and let's move on.

 

Actually, if you've been reading my comments closely, you would see that I've consistently put "neutral" in the list of possibilities for how God views music. The very same style of shout-singing could be godly if directed toward God and ungodly if directed toward an idol. If the same thing can be used in both godly and ungodly ways, then the thing itself is neutral. Since we have no explicit verse relating the exact sound of the instruments, we cannot definitively assert that Egyptian music was being used as opposed to normal Israelite music, My contention is that if they used their normal worship music, they would be offending God by using that music in an idol-directed way. God would not be pleased with the people's action of playing music to an idol no matter how much he may be pleased when people play that music to Him.

We do not have to have explicit statements about the exact sound of the instruments.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

You assert, "The Law hadn't even been given yet which contained the feast dates that they were to observe." That is a factually erroneous statement. The Law had already been given and did stipulate the feasts:

Exodus 23:14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. 15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:) 16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. 17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.

Notice that this was given before the GCI took place.

 

I had forgotten that Moses came down from the mountain for a short period of time between Exodus 20 and Exodus 32. So which of these three feasts from Exodus 23:14 is the one that you think was taking place during the GCI? Was it the feast of unleavened bread or the feast of harvest or the feast of ingathering?

The passage does not provide the information needed to know which feast it was, and it is not necessary to know. The point stands just the same.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Nearly your entire argument in much of this thread has been your speculation that these people who were under demonic influence were somehow still worshiping in a godly way by playing instruments and singing in a godly Israelite way.

If you are now claiming that this "shout-singing" was not taking place in a godly way that the Israelites practiced or that it was taking place in the ungodly way that other nations practiced it, you are agreeing with me that the music of the GCI was being produced in an ungodly way. If so, great, and let's move on.

 

Actually, if you've been reading my comments closely, you would see that I've consistently put "neutral" in the list of possibilities for how God views music. The very same style of shout-singing could be godly if directed toward God and ungodly if directed toward an idol. If the same thing can be used in both godly and ungodly ways, then the thing itself is neutral. Since we have no explicit verse relating the exact sound of the instruments, we cannot definitively assert that Egyptian music was being used as opposed to normal Israelite music, My contention is that if they used their normal worship music, they would be offending God by using that music in an idol-directed way. God would not be pleased with the people's action of playing music to an idol no matter how much he may be pleased when people play that music to Him.

 

You have not proven that the same thing was used in an ungodly way on this occasion, but used in a godly way at other times. You have merely just asserted that this was the case on this occasion.

RajeshG's picture

Jay wrote:

Actually, if you've been reading my comments closely, you would see that I've consistently put "neutral" in the list of possibilities for how God views music.

If I remember correctly, Rajesh rejects the possibility of 'neutral' music.  It's either godly music or it's not.

The myth that music is neutral is not supported by any Bible. In our day, it was invented by Christians who wanted to use rock music in church.

RajeshG's picture

MF wrote:

This whole argument is rather silly because even though the Apostles encourage us no to eat food sacrificed to idols, they also make allowance for it. 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 says, "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience for “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”" And Acts 10:9-13 says, ""Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”" The point is, both sides are right. The only thing lacking is humility. 

No, Acts 10 did not have anything to do with eating meat offered to idols. Meat and music are not comparable. If you think that they are, you are free to prove from the Bible that they are, but not in this thread. I suggest that you start a new thread specifically about that view.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

Regarding Aaron, we do not have specific Scripture to say that the making of an idol puts a person in partnership with demons. The specific biblical revelation that we do have says that offering sacrifices to an idol, etc. is what does so (1 Cor. 10:18-20).

 

So when we start to make application regarding our choice of worship music for today, we only have to worry about composers who have offered sacrifices to an idol, since they are the ones who would be producing music while in partnership with demons. Is that correct?

 

No, that is not correct. I am not going to get into that discussion at this time.

For some unknown reason, you are fixated on composers as if they are the only ones who produce music. Or, are you just using "composers" as a generic word for anyone who plays music?

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You have provided no explanation for why Moses did not just say, "It is not the noise of war but the noise of them that sing do I hear." You do not get to leave explicit statements of Scripture unexplained as if they were not there in the text. Why did Moses talk about two specific things that it was not when he did not need to do so to say that it is not the sound of war.

I thought I was quite clear in explaining the two statements as I understand them. Sure they conflict with the way you understand them, but I was presenting them all along as other possible explanations than the one you are insisting upon. I still think my other explanation is possible, so I haven't been quite sure why you insist that your version must be true. I suspect it is just to make an application about "music that sounds like war" rather than just taking Moses at his word that it wasn't the sound of war.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

You have provided no explanation for why Moses did not just say, "It is not the noise of war but the noise of them that sing do I hear." You do not get to leave explicit statements of Scripture unexplained as if they were not there in the text. Why did Moses talk about two specific things that it was not when he did not need to do so to say that it is not the sound of war.

 

I thought I was quite clear in explaining the two statements as I understand them. Sure they conflict with the way you understand them, but I was presenting them all along as other possible explanations than the one you are insisting upon. I still think my other explanation is possible, so I haven't been quite sure why you insist that your version must be true. I suspect it is just to make an application about "music that sounds like war" rather than just taking Moses at his word that it wasn't the sound of war.


 

But, according to you, Moses' point is that it was not the sound of war at all. If that was his point, he did not need to say anything else other than simply saying, "It is not the sound of war."

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

But, according to you, Moses' point is that it was not the sound of war at all. If that was his point, he did not need to say anything else other than simply saying, "It is not the sound of war."

True, but I don't see anything wrong with Moses giving Joshua the explanation for why he didn't hear it as the sound of war. It's not like Moses was giving Joshua a three paragraph discourse that wasn't needed. It was just a quick explanation.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

For some unknown reason, you are fixated on composers as if they are the only ones who produce music. Or, are you just using "composers" as a generic word for anyone who plays music?

No, I wasn't talking about the people who are playing the music. If I am choosing worship music to be played in my church, I am quite confident that none of the people doing the playing had offered sacrifices to idols. Yet I am sure you would still tell me to not use demonically influenced music, even if none of the people playing it in my church were themselves demonically influenced.

Or do I not need to worry about demonic influence if none of my performers are demonically influenced. Can we just play anything and be alright?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

But, according to you, Moses' point is that it was not the sound of war at all. If that was his point, he did not need to say anything else other than simply saying, "It is not the sound of war."

 

True, but I don't see anything wrong with Moses giving Joshua the explanation for why he didn't hear it as the sound of war. It's not like Moses was giving Joshua a three paragraph discourse that wasn't needed. It was just a quick explanation.

Think about what you are saying. Moses is explaining why he didn't hear it as the sound of war by saying that it was not the sound of victory or the sound of defeat so it couldn't have been the sound of war? That would mean Moses believed that those are the only two sounds that are possibly the sound of war. We know that Moses did not believe anything like that because he knew from experience that the sound of war comprises more than just those two sounds.

Saying those two things is not a quick explanation for why some sound is not the sound of war because the majority of a battle that lasts for any length of time is not going to sound like either victory or defeat. It simply does not work to say that those two statements are a viable explanation, even a quick one, for why a sound is not the sound of war. 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

I had forgotten that Moses came down from the mountain for a short period of time between Exodus 20 and Exodus 32. So which of these three feasts from Exodus 23:14 is the one that you think was taking place during the GCI? Was it the feast of unleavened bread or the feast of harvest or the feast of ingathering?

 

The passage does not provide the information needed to know which feast it was, and it is not necessary to know. The point stands just the same.

Since your claim is that Aaron was following a set schedule for feasts, then your point falls immediately if you can't name the feast he supposedly had to be observing. If it is not one of these three feasts established in the law, then Aaron was acting on his own authority to call a feast.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Think about what you are saying. Moses is explaining why he didn't hear it as the sound of war by saying that it was not the sound of victory or the sound of defeat so it couldn't have been the sound of war? That would mean Moses believed that those are the only two sounds that are possibly the sound of war. We know that Moses did not believe anything like that because he knew from experience that the sound of war comprises more than just those two sounds.

Saying those two things is not a quick explanation for why some sound is not the sound of war because the majority of a battle that lasts for any length of time is not going to sound like either victory or defeat. It simply does not work to say that those two statements are a viable explanation, even a quick one, for why a sound is not the sound of war. 

In my view, those two sounds are a VERY accurate summary of all the sounds that take place in a war. To say "It's not war,", Moses didn't need to say, "It's not swords clashing and it's not horses stomping and it's not spears whistling through the air and it's not cries of pain and it's not calling for reinforcements, and on and on." What is so hard to understand about taking two predominate aspects and using them to refer to a whole? You were the one talking about what he needed to say. He didn't need to say three paragraphs to be summarizing war when he said the sound wasn't war.

Pages