What Does 1 Samuel 16:14-23 teach about music?
1 Samuel 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
The passage that ends with this statement provides us with explicit revelation about “an evil spirit from God” in connection with the playing of music. What does this passage teach about music?
- 3316 views
[Kevin Miller]I do not see anything else in Scripture to support thinking that Israelites routinely attributed “any [in the sense of every?] affliction” to demonic agency. Do you have any basis in Scripture for holding this view?The Israelites likely thought that any affliction was sent by God through the ministration of demons, but I’m not so sure they would have sent harp players to clear up boils or seizures or blindness.
[RajeshG]It was only an opinion. I have just as much Scripture supporting my view as you have for your comment that “the use of such skillful Israelite harp music for relieving people of at least some kinds of demonically caused afflictions was a well-known reality in Israel at that time.” Do you know any other passage that shows harp music being used as a “well-known reality in Israel” to relieve demonically caused afflictions?I do not see anything else in Scripture to support thinking that Israelites routinely attributed “any [in the sense of every?] affliction” to demonic agency. Do you have any basis in Scripture for holding this view?
[Kevin Miller]This passage seems to be unique in many respects, which heightens the importance of studying and analyzing it thoroughly.It was only an opinion. I have just as much Scripture supporting my view as you have for your comment that “the use of such skillful Israelite harp music for relieving people of at least some kinds of demonically caused afflictions was a well-known reality in Israel at that time.” Do you know any other passage that shows harp music being used as a “well-known reality in Israel” to relieve demonically caused afflictions?
I asked if you had other Scripture to support that opinion to see whether there were other considerations in Scripture that I had not thought of that led you to make that statement.
First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a biblical basis for using music therapeutically to benefit people with various problems.
According to the website of the American Music Therapy Association, “Music Therapy is an established health profession in which music is used within a therapeutic relationship to address physical, emotional, cognitive, and social needs of individuals.”
I think that it is significant that this professional scientific organization does not say that the effects of music are limited to improving only emotional states—music is also used “to address physical … needs of individuals.”
Long before this organization ever existed, God had provided inspired revelation about the physical benefits of music. Moreover, Scripture attests to an even more important benefit that this organization—understandably—does not speak about in this statement—God used instrumental harp music to greatly benefit Saul spiritually!
More than any other people, Christians should be the foremost in acknowledging and valuing the multiple benefits that godly instrumental music provides to humans.
[RajeshG]Yes, the passage is unique. That’s why I thought it somewhat odd you would call harp music a “well-known reality in Israel” to relieve affliction. I didn’t ask you for Scriptural support, since I considered you to just be giving an opinion.This passage seems to be unique in many respects, which heightens the importance of studying and analyzing it thoroughly.
I asked if you had other Scripture to support that opinion to see whether there were other considerations in Scripture that I had not thought of that led you to make that statement.
I then gave you an opinion of my own.
That’s when YOU asked ME for Scriptural support, and my first thought was “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” If you expect ME to have Scriptural support, then I’ll expect the same for YOUR opinion.
After thinking about it, I did find an entire book to support my view. From what I understand, the book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Old Testament. That book definitely shows affliction being brought about through the ministrations of an evil spirit. One of Job’s friends even advised him to repent, thus showing that a common thought existed at the time that afflictions were part of God’s judgment. Now, the friend was wrong in the case of Job, but the indication is certainly there that the thought was a common one, and the book of Job certainly has the evil spirit bringing affliction.
So, have you thought of any Scriptural support to show harp music being a “well-known reality” to relieve demonic affliction?
[Kevin Miller]I was thinking that you might have offered Job as a possible biblical antecedent and was actually somewhat surprised when you did not.Yes, the passage is unique. That’s why I thought it somewhat odd you would call harp music a “well-known reality in Israel” to relieve affliction. I didn’t ask you for Scriptural support, since I considered you to just be giving an opinion.
I then gave you an opinion of my own.
That’s when YOU asked ME for Scriptural support, and my first thought was “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” If you expect ME to have Scriptural support, then I’ll expect the same for YOUR opinion.
After thinking about it, I did find an entire book to support my view. From what I understand, the book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Old Testament. That book definitely shows affliction being brought about through the ministrations of an evil spirit. One of Job’s friends even advised him to repent, thus showing that a common thought existed at the time that afflictions were part of God’s judgment. Now, the friend was wrong in the case of Job, but the indication is certainly there that the thought was a common one, and the book of Job certainly has the evil spirit bringing affliction.
So, have you thought of any Scriptural support to show harp music being a “well-known reality” to relieve demonic affliction?
An exhaustive search of references to harp music in connection with demons and human affliction shows that there are no other references to that subject in the Bible. Does that prove that it could not have been “a well-known reality”? Absolutely not.
The Spirit has revealed this information for our profit. He has framed the account in an intentional way. There is not even the slightest hint in the text that Saul’s servants were just throwing some wild suggestion that they randomly thought of on the spur of the moment that they hoped might do some good.
His servants had some basis for having the confidence that they expressed. I provided an explanation that accounts for the data that we have.
[RajeshG]First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a basis for saying that David’s music provided a therapeutic benefit. The passage doesn’t specifically say that any other harp music would provide the same benefit. If we do suppose that other harp music provides a benefit, then we should also be able to say, as you did, that other instrumental music would also provide a benefit. If we say that other instrumental music provides a benefit, then it’s logical to say that various styles of music would also provide a benefit, based on the preferences of the patient.First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a biblical basis for using music therapeutically to benefit people with various problems.
According to the website of the American Music Therapy Association, “Music Therapy is an established health profession in which music is used within a therapeutic relationship to address physical, emotional, cognitive, and social needs of individuals.”
I think that it is significant that this professional scientific organization does not say that the effects of music are limited to improving only emotional states—music is also used “to address physical … needs of individuals.”
Long before this organization ever existed, God had provided inspired revelation about the physical benefits of music. Moreover, Scripture attests to an even more important benefit that this organization—understandably—does not speak about in this statement—God used instrumental harp music to greatly benefit Saul spiritually!
More than any other people, Christians should be the foremost in acknowledging and valuing the multiple benefits that godly instrumental music provides to humans.
I looked at the website for the American Music Therapy Association which you linked to. One of the pages was a fact sheet titled “Music Therapy and Mental Health.” That fact sheet contained the statement “Music selections and certain active music making activities are modified for client preferences and individualized needs (i.e., song selection and music may vary).” It also said “Music is a form of sensory stimulation that provokes responses due to the familiarity, predictability and feelings of security associated with it.” These statements tell me that the therapeutic benefit of music is highly dependent upon a person’s personal preferences in regards to the music that is familiar to them and which provides them with feelings of security. This is naturally going to include many different styles depending upon the specific individual.
[Kevin Miller]As the Spirit has framed the account, the preferences of Saul do not have anything to do with what brought him relief. Saul was not the one who came up with the idea that certain skillfully played harp music that he likes would help him. About his servants confidently making that suggestion/recommendation, we do not read that Saul inquired about whether he would like David’s music or not and only approved of the measure after determining that the style that David would play the harp would be a style that was familiar to him and to his liking.First Samuel 16:14-23 provides a basis for saying that David’s music provided a therapeutic benefit. The passage doesn’t specifically say that any other harp music would provide the same benefit. If we do suppose that other harp music provides a benefit, then we should also be able to say, as you did, that other instrumental music would also provide a benefit. If we say that other instrumental music provides a benefit, then it’s logical to say that various styles of music would also provide a benefit, based on the preferences of the patient.
We do not have any basis to infer that David played numerous styles and only did so after checking with Saul about what he liked and what he did not. What we can say from this passage is that there was at least one Israelite instrumental harp style that pleased God and that He used to deliver Saul from the demonically caused affliction that he was experiencing.
I see a relevant similarity to what happened with Naaman. The prophet Elisha told him to dip in the waters of an Israelite river, the Jordan (2 Kings 5:10). Naaman initially refused and argued that the waters of two rivers of his people were superior to that of the Israelite river (2 Kings 5:12). He was expressing his “preference”/”conviction” that God would and should use the waters of the rivers that he thought were better to heal him rather than the one that God chose.
Had Naaman argued that the Israelites’ God would/should use the waters of other rivers that He had also made just as well as He would use the waters of the Israelite river to heal him, he would have been wrong in his reasoning. Naaman only received healing when he chose to set aside his “preferences”/”convictions” and submit to what was divinely proffered to him by the God of Israel.
First Samuel 16 does not provide any support for someone who would assert that there had to have been and were Philistine harp styles, Moabite harp styles, Babylonian harp styles, etc that David could just as well have played and God would also just as well have used to provide Saul with the same benefits, especially that of driving out the demon from him.
[RajeshG]Since the passage doesn’t mention styles at all, then you can’t make a definitive assertion that there weren’t Philistine or Moabite or Babylonian harp styles that would have been just as pleasing to God or just as effective, when played by David, at relieving Saul from his affliction. The passage doesn’t provide any support for denying that such styles existed.First Samuel 16 does not provide any support for someone who would assert that there had to have been and were Philistine harp styles, Moabite harp styles, Babylonian harp styles, etc that David could just as well have played and God would also just as well have used to provide Saul with the same benefits, especially that of driving out the demon from him.
(And the passage about Naaman has nothing to do with music, so it doesn’t really apply to our conversation.)
[Kevin Miller]That’s not how it works. I have explicit evidence from inspired Scripture that shows that God was pleased with and used skillfully played Israelite harp music to deliver a human being from affliction caused by a demon.Since the passage doesn’t mention styles at all, then you can’t make a definitive assertion that there weren’t Philistine or Moabite or Babylonian harp styles that would have been just as pleasing to God or just as effective, when played by David, at relieving Saul from his affliction. The passage doesn’t provide any support for denying that such styles existed.
(And the passage about Naaman has nothing to do with music, so it doesn’t really apply to our conversation.)
You have to have Scripture to back up any assertion that there also had to have been any other music of any other people that also would have pleased God and that He would also have used to bring about the same spiritual deliverance. If you do not have such Scriptural proof, you would be begging the question by asserting that such music did exist.
I am not the one who has to prove that such music did not exist. You have the burden of proof of showing that it did. Do you have any infallible, inerrant, Scriptural proof that it did? If not, do you have any Scriptural basis for arguing why it must have existed in spite of your not having any biblical evidence for its existence?
In spite of your denial, the passage about Naaman does apply to this discussion. God made the Jordan river and He also made the rivers that Naaman thought were better and thought should have been used for his healing. Naaman was wrong.
The approach of claiming that God made something and therefore it must be equally efficacious in bringing about specific outcomes having to do with the realm of the supernatural is refuted by what Scripture reveals about what happened with Naaman.
[RajeshG]That’s not how it works. I have explicit evidence from inspired Scripture that shows that God was pleased with and used skillfully played Israelite harp music to deliver a human being from affliction caused by a demon.
You have to have Scripture to back up any assertion that there also had to have been any other music of any other people that also would have pleased God and that He would also have used to bring about the same spiritual deliverance. If you do not have such Scriptural proof, you would be begging the question by asserting that such music did exist.
I am not the one who has to prove that such music did not exist. You have the burden of proof of showing that it did. Do you have any infallible, inerrant, Scriptural proof that it did? If not, do you have any Scriptural basis for arguing why it must have existed in spite of your not having any biblical evidence for its existence?
You can’t use one kind of logic for yourself and then demand something different from me. That’s hypocritical. I asked you for Scriptural support for a previous statement of yours. You responded with this statement. “An exhaustive search of references to harp music in connection with demons and human affliction shows that there are no other references to that subject in the Bible. Does that prove that it could not have been “a well-known reality”? Absolutely not.” Why do YOU get to make statements without Scriptural proof and then insist that I have to have “infallible, inerrant, Scriptural proof” for my statements?
In spite of your denial, the passage about Naaman does apply to this discussion. God made the Jordan river and He also made the rivers that Naaman thought were better and thought should have been used for his healing. Naaman was wrong.The passage about Naaman clearly showed ONE particular river as acceptable. The passage about David’s music does NOT show just one style of music as acceptable. The situations are nowhere near the same.
[Kevin Miller]There is a huge difference between what I did and what you are trying to do. I offered a likely explanation for content that is explicitly in the Bible.You can’t use one kind of logic for yourself and then demand something different from me. That’s hypocritical. I asked you for Scriptural support for a previous statement of yours. You responded with this statement. “An exhaustive search of references to harp music in connection with demons and human affliction shows that there are no other references to that subject in the Bible. Does that prove that it could not have been “a well-known reality”? Absolutely not.” Why do YOU get to make statements without Scriptural proof and then insist that I have to have “infallible, inerrant, Scriptural proof” for my statements?
If you want to show that my explanation is wrong, do so. Even if my explanation were wrong, it would not change in any way what the passage actually reveals about what took place.
By strong contrast, what you are talking about has zero Bible to support it in any way.
[Kevin Miller]The passage about Naaman does establish that an Israelite river was used by God instead of the rivers of a pagan people. Similarly, the passage with David shows that God used Israelite instrumental music to deliver a human from demonic oppression and there is no biblical evidence that God has ever used any music of any pagans in the same manner.The passage about Naaman clearly showed ONE particular river as acceptable. The passage about David’s music does NOT show just one style of music as acceptable. The situations are nowhere near the same.
Suppose that a miraculous cure for a previously incurable disease is found in a previously unknown tropical forest in a remote island. The wild plant from which the new medicine comes from is an entirely new plant that has never been known in any other place.
Who would be responsible for that plant being found only in that one place in the earth? Who would be responsible for the extract from that plant being the only medicinal substance in the whole world that would be effective against that disease?
If people from other countries with tropical forests were to become irate at that discovery and vehemently protest that there must be other plants in other countries that also miraculously would cure that disease, what would you think about such an insistence by those people? What possible legitimate basis would such people have for insisting that there must be or in fact are other plants of other people that must be or are effective?
If one can understand how illegitimate it would be to make that kind of argument, would it be any different if someone were to say that there must have been or was music of many (or even any) other peoples that God would also have used to relieve Saul of his suffering caused by a demon?
[RajeshG]Excuse me, but can you show me what part of the passage tells us that David used Israelite music when he played for Saul? I’m serious. It is certainly a logical inference that he used Israelite music, but the passage doesn’t exactly say what the style of music was. I’m fine with you making logical inferences without an exact Scriptural wording. A lot of my opinions about the passage have been made in the same way. You may not agree with my logic, or you may simply not understand where my logic is coming from, but it IS rather hypocritical for you to make logical inferences and then insist that I have to have specific biblical wording to support my statements. I can absolutely tell, in this instance, where your logical inference is coming from, since David was an Israelite and actually wrote many Israelite songs. However, it is also absolutely true that the wording of this passage itself does not give any indication as to which specific styles David was using in these specific verses. Since there is no specific style listed, then we can’t rightly claim a comparison to a story that has ONE, and only one, river that was acceptable to God for Naaman to bathe in.The passage about Naaman does establish that an Israelite river was used by God instead of the rivers of a pagan people. Similarly, the passage with David shows that God used Israelite instrumental music to deliver a human from demonic oppression and there is no biblical evidence that God has ever used any music of any pagans in the same manner.
I basically just want to make sure that I am allowed to make logical inferences as well as you within the context of our conversation. We can always discuss the validity of the logic.
[RajeshG]Here’s a situation where I’m not understanding your logic. Are you saying that simply because a cure was found on one island, then it is automatically impossible for some other plant anywhere else to also provide a cure for the disease? Are you also saying it would be impossible for the chemical components of the cure to be reproduced in a lab? It seems to me that a cure can certainly be found in more than one avenue, and just because ONE plant has been found, that shouldn’t stop the search for other cures.Suppose that a miraculous cure for a previously incurable disease is found in a previously unknown tropical forest in a remote island. The wild plant from which the new medicine comes from is an entirely new plant that has never been known in any other place.
Who would be responsible for that plant being found only in that one place in the earth? Who would be responsible for the extract from that plant being the only medicinal substance in the whole world that would be effective against that disease?
If people from other countries with tropical forests were to become irate at that discovery and vehemently protest that there must be other plants in other countries that also miraculously would cure that disease, what would you think about such an insistence by those people? What possible legitimate basis would such people have for insisting that there must be or in fact are other plants of other people that must be or are effective?
If one can understand how illegitimate it would be to make that kind of argument, would it be any different if someone were to say that there must have been or was music of many (or even any) other peoples that God would also have used to relieve Saul of his suffering caused by a demon?
[Kevin Miller]Yes, please do provide Scripture from which you can make legitimate logical inferences to support your position about God’s use of pagan music to deliver someone from demonic affliction.Excuse me, but can you show me what part of the passage tells us that David used Israelite music when he played for Saul? I’m serious. It is certainly a logical inference that he used Israelite music, but the passage doesn’t exactly say what the style of music was. I’m fine with you making logical inferences without an exact Scriptural wording. A lot of my opinions about the passage have been made in the same way. You may not agree with my logic, or you may simply not understand where my logic is coming from, but it IS rather hypocritical for you to make logical inferences and then insist that I have to have specific biblical wording to support my statements. I can absolutely tell, in this instance, where your logical inference is coming from, since David was an Israelite and actually wrote many Israelite songs. However, it is also absolutely true that the wording of this passage itself does not give any indication as to which specific styles David was using in these specific verses. Since there is no specific style listed, then we can’t rightly claim a comparison to a story that has ONE, and only one, river that was acceptable to God for Naaman to bathe in.
I basically just want to make sure that I am allowed to make logical inferences as well as you within the context of our conversation. We can always discuss the validity of the logic.
[Kevin Miller]This statement seems to beg a crucial question but maybe you are not wanting to say what it seems like you are asserting: “It seems to me that a cure can certainly be found in more than one avenue.” In any specific instance regardless of what it is? Says who? How do you know that this would be true on any particular occasion?Here’s a situation where I’m not understanding your logic. Are you saying that simply because a cure was found on one island, then it is automatically impossible for some other plant anywhere else to also provide a cure for the disease? Are you also saying it would be impossible for the chemical components of the cure to be reproduced in a lab? It seems to me that a cure can certainly be found in more than one avenue, and just because ONE plant has been found, that shouldn’t stop the search for other cures.
[RajeshG]The logical inference that I previously made is that a style such as a Babylonian lullaby could be pleasing to God even though it comes from a pagan nation. Also, when played by David, it could potentially relieve a demonic affliction, and that you cannot make a definitive assertion that such is untrue. That was my position. You can give your opinion about whether any nation’s lullabies are displeasing to God, but a definitive assertion in that regard would be going beyond what can be proven.Yes, please do provide Scripture from which you can make legitimate logical inferences to support your position about God’s use of pagan music to deliver someone from demonic affliction.
[RajeshG]I didn’t assert that a cure could “certainly” be found in other places. My opinion is simply that it might be possible. Your illustration made it sound like such a find would be absolutely impossible, and I don’t see the logic of thinking that such a find would be impossible. Why do you think it would be impossible? Your illustration only works if such a find is impossible, and I don’t see the logic to that.This statement seems to beg a crucial question but maybe you are not wanting to say what it seems like you are asserting: “It seems to me that a cure can certainly be found in more than one avenue.” In any specific instance regardless of what it is? Says who? How do you know that this would be true on any particular occasion?
[Kevin Miller]This is not a logical inference based on Scripture. You are using zero Bible to make an assertion about what you believe could be true. You are free to do and say what you think in your own eyes is or could be or might be right, but I am not going to waste my time discussing such things.The logical inference that I previously made is that a style such as a Babylonian lullaby could be pleasing to God even though it comes from a pagan nation. Also, when played by David, it could potentially relieve a demonic affliction, and that you cannot make a definitive assertion that such is untrue. That was my position. You can give your opinion about whether any nation’s lullabies are displeasing to God, but a definitive assertion in that regard would be going beyond what can be proven.
[Kevin Miller]In my illustration, the disease was previously incurable, which means that no other cure had ever been found in any other place. People all over the world had tried whatever they could and had not found anything that had ever worked.I didn’t assert that a cure could “certainly” be found in other places. My opinion is simply that it might be possible. Your illustration made it sound like such a find would be absolutely impossible, and I don’t see the logic of thinking that such a find would be impossible. Why do you think it would be impossible? Your illustration only works if such a find is impossible, and I don’t see the logic to that.
Even if another cure were somehow to be found in say one or two other places, that would not prove anything about any possibility that every country or every people group etc. would or might have its own distinctive cure.
Those who would beg the question that God would use numerous styles of music to deliver people from demonic affliction have zero biblical basis for making that assertion.
People who would make such comments about distinctive styles of all peoples would betray that they have unbiblical agendas and are not really committed to believing and living by what the Bible teaches.
As I said in my previous comment, it is a waste of time to talk about such things that have zero biblical basis.
First Samuel 16:23 speaks of instances when David played the harp for Saul. As a result, he was refreshed, made well, and the demon departed from him.
On two later instances, however, no mention is made of Saul’s experiencing these same benefits:
1 Samuel 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand. 11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.
1 Samuel 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand. 10 And Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with the javelin; but he slipped away out of Saul’s presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall: and David fled, and escaped that night.
On these two occasions, instead of reading that Saul was made well, etc., we read that Saul tried to kill David with a javelin. Do these passages show that David’s harp music was ultimately unreliable in delivering Saul from demonic affliction?
[RajeshG]I just want to make sure that I correctly understand your position, and then we don’t have to discuss it any further if you don’t want to. Do you seriously believe that even a Babylonian lullaby would be displeasing to God?This is not a logical inference based on Scripture. You are using zero Bible to make an assertion about what you believe could be true. You are free to do and say what you think in your own eyes is or could be or might be right, but I am not going to waste my time discussing such things.
[RajeshG]On the first page of this thread, you wrote, “Another one is that the passage does reveal to us that there is at least one style of Israelite instrumental harp music that pleases God and that He used to benefit Saul in multiple ways, including delivering him from severe affliction caused by a demon.”Those who would beg the question that God would use numerous styles of music to deliver people from demonic affliction have zero biblical basis for making that assertion.
Are you NOW saying that there is one, and only one, style of harp music that pleases God and was used to benefit Saul by delivering him from demonic affliction? When you said, “at least one style,” you seemed to acknowledge that perhaps more than one could have benefited Saul, but now you seem to be saying that any notion of more than one style being possibly used is unbiblical.
[RajeshG]Did God ever make a promise that David’s playing would deliver Saul each and every time David played? Did David ever make that promise? If no gaurantee was made in the first place, then no expectation of “reliability” would even be present.First Samuel 16:23 speaks of instances when David played the harp for Saul. As a result, he was refreshed, made well, and the demon departed from him.
On two later instances, however, no mention is made of Saul’s experiencing these same benefits:
1 Samuel 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand. 11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.
1 Samuel 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand. 10 And Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with the javelin; but he slipped away out of Saul’s presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall: and David fled, and escaped that night.
On these two occasions, instead of reading that Saul was made well, etc., we read that Saul tried to kill David with a javelin. Do these passages show that David’s harp music was ultimately unreliable in delivering Saul from demonic affliction?
[Kevin Miller]I just want to make sure that I correctly understand your position, and then we don’t have to discuss it any further if you don’t want to. Do you seriously believe that even a Babylonian lullaby would be displeasing to God?
God wants us to base what we believe on what He has revealed in Scripture. I do not find any evidence in Scripture that supports holding that the Babylonians had any music that was pleasing to God such that He would have approved of its use by His people in Israel.
Moreover, we do have explicit biblical evidence that teaches us that when an Israelite took a Babylonian garment and brought it into the camp of Israel, God judged the people fiercely for his sin. We also have explicit biblical evidence that teaches that God brought the noise of the instrumental music of a Babylonian king down to the grave.
[Kevin Miller]I said that there was at least one Israelite style that pleased God that He used to deliver Saul from demonic affliction. I do not find any biblical evidence that requires holding that there had to have been or was more than one such style nor do I find any biblical evidence to support holding that there was any music of any pagans that God would have used to deliver people from demonic affliction.On the first page of this thread, you wrote, “Another one is that the passage does reveal to us that there is at least one style of Israelite instrumental harp music that pleases God and that He used to benefit Saul in multiple ways, including delivering him from severe affliction caused by a demon.”
Are you NOW saying that there is one, and only one, style of harp music that pleases God and was used to benefit Saul by delivering him from demonic affliction? When you said, “at least one style,” you seemed to acknowledge that perhaps more than one could have benefited Saul, but now you seem to be saying that any notion of more than one style being possibly used is unbiblical.
[Kevin Miller]Did God ever make a promise that David’s playing would deliver Saul each and every time David played? Did David ever make that promise? If no gaurantee was made in the first place, then no expectation of “reliability” would even be present.
The biblical account does not say that either God or David made any such promises. The account, however, does tell us that Saul’s servants expressed confidence that his music would be effective in making him well:
1 Samuel 16:15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. 16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
As this text reads, there was no hesitancy or tentativeness expressed by them. Verse 23 confirms that their confident expectation was validated on multiple occasions.
Because the Spirit has also provided the latter accounts (1 Sam. 18 & 19) that appear to show different outcomes, we must examine the data to see what we are to learn from the apparent contrast between the earlier account and the later ones.
[RajeshG]So does this apply for every other nation on earth as well? If there is no evidence in Scripture that music from Egypt or Spain or Cyprus (or even America) is pleasing to God, are we to believe that no such music from any country would be pleasing to God, unless God tells us specifically in Scripture that that country’s music is pleasing? I just want to see how consistently you hold to this position.
God wants us to base what we believe on what He has revealed in Scripture. I do not find any evidence in Scripture that supports holding that the Babylonians had any music that was pleasing to God such that He would have approved of its use by His people in Israel.
Or are you making a distinction between two categories of “pleasing to God” that I didn’t make in my question? Are you saying that a Babylonian lullaby could be pleasing to God in a general sense (which is what I asked), but not pleasing to God in terms of being able to be used by the people of Israel? Do the lessons we learn about music in I Samuel 16 only apply to the nation of Israel?
[RajeshG]Your original statement was “there is at least one style of Israelite instrumental harp music that pleases God and that He used to benefit Saul in multiple ways, including delivering him from severe affliction caused by a demon.”I said that there was at least one Israelite style that pleased God that He used to deliver Saul from demonic affliction. I do not find any biblical evidence that requires holding that there had to have been or was more than one such style nor do I find any biblical evidence to support holding that there was any music of any pagans that God would have used to deliver people from demonic affliction.
I highlighted the words that must have confused me. I thought the “and” meant you were making that statement about two things, music that pleases God and music that benefited Saul in multiple ways, only one of which was relieving his demonic affliction. I took your comment about “pleasing God’ to be a general comment about music that pleases God, and I took your statement about “multiple” benefits to be a general statement about about music, rather than just being about the deliverance from the demon. If your whole point was just about deliverance from the demon, then why did you bring up the issue of secular music therapy? The music therapy issue made me think you were talking about multiple general benefits of music rather than just about music that relives demonic affliction.
I think it would be useful to point out why you made the statement about the existence of “at least one” style. You said that in direct response to my third post in this thread, which I still completely stand behind. I said, “One thing the passage does NOT teach us is whether any particular pitch or tempo or key or volume or timbre or pattern or style is responsible for any particular effect that instrumental music might have on humans or supernatural beings. The passage is not that specific about those individual details regarding the music David played.”
So your response that there was “at least one” style is a logical response to the fact that the passage does not mention any particular style. The passage does mention HARP music, but no other instruments, so that leaves open the logical inference that it may have been only harp music that relieves demonic affliction. I don’t think, however, that the lack of a mention of other instruments means that we can make a dogmatic assertion that only harp music would be used in that way. The possibility certainly existed that other instruments could have been used, but we can’t be dogmatic that any other instruments would have worked. My whole point has been that we CAN’T be dogmatic about things the passage does not say (including how many possible beneficial styles existed past the one unnamed one that we know was used).
It quite boggles me at times when you use the phrase “I find no evidence in Scripture” to then make a dogmatic statement about something.
[RajeshG]I did consider the confidence of the servants, but their confidence certainly does not equate to some sort of guarantee. They had hope the music would work, and they were confident in their hope, but their hopes were sometimes realized and sometimes not.
The biblical account does not say that either God or David made any such promises. The account, however, does tell us that Saul’s servants expressed confidence that his music would be effective in making him well:
1 Samuel 16:15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. 16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
As this text reads, there was no hesitancy or tentativeness expressed by them. Verse 23 confirms that their confident expectation was validated on multiple occasions.
Because the Spirit has also provided the latter accounts (1 Sam. 18 & 19) that appear to show different outcomes, we must examine the data to see what we are to learn from the apparent contrast between the earlier account and the later ones.
[Kevin Miller]I have stated my position and am not going to continue to discuss this subject. First Samuel 16 reveals that God used Israelite music that pleased Him to deliver a sinful man from demonic affliction. That godly music was efficacious in benefiting Saul in multiple ways in relieving him of the multifaceted demonic affliction that he was experiencing. There is no evidence that there was any music of any pagan nation that God would have been pleased to use similarly through having David play that music for Saul.So does this apply for every other nation on earth as well? If there is no evidence in Scripture that music from Egypt or Spain or Cyprus (or even America) is pleasing to God, are we to believe that no such music from any country would be pleasing to God, unless God tells us specifically in Scripture that that country’s music is pleasing? I just want to see how consistently you hold to this position.
Or are you making a distinction between two categories of “pleasing to God” that I didn’t make in my question? Are you saying that a Babylonian lullaby could be pleasing to God in a general sense (which is what I asked), but not pleasing to God in terms of being able to be used by the people of Israel? Do the lessons we learn about music in I Samuel 16 only apply to the nation of Israel?
[Kevin Miller]I made the point about there being at least one Israelite style that God was pleased to use in that way because there may be the possibility that Israel had more than one godly style that pleased God that He also used during the instances communicated by 1 Samuel 16:23. There is no biblical evidence that requires holding that there actually was more than one, but there may have been.Your original statement was “there is at least one style of Israelite instrumental harp music that pleases God and that He used to benefit Saul in multiple ways, including delivering him from severe affliction caused by a demon.”
I highlighted the words that must have confused me. I thought the “and” meant you were making that statement about two things, music that pleases God and music that benefited Saul in multiple ways, only one of which was relieving his demonic affliction. I took your comment about “pleasing God’ to be a general comment about music that pleases God, and I took your statement about “multiple” benefits to be a general statement about about music, rather than just being about the deliverance from the demon. If your whole point was just about deliverance from the demon, then why did you bring up the issue of secular music therapy? The music therapy issue made me think you were talking about multiple general benefits of music rather than just about music that relives demonic affliction.
I think it would be useful to point out why you made the statement about the existence of “at least one” style. You said that in direct response to my third post in this thread, which I still completely stand behind. I said, “One thing the passage does NOT teach us is whether any particular pitch or tempo or key or volume or timbre or pattern or style is responsible for any particular effect that instrumental music might have on humans or supernatural beings. The passage is not that specific about those individual details regarding the music David played.”
So your response that there was “at least one” style is a logical response to the fact that the passage does not mention any particular style. The passage does mention HARP music, but no other instruments, so that leaves open the logical inference that it may have been only harp music that relieves demonic affliction. I don’t think, however, that the lack of a mention of other instruments means that we can make a dogmatic assertion that only harp music would be used in that way. The possibility certainly existed that other instruments could have been used, but we can’t be dogmatic that any other instruments would have worked. My whole point has been that we CAN’T be dogmatic about things the passage does not say (including how many possible beneficial styles existed past the one unnamed one that we know was used).
It quite boggles me at times when you use the phrase “I find no evidence in Scripture” to then make a dogmatic statement about something.
[Kevin Miller]I have not said that what they said “guaranteed” the effectiveness of the music. There are multiple accounts that appear to have differing outcomes so seeking to explain that difference is a legitimate issue to consider in understanding what the Spirit has revealed for our profit.I did consider the confidence of the servants, but their confidence certainly does not equate to some sort of guarantee. They had hope the music would work, and they were confident in their hope, but their hopes were sometimes realized and sometimes not.
[RajeshG]Okay, Now that I know the discussion in this thread is only about Israelite music that David played to benefit Saul, then I won’t try to see if you make any wider applications of music to benefit mankind in general. I thought you were making wider applications earlier, but I must have been mistaken.I have stated my position and am not going to continue to discuss this subject. First Samuel 16 reveals that God used Israelite music that pleased Him to deliver a sinful man from demonic affliction. That godly music was efficacious in benefiting Saul in multiple ways in relieving him of the multifaceted demonic affliction that he was experiencing. There is no evidence that there was any music of any pagan nation that God would have been pleased to use similarly through having David play that music for Saul.
[Kevin Miller]Properly making wider applications of biblical revelation about music concerning its benefit to mankind in any general respect requires careful and thorough treatment of an immense amount of biblical data and considerations. Inevitably, discussions of that broader topic prevent careful and thorough treatment of the special and even unique contributions of given passages.Okay, Now that I know the discussion in this thread is only about Israelite music that David played to benefit Saul, then I won’t try to see if you make any wider applications of music to benefit mankind in general. I thought you were making wider applications earlier, but I must have been mistaken.
I believe that so many of the disputes among believers about music stem in large measure because every discussion about music is quickly turned into a broader discussion that does not allow the proper treatment of many passages. Because the Bible is not handled properly concerning the teaching of numerous individual passages, having a proper theology of music and making proper applications concerning many issues about music have been precluded.
Just as Naaman received supernatural healing only when he submitted to the divine direction that was given him (2 Kings 5:13-14), so Saul only received supernatural deliverance from demonic affliction as long as he submitted to God’s appointed human agent (David) and means (David’s skillfully played Israelite harp music), as is recorded in 1 Samuel 16:23.
The later accounts (1 Sam. 18:10-11; 19:9-10) do not show that David’s music was unreliable or ineffective. When Saul set himself at enmity and opposition to David in various ways (1 Sam. 18:9, 21, 25, 29; 1 Sam. 19:1, 11, 15, 20), he was no longer submitted to God. He, therefore, no longer received the supernatural benefits of God’s using David’s skillfully played Israelite harp music to cause the demon to depart.
Those who do not first submit to God will not receive supernatural deliverance from demonically caused afflictions (cf. James 4:7).
Based on what is explicitly revealed in 1 Samuel 16:14-23, we know the following about the music in 16:23 that God used to deliver Saul from the multifaceted demonic affliction that he was experiencing:
- Instrumental music (no mention of singing)
- Solo music (no mention of other instruments played by other people)
- Harp music
- Played by David’s hands
- Played skillfully
- Played by a godly Israelite
- Played by a man chosen by God
- Played by a man who had the Spirit on him and with whom the Lord was
- Music that brought multiple benefits to the hearer
Based on the context and other biblical considerations, we also know that the music was Israelite music.
Given these 10 things that we do know about that music, are there any other things that we can legitimately infer about it?
[RajeshG]I don’t think that being willing to listen to David’s music in 1 Sam 16 was evidence of Saul’s submission to God. How do you get submission to God from that chapter? We know from the previous chapter that Saul was so rebellious to God that God was going to take his kingdom away from him. At the start of chapter 16, Saul was in such a state of rebellion to God that Samuel was afraid Saul would kill him for obeying God’s command to anoint a new king. Surely Samuel had an accurate understanding of Saul’s mindset. Saul was glad for the relief he received from David’s music, but there is nothing in the passage to show Saul repenting from his rebellion to God.Just as Naaman received supernatural healing only when he submitted to the divine direction that was given him (2 Kings 5:13-14), so Saul only received supernatural deliverance from demonic affliction as long as he submitted to God’s appointed human agent (David) and means (David’s skillfully played Israelite harp music), as is recorded in 1 Samuel 16:23.
The later accounts (1 Sam. 18:10-11; 19:9-10) do not show that David’s music was unreliable or ineffective. When Saul set himself at enmity and opposition to David in various ways (1 Sam. 18:9, 21, 25, 29; 1 Sam. 19:1, 11, 15, 20), he was no longer submitted to God. He, therefore, no longer received the supernatural benefits of God’s using David’s skillfully played Israelite harp music to cause the demon to depart.
Those who do not first submit to God will not receive supernatural deliverance from demonically caused afflictions (cf. James 4:7).
[RajeshG]There is also the danger of focusing so minutely on one particular passage that you feel general applications can’t be discussed unless you’ve also focused so minutely on multiple other passages. You see, you’ve made a number of general applications in this thread, but when I asked questions about where those applications lead you, you haven’t bothered to explain your logic. Instead of explaining the logic of the statements you’ve freely made, you shut down the conversation, using the excuse that we need to talk about this passage and other passages more fully. I see that as a cop-out rather than an attempt to handle the Bible properly.Properly making wider applications of biblical revelation about music concerning its benefit to mankind in any general respect requires careful and thorough treatment of an immense amount of biblical data and considerations. Inevitably, discussions of that broader topic prevent careful and thorough treatment of the special and even unique contributions of given passages.
I believe that so many of the disputes among believers about music stem in large measure because every discussion about music is quickly turned into a broader discussion that does not allow the proper treatment of many passages. Because the Bible is not handled properly concerning the teaching of numerous individual passages, having a proper theology of music and making proper applications concerning many issues about music have been precluded.
A careful and logical examination of how passages might apply to us today is absolutely a vital part of a “careful and thorough treatment of the special and even unique contributions of given passages.” Our treatment of the passage wouldn’t be thorough if we didn’t discuss how the Spirit wants us today to apply the passage.
Discussion