Here is a PDF for playing a simple Spanish hymn, Amor, Amor, in my simple number format for guitar.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
Archives For rajesh
The following was shared today by a friend on FB. He cited www.guadaluperadio.com as its source. If you do not know Spanish, see the translation below (I used GoogleTranslate and Spanishdict.com to do the initial translation and then I tried to smooth it out as best as I could). This is a tremendous analogy!
En el vientre de una mujer embarazada se encontraban dos bebés. Uno pregunta al otro:
– ¿Tú crees en la vida después del parto?
– Claro que sí. Algo debe existir después del parto. Tal vez estemos aquí porque necesitamos prepararnos para lo que seremos más tarde.
– ¡Tonterías! No hay vida después del parto. ¿Cómo sería esa vida?
– No lo sé pero seguramente… habrá más luz que aquí. Tal vez caminemos con nuestros propios pies y nos alimentemos por la boca.
– ¡Eso es absurdo! Caminar es imposible. ¿Y comer por la boca? ¡Eso es ridículo! El cordón umbilical es por donde nos alimentamos. Yo te digo una cosa: la vida después del parto está excluida. El cordón umbilical es demasiado corto.
– Pues yo creo que debe haber algo. Y tal vez sea distinto a lo que estamos acostumbrados a tener aquí.
– Pero nadie ha vuelto nunca del más allá, después del parto. El parto es el final de la vida. Y a fin de cuentas, la vida no es más que una angustiosa existencia en la oscuridad que no lleva a nada.
– Bueno, yo no sé exactamente cómo será después del parto, pero seguro que veremos a mamá y ella nos cuidará.
– ¿Mamá? ¿Tú crees en mamá? ¿Y dónde crees tú que está ella ahora?
– ¿Dónde? ¡En todo nuestro alrededor! En ella y a través de ella es como vivimos. Sin ella todo este mundo no existiría.
– ¡Pues yo no me lo creo! Nunca he visto a mamá, por lo tanto, es lógico que no exista.
– Bueno, pero a veces, cuando estamos en silencio, tú puedes oírla cantando o sentir cómo acaricia nuestro mundo. ¿Sabes?… Yo pienso que hay una vida real que nos espera y que ahora solamente estamos preparándonos para ella…’
English translation from GoogleTranslate and Spanishdict.com, which I have attempted to smooth out:
In the belly of a pregnant woman were two babies. One asks the other, “Do you believe in life after birth?”
“Of course. Something must exist after delivery. Maybe, we’re here because we need to prepare for what will be later.”
“Nonsense! There is no life after birth. What would that life be?”
“I do not know but surely … there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk on our own feet and nourish ourselves through our mouths.”
“This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eating by mouth? That is ridiculous! The umbilical cord is where we eat. I tell you one thing: life after delivery is excluded. The umbilical cord is too short.”
“Well, I think there must be something. And maybe it’s different from what we are used to here.”
“But no one has ever returned from beyond postpartum. Delivery is the end of life. And, after all, life is but a harrowing existence in the darkness that leads nowhere.”
“Well, I do not know exactly how it will be after delivery, but I’m sure we’ll see our mom, and she will take care of us.”
“Mom? Do you believe in mom? And, where do you think she is now?”
“Where? All around us! We are in her and through her is how we live. Without her, the whole world would not exist.”
“Well, I do not think so! I’ve never seen mommy, therefore, it is logical that she does not exist.”
“Well, but sometimes when we are silent, you can hear her singing or feel her caressing our world. Do you know? … I think there is a real life that awaits us and only now we are preparing for it … “
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
Scripture provides three accounts of David’s music ministry to Saul (1 Sam. 16:14-23; 18:10-11; 19:8-10). Because the results of his ministry to Saul in the first account were different from the results in the other two, some have wrongly concluded that David’s music was unreliable and even have dismissed the value of the first account for addressing the issue of the morality of music without words.
A close examination of key differences between the first account and the latter accounts, however, provides the right explanation of the differing outcome in the latter accounts and underscores the value of the first account.
David’s Music Ministry Delivers Saul from Demonic Affliction (1 Sam. 16:14-23)
God judged Saul by sending an evil spirit to afflict him (1 Sam. 16:14). To relieve him of his affliction, Saul’s servants sought a skillful harpist to minister to him (1 Sam. 16:15-16). In some unexplained way, they had confidence that such a ministry of music would deliver Saul from his affliction.
Saul’s servants found David and brought him to Saul (1 Sam. 16:17-22). Whenever the evil spirit troubled Saul, David’s playing made Saul better and caused the demon to depart (1 Sam. 16:23).
The passage does not say anything about David’s singing any words to Saul as he played his harp. In fact, the passage stresses David’s playing through three explicit references about the playing of the harp (1 Sam. 16:16, 18, 23).
It was David’s instrumental harp music, therefore, that caused the evil spirit that tormented Saul to depart from him. Had his music been amoral, it could not have had this effect for good.
Because the music did drive out the evil spirit, it was a force for good. We thus learn that David’s instrumental music was not amoral.
Saul Tries to Kill David Twice in spite of David’s Music Ministry to Him (18:10-11)
Whereas David’s music ministry had previously delivered Saul on repeated occasions for an unspecified amount of time (1 Sam. 16:23), the next account (1 Sam. 18:10-11) records that Saul tried to kill David twice (18:11) in spite of his ministering musically again to Saul (18:11). What caused there to be such a dramatic difference on this occasion compared to the previous ones?
In between these two accounts, we read of David’s valiant defeat of Goliath (17:1-54). Following several verses that speak then of Saul’s inquiry about whose son David was (17:55-58), we read of the covenant that Jonathan and David made (18:1-4).
The next five verses provide key information that explains the differing outcome of David’s music ministry to Saul on this later occasion:
1Sa 18:5 And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.
6 ¶ And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick.
7 And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.
8 And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom?
9 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.
These verses reveal that Saul became very upset when the women lauded David more highly than they did Saul (18:8). He then became jealous of him and suspicious of him from then on that he would seek to take the kingdom from Saul (18:9).
Right after reading about this key change in Saul’s attitude toward David, we encounter the first of two accounts that record that David’s music ministry to Saul did not benefit him as it had done before:
1Sa 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.
This passage specifies that this account took place on the very next day after Saul’s becoming intensely upset at David and becoming suspicious of him (18:10a). This time when the evil spirit came on Saul, he raved madly in his house. The text also specifies that Saul had a javelin in his hand on this occasion.
Prior to this point, we never read of Saul sitting in his house with a javelin in his hand. Nor do we read of him being afflicted by the spirit to the point of his raving madly. Both these differences point to the same reality—a vital change in Saul’s disposition toward David.
The natural explanation for Saul’s having a javelin in his hand now is that he apparently was so suspicious of David’s potentially trying to take the kingdom from him that he wanted to have a weapon to protect himself should David try anything to harm him. Because of the dramatic change in Saul, David’s music ministry that was the same to him “as at other times” (18:10) did not deliver Saul now from his spiritual affliction.
Saul’s intense jealousy and mistrust of David prevented him from benefiting from David’s music ministry as he had done before. He now degenerated to letting the wickedness of his heart come out in two attempts to kill David.
David’s music thus was not unreliable or ineffective on this occasion. Rather, Saul, as the listener, forfeited on this occasion the value of David’s ministry to him because of his hardness of heart toward David.
Saul Again Tries to Kill David in spite of His Music Ministry to Him (19:9-10)
Saul’s two attempts to kill David show that Saul was now not just opposing David—more importantly, he was also actively fighting against God, who had chosen David to become king in place of Saul. Saul had thereby now set himself in opposition to the Lord and His anointed one (cf. Ps. 2).
Because Saul was now opposing both God and David, he continued to degenerate spiritually and be hardened in his sinfulness (1 Sam. 18:17, 21, 25). He became more and more afraid of David and became his enemy continually (1 Sam. 18:29).
In spite of further events (1 Sam. 19:1-5) that led Saul even to swear by the Lord that David would not be killed (1 Sam. 19:6), we read of another time when Saul tried to kill David despite David’s music ministry to him while he was being afflicted by the evil spirit:
1Sa 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.
This final account shows that Saul’s hardness of heart toward David and opposition to God again caused him to forfeit the benefit of David’s music ministry to him.
David’s Instrumental Music Was Not Amoral and It Was Not Unreliable
A careful analysis of the flow of these various events in the lives of David and Saul shows that David’s earlier music ministry profited Saul by delivering him from spiritual affliction caused by an evil spirit. Because Saul was delivered by David’s instrumental music, we understand that it was not amoral.
Moreover, the latter accounts do not show that David’s music was unreliable or lacked the spiritual ability to deliver Saul consistently. Rather, the greatly heightened wickedness of Saul’s heart on those occasions prevented him from receiving the benefit of David’s music ministry to him.
For the same reason, the latter accounts also do not negate the importance of the first account for showing that David’s instrumental music was not amoral. David’s instrumental music ministry to Saul thus was not amoral and it was not unreliable.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
Whether music without words is moral or not is a question that is widely debated today among believers. This post treats biblical teaching about natural revelation and music related to God’s providence to answer this question.
Natural Revelation
Psalm 19:1-6 provides clear teaching about natural revelation:
Psa 19:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
David teaches that God is continuously providing worldwide revelation of His glory and handiwork.
Paul corroborates his statements and further teaches that all are without excuse because they are suppressing God’s infallible communication of moral truth through His creation:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
Scripture thus makes clear that God is continuously infallibly communicating moral truth to every person through natural revelation that involves no words. Wordless communication of moral truth, therefore, is a pervasive worldwide reality that every human being experiences on a nonstop basis.
Music Related to God’s Providence
Building on the foundation of God’s communication of moral truth through wordless natural revelation, related teaching about God’s providence provides additional relevant information. Psalm 104 highlights God’s creating and sustaining His Creation. In that context, the Psalmist provides an important statement about music related to His providence:
Psa 104:10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.
11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.
12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.
13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.
The Psalmist makes known that God provides water to every animal to satisfy its thirst. In that context, he speaks of birds that sing among the branches of trees located by the springs that God sends.[1]
Statements that God satisfies His creation (Ps. 104:11, 13) on both sides of the statement about the singing of the birds show that it is not an incidental “filler” statement. Rather, the clear implication is that the birds sing in grateful response to God’s satisfying them by providing water and habitation (cf. Ps. 104:16-18 and the command for the flying fowl to praise the Lord [Ps. 148:7, 10]).[2]
Furthermore, no humans taught the birds to sing—we thus rightly infer that they continue to do what God created them from the beginning to do. What’s more, He created them (Gen. 1:20) before He created man (Gen. 1:26-27). Because God said that His creation of the birds was good (Gen. 1:21), we rightly deduce that their singing at that time was good, as was also everything else taking place in God’s universe at that time.
Moreover, after He had created man (Gen. 1:26-29), God pronounced that everything that He had made was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). We infer correctly, therefore, that the singing of birds that took place after man was created—but before he fell—was also very good.
Both before man was created and after he was created but before he fell, birds thus sang wordless moral music to the praise of their Creator! Furthermore, even after he fell, Scripture provides revelation about birds (Ps. 104:12) that points to their communicating a wordless moral message through music.
In addition, the clear teaching treated earlier about God’s present-day worldwide communication of wordless moral truth through natural revelation provides a supportive universal backdrop for interpreting the present-day singing of birds as still communicating a moral message without words.
The Debate about the Morality of Music without Words
God is continuously providing infallible moral truth wordlessly to every human being through the heavens and the firmament that He created (Ps. 19:1-4). He is also providing moral truth wordlessly through the singing of the birds that He created (Gen. 1:20) to praise Him (cf. Ps. 148:7, 10) for His providential care for them (Ps. 104:12).
Scriptural teaching about natural revelation and music related to God’s providence thus establishes that the default Scriptural position is that music without words is moral.[3] Christians who hold the position that music without words is amoral thus have the burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of their view from Scripture.
[1] Because the Hebrew here does not use a specific word for singing (cf. “Heb ‘among the thick foliage they give a sound’” [NET Bible translation note on Psalm 104:12]), some hold that this verse does not establish that birds sing music. The context, however, makes clear that singing is in view. Furthermore, Zephaniah 2:14 explicitly uses a Hebrew verb to speak of the singing of birds. See also my post Do Birds Sing Music or Merely Make Sounds for additional explanation of why the position that birds do not sing music is not tenable. Moreover, numerous videos available on the Internet abundantly attest to the fact that birds sing songs with multiple pitches, rhythm, rests, etc.
[2] Many commentators concur with this interpretation: “The birds, also, in their nests among the branches are able to pour forth their melodious notes as the result of the God-directed valley-springs. Singing among the branches should inspire us to sing where we dwell—even if it be like Paul and Silas in a prison cell. . . . Said Izaak Walton, great lover of birds, especially the nightingale, ‘Lord, what music hast thou provided for the saints in heaven, when thou affordest bad men such music on earth?’” (Herbert Lockyer, Sr., Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, 409).
“Among them the fowls of the air dwell. That is, among the trees which spring up by the fountains and water-courses. The whole picture is full of animation and beauty. . . . Which sing among the branches. Marg. as in Heb., give a voice. Their voice is heard—their sweet music—in the foliage of the trees which grow on the margin of the streams and by the fountains” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Explanatory and Practical, 9:85).
“’Everything lives whithersoever water cometh,’ as Easterners know. Therefore round the drinking-places in the vales thirsty creatures gather, birds flit and sing; up among the cedars are peaceful nests, and inaccessible cliffs have their sure-footed inhabitants. All depend on water, and water is God’s gift. The psalmist’s view of Nature is characteristic in the direct ascription of all the processes to God” (Alexander MacLaren, The Psalms, 3:116).
“How refreshing are these words! What happy memories they arouse of plashing waterfalls and entangled boughs, where the merry din of the falling and rushing water forms a solid background of music, and the sweet tuneful notes of the birds are the brighter and more flashing lights in harmony. Pretty birdies, sing on! What better can ye do, and who can do it better? When we too drink of the river of God, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life, it well becomes us to ‘sing among the branches.’ Where ye dwell ye sing; and shall not we rejoice in the Lord, who has been our dwelling-place in all generations. As ye fly from bough to bough, ye warble forth your notes, and so will we as we flit through time into eternity. It is not meet that birds of Paradise should be outdone by birds of the earth” (Charles Spurgeon, Treasury of David, 2:305).
“The music of the birds was the first song of thanksgiving which was offered from the earth, before man was formed” (John Wesley; cited in Explanatory Notes and Quaint Sayings on 104:12 in Treasury of David, 2:319).
“They sing, according to their capacity, to the honour of their Creator and benefactor, and their singing may shame our silence” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 893).
[3] See also my post David’s Instrumental Music Was Not Amoral for further Scriptural teaching that establishes this point.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
There once was an old rich man who lived alone and had the same caretaker for many years. One day, he discovered that the caretaker had been stealing from him for several years. He confronted him and told him that he had two hours to gather all his belongings from the rich man’s estate and then leave.
The wicked caretaker became very angry and plotted how he could secretly kill the rich man. He came up with the idea that he would poison him.
Because the rich man suffered from migraines, he often took pain medication for his headaches. Before leaving, the caretaker opened the bottle of pain medicine in the rich man’s medicine cabinet and filled it with highly poisonous tablets that were exactly the same shape and size as the pain medicine.
Late that night, the rich man awoke with a crushing headache. Without putting his glasses on, he went to the medicine cabinet to get his pain medicine. Because it was late at night, he did not even turn on the light in the bathroom.
Grabbing three tablets of what he sincerely believed was a painkiller that would quickly relieve him of his agonizing pain, the man swallowed the tablets with half a glass of water. Within minutes, he was dead.
His sincere belief was not good enough to keep him from dying from taking a deadly poison. In a much more important way, merely sincere religious belief is not enough—what one believes must be true.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
God’s universe is composed of many different elements, many of which occur naturally in various elemental forms as well as in combinations with many other elements to form compounds, mixtures, etc. A comparison of differences among various chemical substances provides a valuable analogy that pertains to the debate about the morality of music without words.
Oxygen in its diatomic molecular form (O2) is necessary for human life. Molecules that contain three oxygen atoms, however, form a powerfully toxic substance, ozone. The same element thus forms two different molecules that have radically differing effects on humans.
Carbon and oxygen combine to form two different compounds, carbon monoxide (CO), which is poisonous, and carbon dioxide (CO2), a natural waste product of human respiration that is far less toxic than carbon monoxide. Similarly, hydrogen and oxygen form two compounds: water (H20), which is essential for life; and hydrogen peroxide (H202), which is highly corrosive at high concentrations. These examples show how the same two elements can combine in different proportions to form different substances with vastly different properties.
The same holds true for differing combinations of more than two elements. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen combine to form various compounds that vary greatly in their toxicity. Methyl alcohol (CH3OH) is poisonous, but ethyl alcohol (C2H5OH) is only directly toxic when people consume large quantities of it over a short period.
Unlike both methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol, glucose (C6H1206), however, is a vital substance that the body itself produces to maintain life. These examples show that major differences exist in the properties of chemical substances that have the same three elements but differ in the ratios that they have those elements.
Similarly, even though individual elements of music such as single notes have no intrinsic morality, we would be right to expect that differing combinations of those elements would have differing effects on people. To argue that combining various musical elements (without words) in a way that communicates a negative moral message to humans is impossible would not be in keeping with the reality that we find in the chemical makeup of God’s universe.
To hold the view, therefore, that music without words is inherently amoral, there should be some clear basis for expecting that combining musical elements would be somehow radically different (in the specific sense talked about in this article) from combining chemical elements. I am not aware of any such justification.
Based on the analogy between chemistry and music (as well as for many other valid reasons, both biblical and non-biblical), I believe that the right default position to take in the debate about the morality of music is that music without words is not inherently amoral.
RELATED POSTS:
If Music without Words Is Inherently Amoral, Then . . .
Do Birds Sing Music or Merely Make Sounds?
Would the Psalmists Approve of CCM?
David’s Instrumental Music Was Not Amoral
Toward Solving the Church’s Music Problems
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
Many believers today espouse the view that music without words is inherently amoral. Those who hold this view should carefully think through the following serious implications of taking this position.
1. If music without words is inherently amoral, then no one, including even God, is able to combine any set of notes, rhythms, meters, harmonies, dynamics, etc. to communicate through music alone any kind of moral message, good or bad.
2. If music without words is inherently amoral, then even the most evil person whose heart is entirely consumed with flaming hatred toward God cannot express his hatred to any degree through just instrumental music. Although he can do so through facial expressions, other gestures, and other nonverbal activities, he is incapable of doing so through any musical means that does not employ words.
3. If music without words is inherently amoral, listening to the worst possible secular heavy metal music in a foreign language that one does not understand cannot directly have any deleterious moral effect on a person.
4. If music without words is inherently amoral, exposing very small children who are not yet talking at all to CCM has no beneficial moral effect on them because they do not understand any of the words being sung.
5. If music without words is inherently amoral, though the rest of the whole creation was ruined by the Fall of man, Adam’s sin as well as all subsequent human sin has not had (and could not have had) any corrupting influence whatever on music. Although sin has corrupted every man’s entire being, somehow his innate corruption does not and cannot taint to any degree any instrumental music that he produces.
6. If music without words is inherently amoral, all inventors (and proponents) of various musical styles who have repeatedly and unequivocally said that they have specifically created their musical styles for accomplishing specific immoral objectives were (and are) clueless in what they were (and are) doing and seeking to do. In reality, they were (and are) pointlessly pursuing an impossible goal, not knowing that all musical styles are amoral and therefore incapable on their own (minus words) of being used to further any such ungodly agendas.
7. If music without words is inherently amoral, divine worship employing any style of music should be usable by any people as long as the words are ok.
Is it credible to hold that music without words is inherently amoral?
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
In a few recent discussions with some friends and one family member, I discovered that some people hold that birds do not sing music but merely make sounds. This post explores this issue and shows why I believe that position is not tenable.
Perhaps some would argue that a single bird that produces sounds of only one pitch does not sing music. While that may technically be true, a single bird that produces sounds of more than one pitch, however, would produce music. Furthermore, two or more birds that produce sounds of at least two different pitches certainly would produce music.
Beyond the issue of producing sounds of multiple pitches, another reason that some doubt that birds sing music concerns their perspective that birds lack the necessary creative abilities to do so.
DO BIRDS INHERENTLY LACK THE CREATIVE ABILITIES NECESSARY TO PRODUCE MUSIC?
Because birds are subhuman creatures, is it valid to hold that they therefore inherently lack the creative abilities that are necessary to produce music? Based on the implications of several passages that record certain activities of animals, including some about birds, I believe that this position is highly questionable.
Before the Fall
A serpent spoke to Eve and tempted her to do evil (Gen. 3:1; 4-5). Although we have no other data to work with about the abilities of animals before the fall, there is no clear reason that I am aware of that we must hold that the serpent’s actions were a unique instance of such activity.
Furthermore, God created birds (Gen. 1:20-21) before He created man (Gen. 1:26-28). In their unfallen state, surely their abilities far exceeded their present abilities to create sounds of varying pitches.
After the Fall
Two passages about animal activities after the Fall of man also support holding that birds do sing music and not just make sounds.
Numbers 22
The account of Balaam’s interaction with his donkey records another occasion when an animal interacted verbally with humans. The donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing in front of it with a sword and responded accordingly (Num. 22:23). The passage provides no indication that the donkey’s seeing the Angel or its reacting to the threat that He posed to the donkey were supernatural, out-of-the-ordinary occurrences.
The donkey responded similarly two more times (Num. 22:25, 27), and on each occasion, Balaam responded by striking it (Num. 22:23, 25, 27). The Lord then opened its mouth (Num. 22:28), and she asked Balaam what she had done so that he had stricken her three times (Num. 22:28).
Balaam accused the donkey of abusing him (Num. 22:29). The donkey then reasoned with Balaam and elicited a response from him that implied that he had erred in his treatment of her (Num. 22:29b).
The Lord then enabled Balaam to see the Angel of the Lord standing before him (Num. 22:31). The Angel then asked him why he had stricken his donkey three times (Num. 22:32) and explained that the donkey’s actions actually saved his life (Num. 22:32-33).
Although some would argue that the entire account is exceptional, the text only indicates that the Lord’s allowing the donkey to speak and Balaam to see the Angel were supernatural in nature. The passage provides no explicit textual basis for holding that the donkey’s ability to reason with Balaam (after the Lord had opened its mouth) was also supernatural in nature.
Psalm 104
In a glorious Psalm that praises God for His creation and His providential care for it, an unknown psalmist writes, “By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches” (104:12; KJV). Although the Hebrew does not employ a term that specifies a musical activity, the context makes clear that singing is plainly in view here (cf. other important modern translations that also render the Hebrew verb as sing: NKJ, NIV, ESV, CSB).
Several commentators take Psalm 104:12 as an important statement about music:
“The birds, also, in their nests among the branches are able to pour forth their melodious notes as the result of the God-directed valley-springs. Singing among the branches should inspire us to sing where we dwell—even if it be like Paul and Silas in a prison cell. . . . Said Izaak Walton, great lover of birds, especially the nightingale, ‘Lord, what music hast thou provided for the saints in heaven, when thou affordest bad men such music on earth?’” (Herbert Lockyer, Sr., Psalms: A Devotional Commentary, 409).
“Among them the fowls of the air dwell. That is, among the trees which spring up by the fountains and water-courses. The whole picture is full of animation and beauty. . . . Which sing among the branches. Marg. as in Heb., give a voice. Their voice is heard—their sweet music—in the foliage of the trees which grow on the margin of the streams and by the fountains” (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Explanatory and Practical, 9:85).
“’Everything lives whithersoever water cometh,’ as Easterners know. Therefore round the drinking-places in the vales thirsty creatures gather, birds flit and sing; up among the cedars are peaceful nests, and inaccessible cliffs have their sure-footed inhabitants. All depend on water, and water is God’s gift. The psalmist’s view of Nature is characteristic in the direct ascription of all the processes to God” (Alexander MacLaren, The Psalms, 3:116).
“How refreshing are these words! What happy memories they arouse of plashing waterfalls and entangled boughs, where the merry din of the falling and rushing water forms a solid background of music, and the sweet tuneful notes of the birds are the brighter and more flashing lights in harmony. Pretty birdies, sing on! What better can ye do, and who can do it better? When we too drink of the river of God, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life, it well becomes us to ‘sing among the branches.’ Where ye dwell ye sing; and shall not we rejoice in the Lord, who has been our dwelling-place in all generations. As ye fly from bough to bough, ye warble forth your notes, and so will we as we flit through time into eternity. It is not meet that birds of Paradise should be outdone by birds of the earth” (Charles Spurgeon, Treasury of David, 2:305).
“The music of the birds was the first song of thanksgiving which was offered from the earth, before man was formed” (John Wesley; cited in Explanatory Notes and Quaint Sayings on 104:12 in Treasury of David, 2:319).
“They sing, according to their capacity, to the honour of their Creator and benefactor, and their singing may shame our silence” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 893).
The accounts about animal activity in Numbers 22 and Psalm 104 support holding that birds sing music and not just make sounds.
In the future
A remarkable future occasion of universal worship of both God the Father and the Lamb will include verbal praise from every creature in heaven, in the earth, under the earth, and in the sea:
Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Some commentators hold that this reference does not literally refer to subhuman creatures such as birds giving praise to God because they believe strongly that they lack the intellectual capacity to do so (e.g., Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 407). In view of the passages treated above, this seems to me to be a dubious position.
CONCLUSION
Given the available biblical data, I conclude that birds do sing music and not merely make sounds. I would appreciate hearing from those who disagree so that I can further my understanding of this matter.
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
In addition to finishing my Psalms reading project a few days ago, this morning I finished reading through the Bible for the year! I also read Galatians nine times this year.
Lord willing, next year, I hope to read the Bible through in Spanish and English. I also am thinking about trying to read all the Psalms in Hebrew in 2013.
Praise God for His Word!
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
In a small Midwestern town, a fierce ice storm raged. The howling of the frigid winds was suddenly joined by the piercing ringing of a telephone. In the wee hours of the morning, the phone call informed a family that they needed to come to the hospital immediately.
Because their car was not working, a police car took them to the hospital. As they walked into the hospital room, a far greater storm began to rage in their souls. Lying there on the hospital bed was my dad dead of an apparent heart attack. Seeing him dead, our world suddenly fell apart.
The immense sorrow of that time was accompanied by times of longing and dreaming that somehow, someday, I would see my dad again. But, our sorrow was without hope because none of us were believers at that time.
As I did for many years after my dad died in 1982, many in this world sorrow without hope for their dead loved ones. Praise God that He does not want believers to sorrow without hope for their believing loved ones who have died:
1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
This passages teaches us that in order for us to sorrow not without hope for our loved ones who have died, four things must be true.
1. We must believe that Jesus died and rose again (1 Thess. 4:14a).
2. Our loved ones must believe that Jesus died and rose again, so that when they die, they will be asleep in Jesus (1 Thess. 4:14b; cf. Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:6, 18, 51).
3. We as believers must not be ignorant concerning those who are asleep in Jesus (1 Thess. 4:13a).
4. We as believers must comfort one another concerning the dead in Christ so that we will not sorrow for them without hope (1 Thess. 4:18).
Brethren, let us sorrow not without hope for our loves ones who sleep in Jesus!
Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.
