Archives For CCM

How Genesis 4:21 Directly Applies to the CCM Debate

March 7, 2015

Whether or not all musical styles are inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship is a key point of dispute among believers concerning CCM. Because Genesis 4:21 is the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments, examining its relevance to the CCM debate is vital.

In my experience, however, Genesis 4:21 has not been considered thoroughly by most people on either side of the CCM debate. I have previously written several articles that treat various aspects of what Genesis 4:21 reveals, especially in relation to certain issues concerning CCM.1

This post brings out yet another facet of its teaching about music that applies to the CCM debate in a way that I have not previously discussed. To understand the application of this facet of Genesis 4:21 to the CCM debate, we have to examine it in relation to its surrounding context that includes many biblical references to divine creative activity and some other references to human creative activity.

References to God as the Creator of All Things in Genesis 1-11

Through at least 30 direct references to divine creative activity2 in Genesis 1-11,3 God indisputably asserts at the beginning of our canonical arrangement of Scripture that He is the Creator of all created things. It is worth noting also that all of these references speak of God’s creating things that man did not play any role in their creation (for example, light, the expanse, and the animals).

Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that only one of these 30 references speaks of God’s making something that humans could conceivably even have made or played a role in its making: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). Based on this data, we know that the Spirit is purposely directing to our attention numerous statements about distinctively divine creative activity in these chapters.

References to Humans as the Makers of Certain Things in Genesis 1-11

Only after we have read 24 statements about what God has created do we encounter the first statement about something that man made:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

This earliest reference to human creative activity speaks of humans taking something that they did not make (the fig leaves) and fashioning something else out of it (aprons; for a fuller explanation of the vital importance of this text for issues concerning the CCM debate, see this post).

Genesis 4 provides the next information that we have about human creative activity (Gen. 4:17, 20, 21, 22). Among those statements is the earliest statement that we have about human musical activity:

Gen 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

We must not fail to note that the first information that the Spirit gives to us about human musical activity directly concerns not their singing but their playing musical instruments. Moreover, the Spirit does not frame His presentation of this revelation in such a way as to highlight God’s working in these people to produce and do what they did.

Instead, the Spirit says to us that Jubal was “the father” of all those who were playing these instruments. By framing this statement in that way, the Spirit is clearly emphasizing that Jubal was either the inventor of these instruments or the one who pioneered playing them in some way or both.

Regardless of which way we understand this statement, it is clearly not presenting God as the One who created the style or styles in which Jubal and the others mentioned here played these instruments. Rather, and in sharp contrast to the surrounding profound emphasis on divine creation, the Spirit is highlighting that fallen humans created these musical styles.

Application to the CCM Debate

Christian supporters of the use of rock music and CCM rely heavily on an argument based on God as the Creator of all musical styles to support their views. They argue that God is the Creator of all musical styles, and therefore they are all inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship.4

Scripture, however, not only does not say anything about God as the One who created all musical styles but also it directly emphasizes the opposite by saying that fallen humans originated the musical styles that are in view in the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments. For this reason, discussions of rock music and CCM that defend Christian use of these types of music by appealing to God’s creating them as inherently good and therefore necessarily fit for divine worship are seriously flawed because they do not account properly for how the Bible in Genesis 4:21 frames its first presentation of human musical activity.

Conclusion

When believers who hold to the propriety of Christian use of rock music and CCM seek to defend their views, they must not use an illegitimate argument from the supposed divine creation of these styles to justify their views. To defend their views properly, they must show from the Bible why they believe that these styles are fit for Christian use in spite of biblical evidence that shows that not even all the animals that God originally created as good were acceptable for offering to Him in worship even by the time of the Flood.

1 See these previous posts for more information.

2 Genesis 1:1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 22; 3:3, 21; 5:1, 2; 6:6, 7; 7:4.

3 Genesis 1-11 is a natural place to limit our examination because these chapters naturally go together in providing us with information about early human history.

4 See my post Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral? for a biblical treatment of evidence from Genesis that disproves the view that all musical styles are inherently moral.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

How Genesis 7-8 Applies to the CCM Debate

March 2, 2015

Some supporters of CCM assert that because God made music, all instrumental musical styles, including rock music, are necessarily inherently acceptable for use in divine worship. An examination of certain statements in Genesis 7-8 points to why this argument is invalid.

Divine Instruction to Noah about Animals

In preparation for the Flood, God gave Noah specific instructions about the animals that he was to bring into the Ark:

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Among those animals, he was to bring specified numbers of clean animals and unclean animals:

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Scripture does not give us any further information about this distinction among the animals, but we can understand the following truths based on this revelation:

  1. The Lord expected Noah to know which animals were unclean and which ones were not and to act accordingly. Scripture does not tell us how Noah would know this information; it may be that God also specified this information to him at this time but chose not to record His doing so.
  2. Scripture does not reveal how or why this distinction among all the animals that God had created originated nor does it explain what this distinction signified concerning in what sense some of the animals were clean and others were unclean; we are simply told that this distinction existed.
  3. Scripture does not tell us whether this distinction had been in place prior to this time or it was established only at this time.

Furthermore, because later revelation shows that God had not yet given animals to humans as food (Gen. 9:3-4), we have no basis for saying that the distinction among the animals at this time had anything to do with human consumption of them as food.

Divine Worship by Noah Using Animals

After the Flood, Noah built an altar to the Lord and worshiped Him by offering burnt offerings on it:

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Notice that Noah offered these offerings only from every clean animal and bird—he did not offer any of the unclean animals in his worship of God.

God accepted Noah’s worship that offered to Him only these clean animals and birds (Gen. 8:21) that he had taken on the Ark in obedience to divine directive (Gen. 7:2-3). God blessed Noah and his family after he had worshiped Him (Gen. 9:1ff.), including now giving all animals to them for food (Gen. 9:3).

Strikingly, God then made a covenant with Noah and his sons that Scripture explicitly specifies four times was a covenant that was also with every living creature that was with them in the Ark (Gen. 9:10, 12, 15, 16)—the covenant therefore was also with those unclean animals and birds that were not offered to God in worship to Him!

Discussion

As the Creator, God made everything (Gen. 1), including all living beings (Gen. 1:20-28). After God had made all things, He pronounced that all that He had made was good (Gen. 1:21, 25, 31).

Just prior to the Flood, however, we read that God directed Noah concerning his bringing into the Ark both animals that were clean and animals that were unclean (Gen. 7:2-3). Scripture does not explain how, when, and why some animals received this designation of being unclean and others did not.

After the Flood, we see Noah offering only the clean animals in worship to God, even though God had also made all the unclean ones as good animals when He created them. After Noah had worshiped God, we read that God gave all animals to Noah and his family for food, including those animals that were designated as unclean and not offered in worship to Him.

Based on this biblical data, we see that although every animal that God created was originally pronounced by Him as good, He declared just before the Flood that an unspecified number of them were unclean animals. These unclean animals were not acceptable for use in divine worship even though God created them and pronounced them good at the Creation.

Because, however, God entered into an everlasting covenant with these unclean animals after the Flood—just as He did with the clean ones—we know that their unacceptability for divine worship was not because these animals were of no lasting value to Him. Moreover, because God gave these animals to humans as food after the Flood, we know that their unacceptability for divine worship was not because they were somehow unfit for human consumption.

Application to the CCM Debate

Many supporters of CCM argue that instrumental rock music is both inherently moral music and acceptable for use in divine worship because God created all music. From our study above, however, we have seen that such an argument from Creation is not valid because some of the animals that God created as good at the Creation were for some unspecified reason unclean and unfit for use in divine worship just prior to the Flood.

Even if it were true, therefore, that all instrumental musical styles were inherently good at the Creation because God created all music, it would still not necessarily follow that they all are inherently acceptable today for use in divine worship. Supporters of CCM, therefore, cannot legitimately use an argument from Creation to support their view that using CCM in divine worship is necessarily legitimate because all instrumental musical styles are inherently acceptable to God.

Conclusion

In the debate about the propriety of using CCM in divine worship, many supporters of CCM argue that rock music is inherently fit for use in divine worship because God created music and therefore all musical styles are necessarily acceptable for use in worshiping Him. A close examination of biblical revelation about divine worship in Genesis 8 has shown, however, that it is not true that everything that God created as good at the Creation is necessarily therefore still acceptable for use in worshiping Him. An argument from Creation, therefore, does not prove that God accepts the rock music that those who use CCM in divine worship offer to Him.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Music, Theology
 permalink

How James 4 Illumines Today’s Music Wars and How to End Them Properly

January 3, 2015

In some spirited online discussions that I have observed between evangelicals and fundamentalists concerning their differences about music that is acceptable for worship, evangelicals have often asserted that the fundamentalists are the root cause of the problems and disunity in worship that exist among Christians today. Of course, I categorically reject that assertion.

In support of my rejection of that assertion, I recently have seen that James 4 illumines key aspects of today’s music wars. The chapter also illumines how to end the music wars properly.

James 4:1-10

James first sets forth the reality of wars and fightings among God’s people and exposes the root cause of such problems—Christians who are seeking their own lustful pleasures and thereby creating strife and division (James 4:1-3).

Application: Concerning differences about music that should be used for Christian worship, believers who strive for the acceptability of music that appeals to fleshly lusts are the ones who are responsible for creating the music wars among God’s people.

James then challenges those believers who are causing strife— through seeking to satisfy their fleshly lusts— about their adulterously seeking friendship with the world (James 4:4-5).

Application: In the debates about what music is appropriate for Christian worship, believers who promote affinity to the world by setting forth as acceptable for worship music that the world has specifically created to promote fleshly lusts are the ones who are causing the strife and division among God’s people concerning worship music.

James further rebukes believers who cause strife for their arrogant lack of submission to God and their not resisting the devil. In effect, he counsels them that their seeking to fulfill their lusts by their friendship with the world is a manifestation of their proud resistance to God and failure to resist the devil (James 4:6-7).

Application: Concerning the disputes about worship music, believers who advocate as acceptable for worship music that the world created to appeal to fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences upon its creators and performers are the ones who are the root cause of today’s music wars.

James challenges believers who are causing wars and fightings among God’s people to humbly draw near to God and deal properly with their sins (James 4:7-10).

Application: Concerning the current battles about music that is acceptable for worship, believers who promote the use of music that was created by the world to feed fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences are the ones who must change if the music wars among God’s people today are to be resolved properly.

James 4:11-12

James next warns believers not to judge one another by speaking evil of one another (James 4:11-12). It is vital to note that the flow of thought in the chapter shows that James does not have in view speech that rightly assesses and confronts believers who through their lustful and adulterous friendship with the world are proudly resistant to God and failing to resist the devil.

Application: Those who advocate for the use of contemporary worship music often charge those who do not with judging them unjustly by what they say about the use of contemporary worship music. Such a charge is invalid because it is right to assess as wrong the use of music created by the world that feeds fleshly lusts and that is sourced in evil supernatural influences upon musicians.

James 4:13-17

James concludes the chapter by rebuking believers who arrogantly boast about what they are going to do in the future (James 4:13-16). He warns them that failure to do what one knows to be right is sinful (James 4:17).

Application: Some evangelical promoters of contemporary worship arrogantly speak assuredly of the future virtually complete triumph of contemporary worship among the people of God. Many of these people also profess that music choices are strictly about personal preferences and yet speak disdainfully of those who reject contemporary worship, which puts them in violation of what they know is right to do about how believers are to handle differences about things that they believe are disputable things.

Conclusion

If today’s music wars are to be ended properly, all believers must carefully and thoroughly examine themselves in light of how James 4 illumines these wars and fightings among God’s people concerning worship music. Through such an examination and a proper response to it, we can resolve these problems and the disunity among God’s people resulting from them.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

A Prophet, A Minstrel, and Resolving Today’s Worship Wars

December 20, 2014

To resolve today’s worship wars properly, all parties involved must profit fully from all divine revelation about music. To that end, this post examines a noteworthy passage about a prophet, a minstrel, and divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

Elisha’s Commitment to Separation from Those Who Had Compromised True Worship of the Lord

Second Kings begins by relating the miraculous end of Elijah’s prophetic ministry and the miraculous beginning of Elisha’s prophetic ministry (2 Kings 1-2). During the subsequent evil reign of king Jehoram over Israel (cf. 2 Kings 3:1-3), king Jehoram went with Jehoshaphat king of Judah and the king of Edom to inquire of the Lord through Elisha because Jehoshaphat knew that “the word of the Lord [was] with him [Elisha]” (2 Kings 3:7-12).

In this encounter with these three kings, Elisha initially rebuked Jehoram by protesting his seeking him out: “What have I to do with thee?” (2 Kings 3:13a). Elisha thereby made clear that he did not want to have contact with this evil king. He then instructed him to go instead and consult with the prophets of his parents (2 Kings 3:13b).

When Jehoram persisted (2 Kings 3:13c), Elisha testified to the all-important reality that he served in the presence of the living God (“As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand” [2 Kings 3:14a]). He then went so far as to say to Jehoram that he would not even have had anything to do with him had Jehoshaphat not been with him (2 Kings 3:14b).

These statements by Elisha attest to his commitment to separation from evil leaders who perpetuated horrifically compromised worship of the Lord (2 Kings 3:3). By divine design, we must therefore keep this reality in mind when we examine what Elisha did next in this encounter.

Elisha’s Request for a Minstrel to Play for Him and His Subsequent Prophesying

After he had rebuked Jehoram for seeking prophetic ministry from him, Elisha asked that a minstrel be brought to him (2 Kings 3:15a). When the minstrel played for him, “the hand of the Lord came upon him” (2 Kings 3:15b).

Elisha then prophesied what the Lord gave him to reveal on this occasion (2 Kings 3:16-19). The inspired writer of the book then records that what Elisha had prophesied took place the next morning (2 Kings 3:20).

Discussion

Why did Elisha request this musical ministry prior to his prophesying? Why did the Holy Spirit record this part of the encounter and what profit are we supposed to derive from it?

To understand the value of this revelation properly, we must first note that this passage does not say anything about the minstrel’s singing words to Elisha on this occasion. By divine design, this passage focuses our attention, therefore, on what resulted at this time from the playing of instrumental music.

Second, we must recognize that Elisha had no ability to bring about any divine response to the instrumental musical ministry that he requested and received. Because the Spirit has recorded that God did respond to that instrumental music, we learn that this passage is inspired revelation about divine attentiveness to and approbation of the instrumental music that Elisha received on this occasion!

Third, given Elisha’s intense commitment to separation from compromised worshipers of the Lord, the flow of thought in the passage points us to the truth of divine attention to and approbation of instrumental music ministered by a musician who is not a compromising worshiper of the Lord. By implication, we learn that both Elisha and God would have rejected instrumental music proffered by an ungodly instrumental musician (cf. Amos 5:23).

Conclusion

In a previous post, I treated a passage in Amos 5 that plainly teaches that God pays attention to the instrumental music that people use to worship Him. The account of Elisha, the minstrel’s playing, and God’s response to that playing similarly reveals divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

In discussions about issues concerning worship music, we must account properly for this vital biblical truth—God is not merely concerned with the words that are sung to Him; He also pays attention to the instrumental music that is used. In fact, through how the Spirit has chosen to inspire the revelation given to us in 2 Kings 3:15, we must accept the truth that He pays attention to and responds to instrumental music that is not accompanied by words!

Furthermore, the emphasis in the passage on Elisha’s separation from ungodly worshipers of the Lord directs us to scrutinize carefully the instrumental music that we use in divine worship and to reject instrumental music sourced in the evil activities of evil people, including people who profess to worship the Lord but compromise His worship. Attempts to resolve today’s worship wars that do not account for the truths revealed in 2 Kings 3, Amos 5, and other related passages will necessarily fail to resolve the issues involved properly.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

A Helpful Critique of Contemporary Worship Music

December 13, 2014

I have found several of the articles that Jonathan Aigner has written to be helpful as I continue to study issues related to the debates about the use of contemporary worship music. His post Modernized hymns: Are you singing hymns, or just contemporary songs with old words? is particularly thought-provoking because of his valuable analysis of seven indicators of “singing contemporary songs with old words.”

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM
 permalink

God Does Pay Attention to the Instrumental Music Used to Worship Him!

December 9, 2014

Every time that I read Amos 5, I am struck by what God says at the end of the passage concerning the instrumental music that His people offer to Him in their worship. Although I am still working on understanding the full significance of this passage for the debates about worship music in our day, I am convinced that it has great relevance to those issues.

Amos 5 and Divine Attentiveness to Instrumental Music

Because of the extreme offensiveness of His people’s religious hypocrisy, God made known that He intensely detested their ungodly worship. Tellingly, He said that He would not accept the things that they would offer Him:

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

 23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

 24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Remarkably, God rebuked His people by saying that He hated the special occasions of divine worship that He Himself had ordained for them!

It is noteworthy that God specifies here that He commanded them to take away the noise of their songs from Him and made known that He would not listen to the instrumental music that they would offer up to Him in their hypocritical worship. By direct and necessary implication, verse 23 reveals that God listens intently to the instrumental music that His people use in their worshiping Him and any music that is part of divine worship must be music that is a delight to Him.

Conclusion

Contrary to the notions that some believers seem to have, this passage makes clear that believers cannot legitimately hold that God only cares about the words that are sung to Him and doesn’t pay attention to the instrumental music that is used to worship Him. God has made known plainly in Amos 5:23 (and in other passages) that He does pay attention to the instrumental music used to worship Him!

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Why Psalm 40:1-3 Does Not Justify Using CCM to Evangelize Lost People

October 30, 2014

I have been closely following another lengthy online discussion about CCM. One participant in this discussion recently asserted that Psalm 40 justifies using CCM to evangelize lost people. He wrote,

The “new song” which God puts in our hearts may very well change with each generation. You have no right to determine subjectively what that means. You certainly have the right to hold to your position on music as preference, but if God has given us a “new song” which “many will see and fear, and put their trust in the Lord,” it destroys one of the key IFB arguments against CCM–“Music is never used for evangelism, only for edification.” With each generation, God has given a new song to communicate His truth to this generation. The style may not speak to the spirit of my heart, but it will speak to the heart of someone else who needs the message of the Gospel. I have no right to put God into a box and tell him He cannot use a certain style of music.[1]

A close look at two key aspects of the beginning verses of Psalm 40 shows why this argument is erroneous.[2]

The Identity of the Person Giving Testimony in Psalm 40:1-3

Psalm 40 begins with the following testimony:

Psa 40:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.> I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.

2 He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.

3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

From these verses, we know for certain that king David is the one who is giving this testimony.

Is this, then, an evangelistic testimony of how he became a true believer in the Lord or is it something other than that? Answering this question properly requires that we closely examine the precise nature of his testimony in these statements.

The Nature of the Testimony Given in Psalm 40:1-3

David begins by declaring, “I waited patiently for the Lord” (Ps. 40:1a). He then affirms how the Lord inclined Himself to David and heard his prayer (Ps. 40:1b-c).

Scripture never affirms that any unbeliever waits patiently for the Lord; in fact, they have turned away from Him and do not on their own want anything to do with Him (Cf. Rom. 3:10-18). The opening statement in Psalm 40, therefore, makes plain that this is not an evangelistic testimony that David gave about how he was saved—David is testifying of what he did as a true believer in the Lord and of the Lord’s response to him!

Not only is verse one therefore not an evangelistic testimony but also verses two and three therefore are also not verses relating David’s giving an evangelistic testimony; rather, they are his testimony as a believer of how God delivered him out of dire straits and filled his heart with a new song of grateful praise for His delivering him as a believer. This analysis shows that the reference to a “new song” in Psalm 40:3 does not have anything to do with giving lost people the gospel in song so that they will come to be true believers in the Lord.

Conclusion

Contrary to the confident assertions cited at the beginning of this post, the teaching about the “new song” in Psalm 40 does not provide any evidence that “destroys one of the key IFB arguments against CCM—‘Music is never used for evangelism, only for edification.’” A sound handling of Psalm 40:1-3 shows that it does not have anything to do with evangelizing lost people using a new song.

Psalm 40:1-3 does not justify using CCM to evangelize lost people. Those who believe that it is legitimate to use CCM to give the gospel to lost people cannot use this passage legitimately to support their view.

[1] Comment posted on October 14 at 10:08pm in the discussion, “The Sacred Cow” of CCM! 2-Part Discussion Question:”; https://www.facebook.com/groups/319245621580408/permalink/331652423673061/

[2] I am indebted to my pastor, Dr. Mark Minnick, for how his treatment of this passage in a message helped greatly to provide me with this proper understanding of the true nature of the testimony given in Psalm 40:1-3.

For more help with issues concerning CCM, please see the resources that I provide here.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation
 permalink

Another Lengthy Online Discussion about CCM

October 11, 2014

This evening, I read all 437 posts in another lengthy online discussion about CCM: “The Sacred Cow” of CCM! 2-Part Discussion Question.” I did so because I want to understand as much as I can about how people who support CCM think and argue for its propriety.

Although there are many things that I read that I would like to interact with, I just do not have the time or inclination at present to become part of this discussion. If you are interested in this subject, you might consider browsing through the posts here.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM
 permalink

What A Sound Theology of Sound Teaches Us about Music That We Should Reject

February 2, 2014

Because biblical revelation about sound abounds, a sound theology of sound must account for all that Scripture reveals about sound. Attention to several passages about one specific aspect of certain sounds points us to another reason to reject the use of certain music.

Thunder as God’s Voice

At least seven passages directly identify thunder as the voice of God speaking, either through paralleling the two or by more directly linking them:

2Sa 22:14 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice.

Psa 18:13 The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire.

Psa 29:3 The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters.

Job 37:4 After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard. 5 God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.

Job 40:9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?

Psa 77:18 The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.

Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

These passages should teach us to consider the very real possibility that when we hear thunder, we may actually be hearing God speaking but not understanding what He is saying. A key passage in the NT supports the validity of our need to be mindful of this possibility.

Human Misidentification of Sound as Merely Thunder

On an occasion when He was in the midst of a crowd, Jesus prayed, “Father, glorify Thy name” (John 12:28a). In response, “then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have glorified it, and will glorify it again” (John 12:28b).

The crowd that was standing by Him heard it and “said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to Him” (John 12:29). Jesus responded to them, “This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes” (John 12:30).

Several commentators explain what took place at this time:

The Father then spoke from heaven in a thunderous voice, confirming His working in Jesus both in the past in the future. The voice was audible but not all understood it . . . The voice from heaven confirmed faith in the spiritually perceptive but to the unspiritual it was only a noise (1 Cor. 2:14).—Edwin A. Blum, BKC: NT, 318; bold is in the original

He alone could distinguish exactly what the voice said . . . If Jesus hears the voice distinctly, the crowd that was there does not. Some, presumably those less open to observable supernatural intervention, said it had thundered; others recognized that the sound was speech, a voice, and not just noise, but there is no evidence that they could make out what was being said.—D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 441

The form in which the answer to Jesus’ prayer Father, glorify thy name (28) is conveyed (apparently a loud noise, interpreted by the materialists as a clap of thunder and nothing more, and by the more spiritually-minded as an angelic utterance) brings home to those standing near Jesus (for this, He states, was its primary purpose) the truth that Jesus really is engaged upon His Father’s business.—R. V. G. Tasker, TNTC: John, 149-150.

They heard the sound from heaven without distinguishing the words. . . . The astounding sound coming from heaven was called “thunder” by those who sought a natural explanation. Perhaps the sound resembled thunder to their ears. Others, nearer the truth, connect the sound with Jesus and imagine that an angel from heaven has spoken to him. The thunder hypothesis would be offered by the skeptics of today, who deem any but a natural explanation of supernatural phenomena “superstition.” —R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John, 871-872

These commentators all note that the passage shows that when many people in the crowd thought that they had heard thunder, they actually had heard the sound of divine communication from the Father to the Son. What many of these people, therefore, thought was just a loud noise in the heavens was actually specific communication.

Additional Relevant Passages

Three other passages also relate times when people heard loud sounds and did not understand that they were actually hearing the speech of supernatural beings, either an angel (Dan. 10:4-9) or of the glorified Jesus (Acts 9:7 and 22:9):

Daniel 10:4-9

While Daniel and others were at the bank of a great river, only Daniel saw “a great vision”:

Dan 10:4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;

5 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:

6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.

8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.

9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.

Daniel notes that the words that he heard were “like the voice of a multitude,” but he gives no indication that he understood what that voice was saying. Later, Daniel was given understanding (Dan. 10:10-21).

Acts 9:7 and 22:9

Two of the accounts of Paul’s conversion record that Jesus spoke from heaven to Saul after He had “arrested” him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-7; 22:6-9). Those who were with Saul heard a voice but did not understand it:

Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not[1] the voice of him that spake to me.

Like John 12:28-29, this passage shows that humans did not understand that the sound that they heard was actual specific communication by God.

Discussion 

Based on all the passages treated above, our theology of sound must include the reality that we likely often misinterpret actual speech by supernatural beings as merely thunder or some other indistinct loud sounds. Our inability to understand such supernatural speech (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1), therefore, should warn us not to think that we know with certainty that the extremely loud sounds of the music in a rock concert or of the music in many contemporary worship services are not communicating ungodly messages to supernatural beings who understand various communicative properties of sound that we do not.

Conclusion 

Christians who favor contemporary worship must allow Scripture to adjust their theology of sound so that it takes into account properly the divine revelation that shows our human inability to understand fully what certain loud sounds communicate in the supernatural realm and how they do so. Because of its demonic origins, rock music, which is played very loudly to obtain its full effect, must be rejected so that there is no possibility that we will unwittingly communicate ungodly messages to supernatural beings through music whose sounds have aspects that we do not understand.

 

[1] A careful examination of the Greek text shows that Acts 22:9 conveys not that the others did not hear the voice at all but that they did not understand what was being said.

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Are Secular Testimonies about Fallen Spirits and Music Inherently Unreliable?

January 25, 2014

Undeniably, many secular musicians have testified in various ways to supernatural influences as the source of their ungodly music.[1] In online written messages to me, at least two CCM supporters have claimed that secular testimonies about music and spirituality are unreliable.

Are secular testimonies about fallen spirits and music inherently unreliable? Two passages provide revelation that points to this view being false.

2 Kings 6:8-12

At a time when Syria was warring against Israel, the king of Syria conferred with his servants to determine various places where he would locate his camp (2 Kings 6:8). Elisha warned the king of Israel about each location so that the king was able to save himself on multiple occasions from being harmed by the Syrians (2 Kings 6:9-10).

In response to the repeated foiling of his strategy, the king of Syria demanded that his servants tell him who was the traitor among them who was giving away their location each time to the king of Israel (2 Kings 6:11). One of his servants replied, “None, my lord, O king: but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber (2 Kings 6:12).

The passage provides no indication that this Syrian servant somehow had secretly spied on Elisha on each occasion and then returned to give his eyewitness testimony to the king about what had happened. Nor does the passage tell us that he received that information somehow through some other informant.

This remarkable testimony, therefore, by presumably an unbelieving Syrian servant shows that an unbeliever was able to testify reliably about a profound spiritual reality of which he would not have been able to obtain any evidence to support his testimony. Although we have no way to know how or why this servant was able to provide this testimony, we must accept that this record of his ability to do so teaches us that secular testimony about spiritual realities are not inherently unreliable.

Acts 16:16-18

While Paul, Timothy, and Luke were going to a place of prayer, they encountered a certain female slave who was possessed by an evil spirit (Acts 16:16a). Through the influence of the evil spirit of divination that was upon her, this girl was greatly profiting her masters through her fortune telling (Acts 16:16b).

This girl followed Paul and the others around for many days and repeatedly gave forth a remarkable testimony: “These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). After being grieved by her doing so for many days, Paul commanded the spirit in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of the girl, and the spirit immediately left her (Acts 16:18).

This passage informs us that a presumably unbelieving girl who was possessed by an evil spirit yet repeatedly bore a reliable testimony to profound spiritual realities! Not only did she correctly proclaim crucial spiritual information about who Paul, Timothy, and Luke were, but also she gave forth a fully reliable testimony to the spiritual content of their message.

Even though she was a demon-possessed woman, she bore repeated testimonies to spiritual truths about which no demon would ever want any human to give true testimony! Her testimony was pointing people to true servants of the true God who were telling them the truth of how they could be saved—something about which the devil and his demons use all their infernal powers to try to prevent as many people as possible from ever hearing the truth about and believing!

Discussion

Second Kings 6:8-12 teaches us that a secular servant of an evil king somehow testified to profound spiritual truth in spite of his having no stated source of his having such knowledge. Acts 16:16-18 shows that even a demon-possessed lost person yet provided provide reliable testimony to truths about vital spiritual realities and did so even though her testifying to those truths was in direct opposition to the aims and purposes of all fallen spirits!

Taken together, these two passages refute the notion that testimonies from secular people about spiritual realities are inherently unreliable. Applying what we learn from these passages to the objections raised about the reliability of secular testimonies to the role of fallen spirits in influencing people to produce ungodly music, we can be confident that such testimonies are not inherently unreliable.

Conclusion

Christians must not hold the false view that secular testimonies about fallen spirits and music are inherently unreliable. Because we have many testimonies from secular musicians that fallen spirits have influenced them to produce their music, we should reject all such music and all other music that uses the same styles about which they have borne testimony concerning the evil supernatural source of those styles.

[1] The following quotes are from a website that I found by doing a Google search on evil spirits and rock music:

Angus Young: (AC/DC guitarist)  “…it’s like I’m on automatic pilot. By the time we’re halfway through the first number someone else is steering me. I’m just along for the ride. I become possessed when I get on stage” (Hit Parader, July 1985, p. 60).

John McGlaughlin: “One night we were playing and suddenly the spirit entered into me and I was playing but it was no longer me playing.” (Circus Magazine, April, 1972, p. 38)

Little Richard: “My true belief about Rock ‘n’ Roll — is this: I believe this kind of music is demonic . . . A lot of the BEATS in music today are taken from voodoo, from the voodoo DRUMS.” (Charles White, The Life and Times of Little Richard, p. 197)

Van Halen’s David Lee Roth “I’m gonna abandon my spirit to them which is exactly what I attempt to do. You work yourself up into that state and you fall into supplication of the demon gods…” [Van Halen’s David Lee Roth. Interview w. Rock. April 1984. Pg 30]

—http://www.inplainsite.org/html/voices_of_rock.html; accessed 1/17/14; 4:09 pm)

I also found the following sources from that same search: Note the testimonies provided in this web article (https://truediscipleship.com/ten-scriptural-reasons-why-the-rock-beat-is-evil-in-any-form/; accessed 9/21/19; 9:40 pm) and these testimonies from rock musicians themselves in this article (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/CCM/hip_hop.htm; accessed 1/17/14; 3:55 pm); see also the similar testimonies in a similar article (http://wayoflife.org/index_files/rock_musicians_as_mediums.html; accessed 1/17/14; 4:14 pm.)

Please note that I have not independently verified the quotes provided in any of these sources. I have no reason, however, to doubt their veracity, especially since several sources provide some of the same quotes.

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink