Archives For Discipleship

On Singing, Dancing, and Playing Instruments in Scripture

December 31, 2013

Scripture speaks in at least 26 passages about various people dancing.[1] A close examination of three references to dancing in First Samuel brings out an important point about interpreting other passages in Scripture that mention both singing and dancing.

First Samuel 18:6-9

After David had killed Goliath, he served Saul faithfully wherever he sent him (1 Sam. 18:5a). David prospered, he was exalted by Saul to be over his army, and he was pleasing to all the people, including the servants of Saul (1 Sam. 18:5b-c).

When David was returning from killing Goliath, women came out from all the cities of Israel (1 Sam. 18:6a). These women were singing, dancing, and playing musical instruments when they went out to meet King Saul (and David):

1Sa 18:6 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.

This musical exaltation of David above Saul led to Saul’s becoming very angry and suspicious of David “from that day and forward” (1 Sam. 18:8-9).

This passage teaches us that there were at least some women in every city of Israel at this time who were able to sing, dance, and play musical instruments at the same time (cf. Exod. 15:20-21). Moreover, they thought it fitting to do all three in honoring those to whom they believed honor was due.

From this passage, we infer that music was an important part of life in all Israel at this time in its history. Two later references to the same event teach us an important point about music in relation to singing and dancing in the thinking of the people in one of the neighboring nations.

First Samuel 21:11 and 29:5

The Philistines were one of the key enemies of Israel in the days of Saul and David. Yet, when Saul began to try to kill David, David fled (1 Sam. 21:10) to Achish the king of Gath (a key city of the Philistines and the hometown of Goliath). Somehow, the servants of the king knew about the musical reception that Saul and David had received earlier when they returned from his killing Goliath:

1Sa 21:11 And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?

Comparing their report of that event with what actually took place (1 Sam. 18:6-7) brings out two key points. First, the servants of Achish do not mention that it was the women of Israel who sang and danced when they greeted Saul and David with these words. Second, they make no mention of the women playing musical instruments on that occasion.

At a later time, a different situation yet included similar omissions in the reporting of that same event: When the Philistine princes were preparing to go to war with Israelites (1 Sam. 29:1-7), they objected to Achish’s allowing David and his men to join the Philistine forces in fighting the Israelites (1 Sam. 29:1-4). The princes said,

1Sa 29:5 Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, saying, Saul slew his thousands, and David his ten thousands?

Comparing all three texts shows that both of the Philistine reports do not mention that it was the women who sang and danced and that they played musical instruments when they sang these words about Saul and David.

This comparison shows that in two later reports about people who sang and danced on an important occasion, the people reporting the event did not think that it was necessary to mention that those who were singing and dancing on that occasion were also playing musical instruments while they were singing and dancing. Apparently, these people took for granted that telling others about singing and dancing taking place would be enough for their hearers to understand that the actual event included singing, dancing, and playing musical instruments.

Alternatively, their failure to mention the playing of music on that occasion could have stemmed from their not being told (by the source of their information) about any music being played at that event. In this case, we still see two clear instances in Scripture of people whose report about an event only talks about singing and dancing taking place when actually the event also included the playing of musical instruments.

The Relevance of These Passages for the Interpretation of Another Key Passage about Singing and Dancing 

Based on the biblical evidence treated above, I believe that we have scriptural warrant for understanding that any account in Scripture of people both singing and dancing was also an instance where there was the playing of musical instruments as well—whether or not the report of that event explicitly says anything about musical instruments being played. The strong Scriptural connection between instrumental music and dancing in many other passages supports this interpretation.[2]

This line of Scriptural reasoning has important implications for how we are to interpret what took place at another key occasion in the history of God’s people. The report of the Golden Calf incident shows that the people were singing (“the noise of them that sing do I hear” [Ex. 32:18]) and dancing (“he saw the calf and the dancing” [Ex. 32:19]) as part of their shameful behavior at this time (Ex. 32:25). Common sense, many other passages that link playing instruments and dancing, and the comparison of the three passages from First Samuel in this article point to the people playing musical instruments as well in the Golden Calf incident while the people were shamefully singing and dancing.

Based on this interpretation of the Golden Calf incident, the passage would further show that the composite sound that Moses and Joshua assessed from a distance to be ungodly—without hearing any of the words—was produced by the people singing and playing of instruments as well. The assessment of Moses and Joshua thus would point to the propriety of holding that music that includes both instrumental accompaniment and lyrics can be assessed to be ungodly by assessing its composite sound without knowing what the words are that are being sung.

 

[1] Exod. 15:20; 32:19; Jdg. 11:34; 21:21, 23; 1 Sam. 18:6; 21:11; 29:5; 30:16; 2 Sam. 6:14, 16; 1 Chr. 15:29; Job 21:11; Ps. 30:11; 149:3; 150:4; Eccl. 3:4; Isa. 13:21; Jer. 31:4, 13; Lam. 5:15; Matt. 11:17; 14:6; Mk. 6:22; Lk. 7:32; 15:25.

[2] Exod. 15:20-21; Jdg. 11:34; 2 Sam. 6:14-15 cf. 1 Chr. 15:27-29; Ps. 149:3; 150:4; Jer. 31:4-7; Lam. 5:14-15; Matt. 11:17; Lk. 15:25

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Music
 permalink

Audio Recording of Guitar-Cello Duet of “O Holy Night”!

December 30, 2013

“O Holy Night” is my favorite song of all time. Here is an MP3 recording of a guitar-cello duet of the song that a friend and I recently played for a service in our church.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Guitar Music, Mount Calvary Baptist Music Ministry, Music
 permalink

On Jubal, David, and the CCM Debate

December 21, 2013

As a justification for using CCM, some believers assert that good king David worshiped God using a harp that may have been invented by Jubal, an ungodly man. Is this a valid argument for using CCM?

Jubal as the Possible Inventor of Two Musical Instruments

In the first statement about musical instruments in Scripture, Moses tell us through inspiration of the Spirit that Jubal, a man in the ungodly line of Cain, may have invented[1] two instruments:

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

Why did the Spirit inspire Moses to give us this information and what are we supposed to learn from it? Because the passage itself does not expound further on the significance of this statement, there is uncertainty about its purpose beyond informing us about who originated some aspect of the playing of these instruments.

Because the Noahic Flood destroyed all humanity living at the time of Noah except Noah and certain members of his family, we cannot be certain that there was any direct connection between these instruments and the instruments called by the same names after the Flood. If neither Noah nor any of his surviving family played these instruments or knew of these instruments through some other means, it is possible that the knowledge of these two instruments was completely lost after the Flood and somebody else later invented similar instruments or even the same instruments without knowing anything about the harps and the organs of which Jubal originated the playing.

Furthermore, Scripture provides no indication that Jubal was the inventor of the other musical instruments mentioned in Scripture, such as the timbrel and the psaltery. This fact further cautions us not to make too much of his possibly inventing the instruments that he may have invented.

In fact, Scriptural emphasis on King David’s making musical instruments for divine worship (1 Chron. 23:5; 2 Chron. 7:6; 29:26-27; Neh. 12:36) makes a dogmatic assertion that David played the same instrument that Jubal possibly invented all the more a debatable point. If David actually invented some or all of these instruments instead of just commissioning the making of them or crafting them himself, the instruments that David played in divine worship may not have been traceable at all to the harp that Jubal possibly made.

A proper consideration of Jubal’s possibly inventing these two instruments, therefore, must account for these other truths from Scripture. These considerations show that David may or may not have played a harp possibly invented by Jubal.

Nevertheless, the rest of this post will examine what significance there would be for the debate about CCM if David did in fact play the same instrument that Jubal may have invented. To understand that significance, we need to take a closer look at Jubal’s originating the playing of the musical instruments that he did and the morality of David’s use of one of them.

A Closer Look at the Morality of David’s Use of the Harp that Jubal May Have Created

When Jubal originated the playing of the harp and the organ that he did, he either created or played musical instruments that obviously only produced instrumental music. As a member of the ungodly line of Cain, Jubal may have invented and likely played these instruments with wicked intent.

Our understanding of the actual nature of the instrumental music that he produced, however, depends entirely on the position that we take about whether instrumental music is inherently neutral or even moral.

Case 1: Instrumental Music is Inherently Neutral or Moral

Let us consider first what would have been true if we do hold to the inherent neutrality or morality of instrumental music. Holding the position that music itself without lyrics cannot be sinful requires that we also hold that no matter how wicked Jubal was and regardless of how wicked his intent was in his playing, it was impossible for him to produce any instrumental music that was in and of itself evil.

Because there was no way for him to play those instruments to produce instrumental music that was itself evil, all the instrumental music that he produced must have been either neutral or moral. Since his instruments, therefore, produced, only neutral or moral music, neither his instruments themselves nor the music they produced were evil.

In that case, even though Jubal would have been a wicked man who originated the playing of his instruments for a wicked purpose, he could not have accomplished his wicked intent solely through the intrinsic nature of the music that he played through his instruments. Any wicked activities for which he used his instruments, therefore, would have been wicked not because of the intrinsic nature of either the instruments or the music they produced; some other aspect of the activities had to be wicked for him to use those instruments for evil.

Because neither his instruments nor any of the music that they produced would have been capable of being evil, the use of those instruments that he may have made by godly people (especially many centuries later) would have posed no moral issues whatever. Even if David had used the same instrument that Jubal may have invented for his wicked purposes, there would have been no moral problems with his doing so because the instrument itself was not evil and it was incapable of producing any inherently evil instrumental music.

Case 2: Instrumental Music Can Be Sinful

What happens, however, if we hold that music itself without lyrics can be sinful? In this case, Jubal would have been able to produce instrumental music that was itself wicked.

He could then have accomplished his evil intent solely through playing those instruments. Would that therefore have made his instruments evil or their use by someone else wrong?

The only way that his instruments themselves could have been evil was if they were capable of only producing sinful instrumental music. For that to have been true, no matter what notes or combinations of notes he played or how he played them, the resulting instrumental music would always have had to have been sinful.

Of course, his creating such instruments was impossible because individual musical sounds or tones in and of themselves cannot be evil. We must conclude in this case, therefore, that his instruments were not inherently sinful and that they were inherently capable of producing both godly instrumental music and ungodly instrumental music.

Because his instruments were not inherently sinful and because they were capable of producing godly instrumental music, David’s use of one of those instruments for godly purposes could not have been inherently wrong.

In either case, therefore, David’s use of the harp that may have been invented by Jubal could not have been wrong based on the consideration of who may have invented it.

Does David’s Use of the Harp Possibly Invented by Jubal Justify CCM?

The above discussion shows that regardless of what position we take about the possibility of music itself without lyrics being sinful, David’s using a harp that Jubal possibly invented could not have been intrinsically wrong because the harp itself was not evil nor could it have been. This conclusion is true whether Jubal invented the harp or its playing or both as a wicked man with a wicked intent or as a wicked man with a humanly good intent.[2]

Is the same true for CCM? For the same to be true of CCM, it would have to be proven that music itself without lyrics could not be evil.

Conclusion

Brethren who wish to show that using CCM is legitimate cannot do it by pointing to David’s use of a harp that may have been invented by Jubal as a valid parallel to their use of CCM because the harp itself could not have been inherently evil even if Jubal’s intent for possibly making it, using it, or both was evil. Because the same is not true of the instrumental music used to create and play CCM, David’s use of the harp possibly invented by Jubal does not justify CCM.

 

[1] Most interpreters understand his being the father of those who handle the harp and the organ as signifying that he invented them. The verbs used in this verse, however, do not mean to invent, so it is unclear whether Jubal invented these instruments or not.

[2] Obviously, if Jubal was a good man, the same conclusion holds.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Does This Argument Justify “Christian Rock” and “Christian Rap”?

December 19, 2013

 

An avid supporter of “Christian rock” and “Christian rap” recently presented to me a “thought experiment” as part of his refutation of an argument that I made against these genres based on the sinful origins of rock music. This post carefully examines whether this argument justifies these genres of music.

A “Thought Experiment”

Here is what this believer offered as a “thought experiment” in defense of his views about these genres:

Let’s do a hypothetical Stone Age. A violent people invent a tool that allows them to sharpen rocks into flint knives. This has never happened before, and soon they’re cranking out knives by the dozen. That’s all they’ve used that tool for, so in their minds, it is ONLY a tool for creating weapons. They use it to kill and maim people, and they talk about how great it is that they’ve discovered this awesome knife-making tool, a tool that, as far as they know, is only for making knives.

There’s also a pacifistic people. They hear about this new tool, and they abhor it as an instrument of violence. After all, that’s all they’ve ever known it as, and that’s all they hear about it. However, someone soon discovers that the tool, which had previously been known only as an instrument of violence, can also be used to sharpen hoes, shovels, and other farming implements.

The tool, which came out of a culture of violence, that had previously only known one use–an evil use of violence and death–was actually revealed to be a lot less specific. Instead of a tool for making knives, it was merely a tool for sharpening. It could be used for good or ill, to make weapons or plows.[i]

Based in part on what he believes this argument establishes, he argues that it is invalid to oppose “Christian rock” and “Christian rap” based on the sinful origins of rock music. A close examination of this “thought experiment” as a justification for these genres of music shows that it does not justify them.

(Read the rest of this article here.)


[i] In a comment made on December 18, 2013 at 3:40 pm; available at http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music-rebuttal/.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Theology
 permalink

A Helpful Insight about Singing from How Hebrews 2:12 Uses Psalm 22:22

December 18, 2013

Whenever the NT uses the OT, we are given insight into how God wants us as NT believers to use the OT and profit from it. By the way it cites Psalm 22:22, Hebrews 2:12 provides a helpful insight concerning our understanding of biblical teaching about singing.

In Psalm 22, David writes,

“I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee” (22:22).

The Hebrew text for this verse reads:

  WTT אֲסַפְּרָ֣ה שִׁמְךָ֣ לְאֶחָ֑י בְּת֖וֹךְ קָהָ֣ל אֲהַלְלֶֽךָּ׃

The writer of Hebrews cites this text when he writes,

“Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (2:12)

Comparing these passages, we learn that the NT has “sing praise” where the OT has “praise.” The Holy Spirit thus reveals to us that Psalm 22:22 was actually a statement about singing and not just about praising God through ordinary speech.

This observation should teach us that we should not be dogmatic that other references in the Psalms, which are inspired song texts, to praising God necessarily mean just ordinary speaking praise to Him. As Hebrews 2:12 reveals, it is very possible that such statements also may mean singing praise to Him instead of just speaking it.

One text where this is especially likely is Psalm 35:18 because David uses in this verse the exact same form of the same verb that is rendered “praise” in Psalm 22:22 to speak again of God being praised among a congregation of people:

Psa 35:18 I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.

  WTT א֭וֹדְךָ בְּקָהָ֣ל רָ֑ב בְּעַ֖ם עָצ֣וּם אֲהַֽלְלֶֽךָּ׃

If not in any other place, we can at least be confident that Psalm 35:18 is also a reference to singing praise to God and not just speaking praise to Him.

When, therefore, we seek to study comprehensively biblical teaching about singing, we must include Psalm 22:22 and very likely also Psalm 35:18 as biblical texts about singing.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Languages, Interpretation, Music
 permalink

Should Christians Not Heed What Secular Musicians and Music Experts Say concerning the Morality of Music?

December 14, 2013

A Christian recently advised me, “Don’t appeal to the authority of secular rappers or rock musicians: Appeal to Scripture.” He holds a view that many believers today hold about what sources of authoritative information are valid concerning the moral aspects of music. Is this view correct?

Two key Scripture passages answer this question by showing that both believers and unbelievers have validly assessed the shamefulness of people in various respects. The first passage records that both believers and unbelievers did so at a time when the sinfulness of God’s people even included their producing ungodly music.

Righteous Believers Validly Assessed the Ungodliness of Music Produced by Some of God’s People

The Israelites’ profound sinfulness in the Golden Calf incident included music that two righteous believing authorities recognized from a distance as being music unfitting for worship by God’s people:

Exo 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

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

Although he was at a distance from the camp that did not allow him to know exactly what the people were doing, Joshua discerned that the composite[1] sound that they were producing was a rough-sounding noise of people who were wildly excited, a sound that apparently was quite similar to the noise produced by people engaged in (all-out?) combat. Moses, however, from the same distance that prevented knowing what the words being sung were, was able to discern accurately that the raucous and frenetic noise that these reveling people were producing was the noise of people who were singing.

Moses, therefore, was able to tell from a distance that these out-of-control people (Exod. 32:25) were wildly reveling people who were producing an ungodly sound that certainly was not the sound of Spirit-filled people singing godly music (cf. Eph. 5:18-19). Arriving at the camp, he saw that their reveling also included sensual dancing of such vulgarity that it (and the idol that he finally saw in person) incited him to righteous flaming anger (Exod. 32:19).

Moreover, we know that these people who were singing and dancing wildly were people who had partaken of meat offered to an idol (Exod. 32:6). Having partaken of that meat, these wildly singing and dancing people were people who were doing so after having come into direct contact with demons (1 Cor. 10:20).

These demon-influenced Israelites were thus engaged in an immoral “playing” (1 Cor. 10:7) while they were supposedly observing a “feast to the Lord” (Exod. 32:5). Although they may have thought that they were singing acceptably to the Lord, righteous Israelites who were not influenced by demons on this occasion validly assessed their great wickedness, including the ungodly sounding music that they were producing.

Both Joshua and Moses were able to discern the unfitting-for-divine-worship composite sound of their music from a distance that did not allow them to know at all what they were singing. Regardless of what the words were that they were actually singing, the sound of their singing from a distance was ungodly.

This passage, therefore, teaches us that righteous believers can make a valid assessment that music of people who are supposedly worshiping the Lord is ungodly by assessing the nature of the overall sound produced even by people who are singing words. As Joshua and Moses did, such valid assessments can be made without knowing what the lyrics are that the people are singing.

Even Ordinary Unbelievers Validly Assessed Their Shamefulness

Not only righteous believers, but also their unrighteous enemies validly assessed the great sinfulness of these uncontrolled revelers on this occasion:

Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies.[2]

This text shows that Scripture records an instance when unbelievers could and did make valid moral assessments about unrighteous worship by God’s people (Exod. 32:17-19)! The people among the Israelites who engaged in the Golden Calf incident had became so openly sinful at this time that even their enemies were ashamed of them.

This passage is especially telling because it shows that a high-level leader among God’s own people sinned so egregiously on this occasion in how he allowed God’s people to get out of control that even the sinful enemies of God’s people plainly recognized that what they were doing was ungodly. Not only were they able to assess validly the immoral behavior of these people, but also they regarded their behavior to be shameful!

Moreover, the passage provides no indication that these who regarded the behavior of the Israelites as shameful at this time were expert authorities on various aspects of human morality. Rather, the passage shows that even ordinary unbelievers validly made these moral assessments about their unrighteous religious activities![3]

Apostolic Recognition That Unbelieving Experts Can Make Valid Moral Assessments

In agreement with Exodus 32, Titus 1 reveals that the apostle Paul held that unbelievers do have the ability to make valid moral assessments of unrighteous human behavior (of various types) by unbelievers (Titus 1:12). Moreover, Paul shows us that it is righteous for Christians to heed such assessments when they are made by unbelieving experts who confirm the believers’ own assessment of such unrighteous behavior (Titus 1:13; see this post for a full explanation of this key point).

Conclusion

Scripture shows that righteous believers can make valid assessments of purported worship of the Lord that is in reality ungodly behavior by believers whose religious activities include producing music that is ungodly (Exod. 32)! Amazingly, it even shows that such assessments of singing can be made without knowing what the lyrics are of such ungodly music.

Scripture also provides us with clear teaching that shows that unbelievers can make valid assessments of unrighteous human behavior both by God’s people (Exod. 32:25) and by other unbelievers (Titus 1:12). Moreover, it is right to heed and appropriately make use of such valid assessments (Titus 1:13).

Applying all this biblical data to the issues concerning music in our day, we learn that Scripture teaches us that Christians should heed the warnings of secular musicians and music experts who warn us about music that is immoral and unfitting for Christian worship (for example, see this brief testimony).

 

[1] Although the passage does not mention their playing any musical instruments, based on the available Scriptural data concerning human feasting (cf. Gen. 31:27; Exod. 15:20; Luke 15:22, 25; etc.), it is highly probable that they were. Either way, the term composite signifies the totality of the sound that they were producing, whether through singing alone or through both singing and playing.

[2] NAU Exo 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control– for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies–; NET Exo 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild, for Aaron had let them get completely out of control, causing derision from their enemies; NIV Exo 32:25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies; NKJ Exo 32:25 Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (for Aaron had not restrained them, to their shame among their enemies); ESV Exo 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies). What all these translators recognize is that the people became profoundly and openly sinful at this time.

[3] Although the passage does not elaborate at all who these enemies were or what the extent of their knowledge of the Israelites’ sinfulness on this occasion was, we can be certain that what they knew about the ungodly reveling of these Israelites caused them to be ashamed of them.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exhortation, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Refute What Shai Linne Says They Do?

December 11, 2013

In his first rebuttal to Scott Aniol on the subject of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts, “Scripture clearly refutes” the notion “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.” More fully, he writes:

You [Scott] said:

“Yes, I believe that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

I wholeheartedly disagree and I believe Scripture clearly refutes that notion. A few relevant texts:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Timothy 4:4-5 )

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself…” (Romans 14:14)

Those are amazing statements coming from the Apostle Paul, a Jewish man who was familiar with the many old covenant dietary restrictions. The key phrase in Romans 14:14? “in itself”. Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value. The heart of the one eating it determines how God views the act, not the food itself.

You yourself said, “God created the ‘stuff’ of music (sound, pitch, rhythm, timbre, etc.)”. Agreed. Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that “stuff” that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it. But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful. [1]

Is what Shai Linne asserts here a valid handling of these passages? Various considerations from Scripture combine to answer this question.

Does Paul Teach That Food Does Not Have Inherent Moral Value?

Concerning Romans 14:14, Shai asserts, “Paul is saying that food doesn’t have inherent moral value.” If that were what Paul is saying in Romans 14:14, then Paul would be contradicting himself because he explicitly says in the other passage that Shai quotes that everything that God has created is good: “For every creature of God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4).

Contrary to what Shai asserts, therefore, Paul teaches that food does have inherent moral value because what God has created as food for man is good. Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 teaches that food does not have inherent moral value.

Do 1 Timothy 4:4-5 and Romans 14:14 Support Shai’s Understanding of Music?

About music, Shai says, “Music is simply the result of human beings arranging that ‘stuff’ that God created. Can it be arranged with evil intent? Sure. And the person who does that will have to give an account for it.” With these statements, he acknowledges that people can arrange the ‘stuff’ of music with an evil intent and that they will have to answer to God for doing so.

He then, however, asserts, “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.” When he says this, Shai clearly is asserting that man cannot do something, but what exactly does he mean by what he says here?

If what he means by this statement were that the various elements (the musical “stuff”) that God created (such as individual musical tones) cannot themselves be transformed into something inherently sinful, that would be one thing. Because, however, he means that the resulting product of the human arrangement also cannot be inherently sinful, he is saying something far beyond what either of these passages is saying because neither passage directly addresses what happens when man alters or combines good things that God has made.

Can Man Create Something That Is Inherently Sinful from Something Good That God Created?

Because neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 or Romans 14:14 actually does what Shai asserts, we have to look elsewhere in Scripture to see if it teaches anywhere one way or the other whether man can take something good that God has created and make something that is in and of itself evil. Deuteronomy 9 provides revelation that addresses this matter explicitly and decisively.

In Deuteronomy 9:1-7, Moses reminds the Israelites of their previous wickedness in the wilderness. He then rehearses their exceeding wickedness in the Golden Calf incident (Deut. 9:8-21).

Moses notes multiple times in this passage that they sinned by making a molten image (Deut. 9:12, 16, 21): They quickly “turned aside out of the way” that God had commanded and “made them a molten image” (Deut. 9:12). They “sinned against the Lord [their] God” and “made . . . a molded calf” (Deut. 9:16; cf. Exod. 32:31).

When he speaks for the third time in the passage about the calf that they made, he says,

Deu 9:21 And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.

The exact wording of this third reference to their making the calf is striking: “your sin, the calf which ye had made.” Saying this, Moses puts “the calf which ye had made” in apposition to “your sin.”

Moses thus referred to the calf that they made as their “sin”! He thus said that the calf was itself sinful.[2]

It was not just their evil intent for the calf or their evil use of it that was sinful—the calf itself was a sinful object! These people took gold, an inherently good and highly valuable substance that God created (cf. Gen. 2:12), and made an object out of it that was in and of itself sinful.

Although the gold itself did not become inherently sinful, the golden calf was a manmade fashioning of that gold into something that was inherently sinful! Based on what Scripture says about what man did with gold on this occasion, we understand that this passage refutes the basic principle underlying what Shai asserts is true about the musical “stuff” that God created: “But no matter how evil a musician’s intentions, he doesn’t have the power to transform something that God created and called good into something inherently sinful.”

Discussion

As a key basis for his support of “Christian rap,” Shai Linne asserts that humans cannot take something inherently good that God has created and make something out of it that is in and of itself sinful. Deuteronomy 9:21 refutes this assertion by showing that man did take something inherently good that God created and make it into something that was inherently sinful.

It is important to note that the gold that they made the calf from was from their earrings (Exod. 32:2-3), and we have no indication that their possessing and using gold that had been fashioned into rings to be worn in their ears was sinful. When they took the gold of those earrings, combined it, and molded it into the calf, however, the resulting object that they made for an evil purpose was wicked.

On the one hand, man’s use of his creative powers to make something out of the gold (the earrings) was not sinful. On the other hand, when they through “art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29) made the golden calf, they sinned by making an object that was in and of itself sinful (Deut. 9:21).

Moreover, the golden calf could not be “redeemed.” In spite of the fact that the gold that constituted it was a precious good metal that God had made as good, the golden calf that had been made for and used for a wicked purpose had to be obliterated (Deut. 9:21).

Conclusion

Neither 1 Timothy 4:4-5 nor Romans 14:14 supports the view that man cannot take musical elements and arrange them to make instrumental music that is inherently sinful. Scripture does not “clearly refute” the view “that music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful in and of itself.”

In fact, Deuteronomy 9:21 shows that Scripture provides a clear basis for saying that human beings can take good things that God has made and create something out of them that is inherently sinful.[3] Applying this principle to what many biblical passages reveal about music provides believers with ample justification to say that instrumental music made for and used for wicked purposes is inherently wicked music.


[1] See the full rebuttal by Shai Linne here.

[2] Multiple translations confirm this understanding: “I took your sinful thing, the calf which you had made” (NAU); “As for your sinful thing that you had made, the calf” (NET); “Also I took that sinful thing of yours, the calf you had made” (NIV); “Then I took the sinful thing, the calf that you had made” (ESV); I took the sinful calf you had made” (CSB).

[3] For another argument that establishes the same point see this post.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Theology
 permalink

A Glorious Link between First Corinthians 13 and Proverbs 31!

December 9, 2013

In his glorious passage on love, the apostle Paul declares, ”Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up” (1 Cor. 13:4). With these words, he reveals that genuine love manifests itself in multiple characteristics, including a person’s being kind.

Solomon extols the virtuous woman because “she openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness” (Prov. 31:26). The excellent woman is thus one whose tongue has in it “the law of kindness,” which is what Paul teaches is a premier characteristic of genuine love!

Based on what these two writers of Scripture teach us, a hallmark of a truly loving woman is the kindness with which she speaks. Such a woman is truly a priceless treasure whose worth far exceeds material jewels (Prov. 31:10)!

Correction:

When I first posted this 10 hours ago, I had only thought about the English text and had not looked at the original languages or even given as much thought as I should have to the English wording. What I wrote is still true implicitly, but it is not quite the main point of the comparison.

More accurately, what Solomon teaches about the virtuous woman is that the instruction (Heb. torah) of lovingkindness or loyal love (Heb. hesed) is in her tongue. This still implies that she herself is kind in her own speaking, but the main thought is that she instructs others to be people of such loyal love.

Furthermore, there is truly a glorious tie between these two premier passages because comparing them reveals a conceptual link between two of the greatest words in Scripture: hesed (Heb.; Prov. 31:26) and agape (Greek; 1 Cor. 13:4)! The virtuous woman is indeed a priceless treasure far exceeding material jewels because she teaches people to be people who are truly loving people characterized by loyal love, and she is able to teach this glorious truth effectively because she herself is such a person!

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Discipleship, Interpretation
 permalink

Daniel 3 and the Debate about the Inherent Morality of Instrumental Music

December 7, 2013

Daniel 3 records that religion, international politics, and instrumental music converged in a prominent context of idolatrous worship in ancient Babylon. Was the instrumental music on that occasion inherently neutral or even moral?

Instrumental Music Used by Nebuchadnezzar for Idolatrous Worship

King Nebuchadnezzar was the head of the greatest Gentile Empire in human history (Dan. 2:36-38). He served many gods (Dan. 3:12, 14, 18) and decided to erect a colossal golden image (Dan. 3:1) for the purpose of idolatrous worship. He gathered all the leading officials of his kingdom to fall down and worship it (Dan. 3:2-6).

He decreed that all the people assembled were to do so (Dan. 3:4-5), accompanied by music produced by a noteworthy group of instrumentalists:

Dan 3:5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up.

A four-fold repetition of the list of instruments used on this occasion greatly stresses this aspect of the event (Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15).

When the musicians played at the appointed time, everyone assembled worshiped the image (Dan. 3:7), but three Jewish leaders did not (Dan. 3:12).

What Can We Know about The Musicians Who Played On This Occasion?

Because this was an international event of great importance, we can be certain that Nebuchadnezzar would have employed only the finest musicians available to him. Because he was the king, he had the resources and authority to secure and gather the best musicians who would know what kind of music would best suit the occasion.

These highly skilled musicians themselves (or some official over them, possibly even King Nebuchadnezzar) undoubtedly chose a style or styles of music that they knew would be best for the idolatrous worship of the image. They surely rehearsed the music properly so that their playing that music for this event would be fully pleasing to the king.

These musicians knew how to play several instruments proficiently, including both wind instruments and stringed instruments.[1] Their willingness to play these instruments for this occasion shows that any of them who may have been Israelites who were brought to Babylon in the captivity (cf. Dan. 1:3-5) were no longer faithful worshipers of only the Lord.

In all likelihood, the vast majority or perhaps even all of these musicians were idolaters of long standing prior to this occasion. It only makes sense that whoever chose the musicians for this event would have chosen as much as possible people who were well known for their devotion to the gods that Nebuchadnezzar worshiped.

Of the musicians who played for this idolatrous worship, those who had been idolaters prior to this occasion would undoubtedly have partaken of meat sacrificed to idols on those previous occasions of their idolatrous worship (cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; Acts 14:13, 18; 17:16, 23, 25; 1 Cor. 10:20). Doing so, they would have had direct contact with demons at those times (1 Cor. 10:20-21).

All of the musicians who had been idolaters prior to this event, therefore, were people who had previously been demonically influenced—they thus would not have been just ordinary sinners who had not had any prior fellowship with demons. Consistent with the nature of the occasion, demonic activity unquestionably played a major role in what actually took place, including the demonic energizing of these musicians (cf. Eph. 2:2-3; 1 John 5:19).

Was the Instrumental Music on This Occasion Neutral or Even Moral?

Scripture does not provide any evidence for holding that the musical instruments that these musicians played were inherently evil. As seen above, however, the musicians who played these instruments were evil people; if for no other reason, they were evil for their agreeing to participate in such idolatrous worship.

When these musicians played for this idolatrous worship “service,” they were knowingly sinning against the true and living God (Rom. 1:18-22). Through their music that contributed to that worship, they robbed Him of the glory that only He is due (Rom. 1:23; cf. Ps. 106:19-20).

Was the demonically influenced music played by the instrumentalists on this occasion still neutral or even moral because God created music? Did “common grace” somehow safeguard that instrumental music so that neither the style or styles of music used nor the music that was played was sinful?

Although God created the basic elements of music, Scripture does not teach that God has created all musical styles or all the music produced by humans using those styles. It is untenable, therefore, to hold that the demonically influenced instrumental music played by evil people on this idolatrous occasion was still neutral or even moral because God created the style or styles that they used—God did not create their styles or their music.

Conclusion

Strong Scriptural emphasis on instrumental music used by these evil people for this exceedingly evil purpose on an evil occasion of international significance demands holding that the music itself was evil unless proven otherwise by compelling biblical data.[2] Brethren who yet wish to hold that the instrumental music on this occasion was inherently neutral or even moral have the burden of proof of showing from a careful handling of Scripture why such was the case.

 

[1] Establishing further the precise identity of each of the instruments listed is not necessary for the purposes of this article.

[2] For much additional biblical teaching that supports this conclusion, see the resources here.

 

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Can Music (without Lyrics) or a Photograph Ever Be Inherently Sinful?

December 6, 2013

Because I have been closely following recent online developments concerning “Christian” rap music, I have been thinking a lot recently about the claim that music without words cannot be inherently sinful. An analogy from photography helps to show how this claim is false.

How Photographs Themselves Can Be Inherently Sinful

Based on what I have read and heard in recent years, it seems that many Christians in our day apparently believe that no arrangement of things that are in and of themselves inherently good can be inherently sinful. Applying this belief to photography, many would probably argue that no photograph could in and of itself be sinful.

Based on the clear teaching and implications from many biblical passages (Gen. 3:21; 9:21-27; 2 Sam. 11:2-4; Hab. 2:15; Matt. 5:28; 18:6), however, any nude photograph of a very precocious but prepubescent girl in a sexually provocative pose is inherently sinful. The materials from which the sinful image of the girl is created are not inherently sinful, but the sinful image created when such a photograph is taken renders the end product inherently sinful.

According to Scripture, God has not authorized anyone to see such an image (cf. the clear implications of passages such as Hab. 2:15)—neither a parent, nor a doctor, nor any other human being has any right to create, see, or possess any such image. In fact, not even the girl herself has the right to pose for or in some other way create such an image.

It does not matter whatever good intent someone may claim for creating such an image—making such an image is sinful. The “style” of photography that creates such pornographic photos is inherently sinful and the photos themselves are also inherently sinful.

Although unbelievers may reject this position, Christians who believe the Bible are bound by Scripture to hold that such pornographic images are inherently sinful. No claim of Christian “liberty” can legitimately justify rejecting such a view simply because Scripture does not explicitly talk about pornographic pictures being wrong.

How Music without Lyrics Can Also Be Inherently Sinful

Just as it is false to say that no photograph can ever be inherently sinful, it is also false to say that music without lyrics cannot be inherently sinful because its constituent elements (such as musical tones) were created by God as good entities. If those tones are intentionally arranged in a way to create music for wicked purposes, although the tones themselves remain good, that combination is inherently sinful.

Scripture shows that this view is correct by recording several instances of people producing music that was wicked (Exod. 32:17-18 [see the articles in point 11 here]; Ezek. 33:32 [see this treatment]; Amos 6:5 [see this explanation]), including a key passage about instrumental music used for idolatrous worship (Dan. 3:7 [see this treatment]). Furthermore, Scripture is not silent about musical styles that are unacceptable to God, and it also supports in other ways that it is right to hold the view that music without lyrics can be inherently sinful.

Conclusion

It is understandable that unbelievers would hold the view that neither music without lyrics nor a photograph can be inherently sinful. Based, however, on a thorough treatment of what Scripture reveals both explicitly and implicitly, believers should reject this false view.

For more help with many important issues concerning music that is acceptable to God for Christian worship, please see all the resources here.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Theology
 permalink