WHY WAS DAVID SUCCESSFUL? Part 3

WHY WAS DAVID SUCCESSFUL? Part 3

          We know from the Bible account in I Samuel that both Saul and David received God’s anointing. Saul received the anointing of Jehovah.  I Samuel 10:1 states, "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his [Saul's] head, and kissed him, and said, It is not because the LORD hath anointed (mashach 4886) thee to be captain over his inheritance?"  Verse six of the same chapter tells us that Saul received a peculiar divine assistance because Samuel stated, ". . . the spirit (7307) of the LORD will come upon thee. . ."

          David also received this peculiar divine influence upon his life.  I Samuel 16:13 states that "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed [4886] him in the midst of his brethren:  and the Spirit (7307) of the LORD came upon David from that day forward."  So, even though Saul and David were both anointed, Saul eventually failed and David became the "man after God's own heart" and the "sweet psalmist of Israel."

          We know that David was chosen to play for Saul because he was a skillful musician.  Now let us look at some other considerations of David's life that caused him to succeed.  In I Samuel 16:18b one of Saul's servants said, "Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite that is cunning in playing [see Chapter I] and a might valiant (chayil 2428)^A man, and a man of war, and prudent (biyn 995) in matters (dabar 1697), and a comely (toar 8389) person, and the LORD is with him."

          So, he was a skillful player, a man of substance or virtue, a military man, and a man who could distinguish mentally in matters of communication or speech (Cambridge A.V. margin).  We know that David was skillful in language and communication from his master works in the Book of Psalms.  Thompson reminds us that "His musical and poetic gifts were great and they were consecrated (as such gifts should be) to the glory of God and to the good of men."

WHY WAS DAVID SUCCESSFUL? Part 2

WHY WAS DAVID SUCCESSFUL? Part 2

          Although David had a beautiful outward appearance and was a pleasant person, he was probably not nearly as tall as Saul (I Sam. 10:23) who was ". . .higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward."  As a matter of fact (I Sam. 16:7), Eliab was probably more like Saul in stature than David and had a good countenance like David.  However, God chose David the musician because of his heart (vs. 7).  Samuel, speaking of David, told King Saul (I Sam. 13:14) "But now thy kingdom shall not continue:  the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart. . ."

          What was the difference between Saul and David?  One writer put it this way.  "Saul was a man's man, David was God's."²  The major difference seemed to be their very different attitudes toward God.  Saul disobeyed God by taking Agag the Amalekite king alive and by saving the best of the animals.  When the prophet Samuel faced him with the problem Saul lied when he said (I Sam. 15:13b) "I have performed the commandment of the LORD."  When the prophet Nathan faced David with his sin of adultery, David replied (II Sam. 12:13) ". . .I have sinned against the LORD."  As we can see, both men faced times of failure in their lives, but it seems that it was the difference in their attitudes that made the difference.

WHY WAS DAVID SUCCESSFUL? Part 1

WHY WAS DAVID SUCCESSFUL? Part 1

          Sometimes when we observe a successful professional church musician we wonder what the secret to this person's success really was.  How did the musician get started?  Was success the result of some special "break" in life or was it based on the church musician's great talent?  What about David the "sweet psalmist of Israel?"  Did you ever wonder what the secret to his success really was?  David's successes were phenomenal.  He became King of Judah (II Sam. 2:4), King of Israel (II Sam. 5:3), developed and organized the system of music for the first Temple (I Chron. 25:1-31), performed the first recorded music therapy of the Bible on King Saul (I Sam. 16:14-23), wrote about half of the "Book of Psalms" (see Chapter VI on the Psalms), killed a lion and a bear (I Sam. 17:34-36) and killed the Philistine giant with a stone from a sling (I Sam. 17:38-49).

          A look at the early life of the man who accomplished all these things reveals that he had a very humble beginning.  He was the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse the Bethlehemite.  In I Samuel chapter sixteen, Jesse had seven of his sons to pass before Samuel for blessing to become King, but Samuel the prophet knew immediately that God had refused them all.  Verse eleven of that chapter says, "And Samuel said unto Jesse, are here all thy children?  And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold he keepeth the sheep."  So, Jesse sent for his youngest red-haired son.  Verse twelve states, "And he sent, and brought him in.  Now he was ruddy (132)¹, and withal of a beautiful (3303)^A countenance and goodly (2896)^A to look to.  And the LORD said, Arise, anoint (4886)^A him:  for this is he."

The Fountain of Living Waters

The Fountain of Living Waters

Jeremiah 2:13, “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

          I have written and spoken from this verse in many times but I have always concentrated on the concept of “broken cisterns”. I was reading this verse the other day and a new thought occurred to me.  God’s people had committed two evils one of the evils was hewing out broken cisterns but the other evil was the greatest evil.  God said, “They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters”.  YHVH declared that His people had forsaken Him.

          It is noteworthy that God referred to Himself as “the fountain of living waters”.  God was not only living waters but more importantly He referred to Himself as a “fountain”.  Maqowr (4726) connotes, among other things, a natural continuous flowing source.  This continuous source was not merely water but living water.  Christian musicians are constantly in danger of forsaking the source that will sustain spiritual life.  All busy people have to do is fail to drink of the living water YHVH supplies and, according to this verse they are forsaking God. 

           Azab (5800) was translated here in the AV as forsaken but this Hebrew word also connotes “refusing”.  My father used to say, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink”.  The simple lesson found in Jeremiah 2:13 is that God has provided a continuous flow of “living water”, but Christian musicians have the responsibility to drink.

Song for the Day--Springs of Living Water by John W. Peterson

Prayer for the Day Our dear Heavenly Father I want to thank and praise You for providing an ample supply of living water to sustain all who love and serve you.  I am asking largely today.  I am praying that you will give your musician’s the good common sense to not only come to this source but to drink of this sustaining water.  I am also asking that You will cause Your busy ministering musicians to  be wise enough to not let Satan cause them to forsake God by refusing to drink and thereby be sustained spiritually.  This I am asking in Your wonderful name.  Amen.

Sing the LORD'S Song

Sing the LORD'S Song

Psalm 137:4 “How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?”

          Sometimes Christian musicians make too much of the statement that “I’m a pilgrim and a stranger”.  There is no doubt about the fact that Christians are not of this world’s system. Long ago the ancient Jewish musicians let the fact that they were in a strange land keep them from singing and playing the LORD’S song.

          If there ever was a need to sing and play the high praises of our marvelous Lord and Savior, it is in this troubled world today.  When Christians accept the counsel of the ungodly, stand in the way with sinners, and sit in the seat of the scornful they become comfortable with the “course of this world”.   Every Christian musician must be aware that when a person gets too comfortable with sin and sinful ways of those who do not love and serve our Lord and Savior Jesus, it won’t be very long until looking, acting and exhibiting the traits of sinful men and women.

Is Music a Language?—part 6

                    Is Music a Language?—part 6

           Giving the music part of music a label that is inclusive of all that it “is” and is capable of doing to the whole-life of the individuals who encounter it is problematic. However, I believe that music, as an art form, is “meta” and the term metalanguage   may be used, more or less effectively, to explain that music is characteristically self-referential in that it has power within itself to communicate understandable meaning to the performer and the auditor.

          So, as I have mentioned in my writings and lectures many times, music is at least analogous to a language in that it is capable of communicating meaning and that the meaning it communicates is understandable to those who encounter it.  Although the music part of music i.e. music alone does not communicate verbally, it does non-verbally, and that since the time of Plato and Aristotle, various music philosophers have contended that music’s communication has the power to effect the whole- life of everyone who encounters it. Furthermore, the notion that the music part of music is not capable of communicating anything at all is a Johnny-come-lately theory that is not supported with conclusive evidence that music is a weak and benign art form without any ability to communicate anything at all, or that it has its own meaning that does not relate to life outside of music’s closed bubble.

Is Music a Language?—part 5

                    Is Music a Language?—part 5

          With this in mind one can more easily come to the hypothesis that the music part of music is either more valuable or more dangerous to the whole-life of the individual who is encountering it in direct relationship to that person’s understanding of the music genre being listened to or performed.  So, the more understanding one receives from the music part of the music, the more effect the encounter with the music will have on the individual.

          Earlier I made reference to music as a metalanguage.  (This consideration of what music “is” is, like the other categorizations, not without complication,)  There are several definitions of metalanguage one of them is that it is any symbolic system used to discuss, describe, or analyze another language or symbolic system. Viewing the formal properties of music as metalanguage allows one to consider it to be another “language” that is, if you please, “meta” or self-referential in the aspect that the way the building blocks of music are artistically arranged communicates meaning and that this meaning can more or less effectively become “symbols” that are capable of, as Bloomberg would perhaps say, “decode” information. 

Is Music a Language?—part 4

                         Is Music a Language?—part 4

          Everyone brings something to the listening or performing experience.  Part of what each person brings is taken from his or her previous experiences with music, but part of what a performer or listener brings is from the real world outside of music. Therefore, I am a referentialist.  Although I do not adhere to every tenant of the mainstream of philosophical music referentialists, I contend that everyone musics in reference to the real world experiences that he or she has encountered outside the realm of music.  I do not believe that music’s meaning is its own meaning with no relationship to what one has experienced in life.
          Greensburg refers to music as a “non-verbal language”.  When one views the music part of music in this manner it opens new understandings about the power of music without words. This power is at least partially made possible by various unspoken understandings that are molded by the performer’s knowledge of music and cultural and environmental surroundings that will affect that person’s encounter with music.

Is Music a Language?—part 3

                   Is Music a Language?—part 3

          It appears that Greensburg believes that music has the ability to communicate meaning because of his statement that it “can encode volumes of…information”.  One of the many definitions of encode is to convert some kind of information into a form suitable for the transmission of a message.  So, I believe that music has the power to transmit various kinds of information and that music’s ability to deliver a message to the performer and the listener is “meta” i.e. self-referential.  Therefore, music’s power to communicate functions more efficiently in some aspects than a spoken (verbal) language. 

            The music part of music (the music without words) does have the power to communicate understandable meaning to the performer and the auditor.  However, it is not always easy to predict with certainty exactly what the music will communicate to the listener.  The reason is that music reaction is always referential.  What this means is that all music performers and listeners music both actively and passively  in the perspective of what they bring from their music knowledge and also what they bring from their spiritual, social, psychological, historical, and philosophical backgrounds.  As I have often said in my music lectures and in my writings, no one musics either actively or passively in a vacuum or in a bubble.  

Is Music a Language?—part 2

                   Is Music a Language?—part 2

          It is evident that Greensburg believes that music has understandable meaning, at least in the areas of social, historical, and philosophical information.  It appears from the statement above, that the key factor in the area of music’s ability to communicate meaning to the auditor is the hearer’s understanding of the music.

          The significance of this discussion today is that the notion that no one who knows about music and music philosophy believes that music is a language.  On the contrary, the arguments for and against music being a language is still very much alive.  As I have often written, although there are problems with referring to music as a language, I contend that it is at least analogous to the term language.  I sometimes refer to music as a meta-language simply because it is beyond language is some ways.