Pauline difference

Paul also makes some observations that hint at aspects of a theology of music. He says or implies several things in 1 Corinthians 14:6-8. First, he introduces a musical analogy into a discussion of speech in the church, implying a parallel between music and language. That analogy becomes explicit as he returns to the argument about tongues in verse 9 – like an indistinct musical instrument, one who speaks in a tongue without being understood is only vibrating the air. We can put the analogy this way: A musical instrument is a lifeless speaker, and a speaker is a living instrument. Or: Language has musicality, and music has a linguistic character.

Second, the analogy depends on the possibility of musical meaning . Music is not just evocative or emotive. Music communicates. A trumpet blast is a call to arms; a flute an invitation to dance.

Third, Paul uses the verb “give” to describe what musical instruments “produce” (vv. 7-8). Instruments “give” voice or sound, and given the parallel with speech, it seems appropriate to see speech also as a form of giving.

Finally, musical meaning depends on difference (Greek, diastole ). Without difference, no one can understand what a flute or harp is saying – the music becomes no more than white noise and communicates nothing. Paul hints at a kind of structuralism, but one that does not fall into the impersonalism of post-Saussurean structuralism. Meaning requires difference; but the difference of sounds are necessary to communicate from one person to another. Further (looking to Paul’s claims about linguistic communities, vv 10-11), differential meaning operates within a communal setting. For Paul, we could say that difference operates within parole not merely at the deep structure of langue .