Truth Magazine

By Joe Neil Clayton

There is the story of the gospel preacher who was approached after a service by an obviously affluent visitor, who offered to make a contribution sufficiently large to help the church purchase the piano or organ which they seemed to be unable to afford. If a typical ending to this story was told, it would probably represent the rich visitor as going away in puzzlement over a group of people who would go to the radical extreme of making an issue out of what seemed to him to be a trivial matter. Because the custom of using instruments of music in worship is almost universal, the churches of Christ have been judged by ignorant men to be everything from “poor” to “radical” for failing to include them.

Our contentment to sing without the accompaniment of musical instruments in our worship is not a matter of personal preference, however. It is reasonable to assume that many worshipers in the churches of Christ might prefer to employ instruments in supplement to our singing, if given a choice. But, if they are grounded well in truth, all of them recognize that the absence of mechanical devices of music in our meeting houses serves as a witness to our adherence to a respected principle of Bible interpretation, the prohibition of divine silence.

In almost any sectarian religious body, some instance could be found to show that this principle is applied to some peculiar practice. For example, our Baptist friends follow and extol the principle of local church autonomy. And, when their conventions or associations become too powerful, and encroach upon the independence of the local church, a hue and cry is raised against them. But Baptists would not have adopted the hallowed practice of local church autonomy had it not been for the fact, that they respected (in this one instance, at least) the silence of the Scriptures. The New Testament has no stated prohibition of centralized government for the churches. It does, however, give an extensive set of examples implying local church government, and supplies only directives regarding the rule of local churches. Beyond this information, Scripture is “silent.”

Catholics, likewise, steadfastly refuse to follow the lead of Protestants in attempting to legitimatize justifications for divorce and remarriage not mentioned in Scripture, because of this rule. Numerous other examples could be cited to show the occasional respect given to this principle in Denominationalism.

A problem arises among them,.however, from the fact that there is no consistent application of the rule. Countless examples can be given to show that denominations apply the rule to only a few practices, while ignoring it in many others. The consequence follows that many innovations have been adopted by religious bodies that have absolutely no precedent in Scripture, with no recognition on their part of the inconsistent application of scriptural authority nor of the danger which such inconsistency has for their souls.

On the other hand, concerned and conscientious disciples of Christ are careful to apply the principle of respecting the silence of Scripture consistently to every aspect of the work and worship of the Christian and the church. This spirit of submissiveness to such a rule is governed by their knowledge of the consequence suffered by those in the Bible who failed to observe the rule.

The Bible relates a number of incidents to carry this message to children of God. The classic case of Nadab and Abihu illustrates that when those early priests, in the absence of expressed prohibition, “offered strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them, ” the wrath of God devoured them in fire for their failure to “glorify” God and what He had commanded (Lev. 10:1-3). In spite of such lessons, the spirit of innovation practiced by Nadab and Abihu is widespread, today, perhaps because so many innovations have been introduced since then with apparent impunity.

Innovators today do not expect to suffer instant physical death because of their presumptions (and seem unaware that their sin has brought them “spiritual death”), so they find it relatively easy to treat such introductions of unauthorized practices as inconsequential. It is true, however, that swift and severe punishment is a deterrent to sinners, for God reveals this truth in such passages as Ecclesiastes 8:11, Deuteronomy 13:6-11, and Acts 5:1-11. By observing the suffering consequent in the mistakes of others, we can be warned to avoid a simulation of the error. David learned to respect the silence of the Scripture in this way.

In his desire to win the nation of Israel to-a reformation of their religious practices, King David sought to relocate the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle, from which it had been so long absent that they “sought not unto it in the days of Saul (1 Chron. 13:3).” Thus, for several decades, the Israelites had apparently forsaken the ritual of Annual Atonement, a most important ceremony which prominently involved the Ark (Lev. 16). The Ark had been stored in the house of one Abinidab (1 Sam. 7:1, 1 Chron. 13:7), and David’s plan was to remove it to a site in Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:1). He called “all Israel” together to participate in a grand procession, and the record says that “they carried the Ark of God upon a new cart . . . and Uzza and Ahio drove” it. Presently, the oxen stumbled, and in his concern for the safety of the cargo, “Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark . . . and the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him . . . and there he died before God (1 Chron. 13:5-10).”

Now, it is true that there was a prohibition against “touching” the holy objects of the Tabernacle in Numbers 4:15, but there was other information in the passage from which David sought a deeper understanding of the proper handling of the Word of God. After some apparent study, he found a reason for the sudden visitation of God’s wrath. Gathering the people again, he said, particularly to the Levites, “Sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the Ark of Jehovah, the God of Israel, unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye bare it not at the first, Jehovah our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not according to the ordinance.” When the Levites “bare the Ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the Word of Jehovah,” they had no more problems (1 Chron. 15:12-16:3).

The use of the “new cart” to carry the Ark was an “innovation” adopted in ignorance of the will of God. The Lord had “commanded” Moses to use the Kohathites, one of the families of the Levites, to carry it. From this specific direction of the Law, David drew the proper conclusion that “none ought to carry the Ark of God but the Levites: for them hath Jehovah chosen to carry the Ark of God” (I Chron. 15:2). David did not need additional information to realize that when God has specifically chosen the means for transporting the Ark and has revealed that will to men, they are, therefore, forbidden to alter or amend the order, even when other means are not specifically prohibited! David showed a respect for the silence of God in this, avoiding any further mistake that might be the result of presumption. David learned, from seeing the punishment inflicted by God on innovators, that God demands adherence to His will coupled with respect for His silence. Should we not learn the same lesson from the same example?

The matter of the use of instruments of music in the worship of the church is parallel to these examples in Bible history. If we respect the principle (demonstrated in a former lesson in this series) that we are confined to the New Testament for our source of authority regarding acceptable worship in the church, we learn that “singing” is exclusively commanded as the musical communication between the worshipers themselves and to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; James 5:13). Another writer of this series has shown that the Greek word here must be construed to mean vocal music, in the same sense that the English word “sing” means “to produce musical tones by means of the voice” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary). Nothing is said in these passages, or in any examples of music among the saints, about the use of mechanical instruments of music. In addition, it is also to be admitted that the New Testament records no prohibition of their use. Yet, the principle applies that when God is silent beyond a specific command, we are not permitted to innovate upon His will.

The condemnation of such innovations implied in the terrible deaths of Nadab, Abihu, and Uzza leads us to the conclusion that liberties presumed by innovators are contrary to God’s will, and punishable. Only the sort of obedient spirit that was found in Moses and Aaron in the case of Nadab and Abihu, and in David in the case of Uzza will be tolerated by God. Only by this means can God and His will be exalted above the will of man. The Christian who consistently exalts the will of God above man’s, through an application of this principle, will never worship God in music, except by singing.

Questions

1. Is the refusal to use instruments of music in worship by Christians the result of their personal preference for vocal music over the mechanical kind?
2. Do denominational churches consistently apply the principle of respecting the silence of the Scripture in their practices? Give example.
3. What did Nadab and Abihu do which caused God to destroy them?
4. Why do men today feel that it is of no great consequence if they presume to introduce innovations into the practice of religion?
5. Is it a true Bible principle that swift and severe punishment of sinners by God can deter others from following their example? Give a Scriptural example of your answer from the New Testament?
6. Why did David seek to move the Ark of the Covenant from the house where it was stored to the new site in Jerusalem?
7. How could the Ark of the Covenant be carried, so that no one would need to touch it?
8. In his study of the Law to see how the Ark was to be moved, did David find any passage which forbade the use of a cart?
9. Is there any passage in the New Testament which forbids the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship?
10. Is the rejection of instruments of music in worship similar in principle to David’s rejection of the use of a cart to carry the Ark? Why?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 21, pp. 338-339
May 22, 1980

By Larry Ray Hafley

This question has been argued and answered both ways. In America in the last century when instruments were introduced into churches-of Christ, they were proposed as aids to worship by the innovators and opposed as additions by the “anti” debaters. Instruments in worship may be aids, or they may be additions. They cannot be both. Essentially and eventually it is a matter that must be settled in the court of scriptural authority.

The Aid Argument

When it cannot be proven that instruments in worship are commanded, there are those who will contend that a piano or an organ is an aid to the singer in the same sense that a hammer, saw, and axe abetted Noah. “No,” the argument says, “a hammer, saw, and axe are not mentioned, but they are authorized as aids to do what God said; namely, `make thee an ark.”‘ “Further,” our Brother Argument avers and avows, “instruments are aids in the same way that communion cups and collection baskets are aids in taking the Lord’s Supper and gathering the-contribution.”

Bye, Bye Psallo Argument

If the above reasoning is true, instruments are not commanded. Down goes the psallo arguments. In recent years, it has been argued that instruments inhere in the command to “sing” and make melody. However, if instruments are an aid, they are not commanded. Noah’s hammer and a church’s cups and trays are aids. They are not commanded. So, if instruments are aids, they are not commanded in Scripture. You see, if a communion tray had been commanded, its use would be mandatory, obligatory. One could not justify a tray and cups as aids if they had been commanded. Likewise, if instruments were commanded in the psallo, they could not be used on the basis that they are aids to singing.

What Are You Doing, Noah?

“I am building an ark,” Noah replies. And that is what he was told to do. When he hammered, sawed, and chopped, he was building an ark. Hammers, saws, and axes were to expedite the command to build an ark. What are pianos and organs for? They are for playing, for making instrumental music. Did God say, “Make thee an ark?” Assuredly, He did. Hence, the hammer, saw, and axe were aids for Noah to do what God said do. Now, where did He say, “Play,” or “Make instrumental music?” When one finds that command, he will have an argument. Without the command to build an ark, the hammer,, saw, and axe are additions; when used, they cause one to do that which is unauthorized. But with the command to build the ark, they are aids to do what God said do. Therefore, we need the command to play before the instruments are scriptural.

God said, “Sing.” One can make vocal music without a harp, but it is fairly impossible to build an ark without a hammer, saw, and axe, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Therefore, instruments of music cannot be aids to singing in the same class as hammers are to building.

Generally Speaking

(1) Music is a general term. Under the heading of music, we have two kinds or classes; that is, vocal and instrumental, or singing and playing. (2) Wood is a general term. Under the heading of wood, we have various kinds. We might have gopher wood and oak wood. (3) Travel is a general term. Under the heading of travel, we might have walking and riding.

General Terms Kinds Or Classes

(1) Music Vocal or Instrumental

(2) Wood Gopher or Oak

(3) Travel Walking and Riding

When God specified “gopher wood,” that eliminated all other kinds or classes of wood. At least Noah recognized that it did, for, “Thus did Noah, according to all that God commanded him (including the use of gopher wood LRH), so did he” (Gen. 6:22).

If Christ had said, “Go ye walking into all the world and preach the gospel,” evangelists would be restricted to that kind of travel. But Jesus did not say that. He said, “Go.” This is travel in a general sense. We say walk, ride, sail, or fly, and whichever means we choose we are still doing what God said, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing different.

Again, suppose God had specified “walking” as the way to travel. If He had, we might use a cane as an aid to walking, or even special leg braces and walking shoes. When we did so, we would be doing what God said – “Go walking.” But what if someone came along and said, “Let’s take my car; it is an aid to walking!” Would that be acceptable? No, it is another kind or class of travel. A car is a way to ride, not walk.

When God said “sing,” he declared the class or kind of music he desired and demanded. “Sing” (vocal music) eliminates instrumental music as “gopher” nullified oak wood; or, as walking would remove riding as a mode of travel. An instrument, such as a piano or organ, is no more an aid to singing than a car is to walking. A cane is an aid to walking, not riding. Traveling in a car is riding, not walking. An organ is another way to make music; it is instrumental, not vocal, and God said, “Sing,” not “Play.”

A Quote From G.C. Brewer

Brother Kurfees made the point that God has commanded us to “go” and preach the gospel to every creature, but that God has not told us what method to use in going. We are, therefore, left free to use any method we please. We may (1) walk; (2) we may ride a horse; (3) we may ride on the train; (4) we may go by automobile; or (5) we may go by airplane. Any one of these methods is included in the command to go. All of them together may be used if convenience demands it; they add nothing to the command. We are “going” regardless of which method of travel we use. But now Brother Kurfees shows that if God has specified the method of going, then we could not use any other method without violating his command. If God has said “walk,” then if we should ride, we would be doing something God did not authorize – we would be using a method of our own. Brother Briney came back with the reply that the command to walk does not exclude the use of a walking cane. The cane is simply an aid in doing the thing commanded. Again, Brother Kurfees argues that if God says ride a horse, we could not ride any other animal without violating the command. The riding the horse is the thing God commands. But to use a saddle on the horse would by no means change the command of God. We would still be doing exactly what God said – we are riding a horse to the place of preaching. We may use a bridle, a saddle, a saddle blanket, a quilt, or anything else that a horseman wants to use. These are only his own conveniences in doing the thing the Lord commanded. The walking cane in walking is parallel to the saddle in riding.

The application of this argument should be plain. Here it is: God has commanded us to sing. When we use eyeglasses, we have not added something to the thing God commanded, nor have v”e in any way altered his word. We are still singing. When we urge a hymn book, a tuning fork, we are only using things that are parallel to the bridle and saddle; we have added nothing to what the Lord has commanded; we are simply singing. These are conveniences in the doing of the thing commanded, and are, therefore, implied in the command itself.

But can we put instrumental music in this category? (Note: We must be able to if the instrument is an aid to singing -LRH.) Is it a convenience in doing the thing commanded? However much one may claim that the instrument is an aid to singing, any thoughtful person will have to admit that it is also an addition to the thing commanded. Singing is one thing and playing is another. They are distinct; either one may be done without the other. There are two types of music – vocal music and instrumental music. They are clearly distinct from each other, and some of the very finest vocalists are not instrumentalists and a great many more of the most renowned instrumentalists are not, in any sense, vocalists. A man who is dumb, a man whose tongue has been removed or whose vocal organs are diseased may be able to render excellent instrumental music; but surely anyone can see without further illustration that we here have two distinct things – vocal music and instrumental music. We can also see that God has commanded the one, vocal music; the other he has not commanded. Then to add instrumental music to vocal music would be equivalent not to the use of a bridle or saddle in riding the horse which God commanded man to ride, but it would be equivalent to riding a horse part of the time and riding an automobile part of the time, or a ship, or any other thing that man might want to add to the thing commanded. When God says walks, a man cannot ride. He may use crutches; these would add nothing to the command. If God simply said ride, then one might ride anything that his convenience suggests and still be doing only that which God says do. But if God names a specific vessel or animal upon which one must ride, then one cannot add something else to it without altering the command of God or disobeying his word.

This should take care of the oft-repeated argument concerning hymnbooks, tuning forks, church houses, electric lights, etc. These are only conveniences for the doing of the thing the Lord has ordained. They add nothing to it; they take nothing from it. They do not alter, in any respect, the thing the Lord has commanded (G.C. Brewer, A Medley On The Music Question, pp. 38-40).

Conclusion

Since this article is written to be included and incorporated in a series of topics, the questions it raises have purposely not been pursued. You may find the implications and ramifications of any essay on this theme to be answered by another author under a related heading.

Questions

1. What must finally and ultimately decide the issue of instrumental music? Give Scripture to sustain and support your answer.
2. Why do advocates of the instrument often advance them as aids?
3. If instruments are in the same class as communion trays and collection baskets, can they be considered commands of God?
4. What affect, if any, does claiming the instrument as an aid have on the psallo argument?
5. What is the gist of the psalm argument?
6. When Noah used a hammer, saw, and axe, was he doing anything other than what God told him to do?
7. When one plays on a piano, is he doing anything other than what God told him to do?
8. Is a cane an aid to riding? Is a cane a method of traveling?
9. Could Noah have used Knotty Pine to panel the ark to make the interior look better without adding to what God said?
10. In what ways are songbooks parallel to Noah’s hammer, saw, and axe?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 20, pp. 330-332
May 15, 1980

By Irvin Himmel

A young lady enrolls in college. She is informed that certain courses are required in her freshman year. Other courses of study are elective. In order to obtain a degree she must have a specified number of hours in certain basic subjects and additional hours in courses of her own preference. That which is left to her discretion is optional.

All automobiles are manufactured with certain essential equipment. When a salesman is showing cars to a prospective buyer, the customer is not asked, “Do you want a car with wheels?” He is not asked, “Are you interested in a car with a windshield?” It is understood that a car would be expected to have such equipment as a steering device, brakes, windshield, motor, wheels, and gears. But there are scores of accessories that might be available. These optional extras make for luxury and comfort while pushing the price skyward.

Anything that is optional is left to choice. It is discretionary or elective; a matter of preference. Whatever is optional is not compulsory but permissible; it involves the right of selection.

Ostensible Options

In religion there are many things which are considered popularly to be optional. Here are a few examples:

1. Church Membership. There are people who argue that one church is just as good as another, and think that it really does not matter whether one is a member of any church or not. They are under the erroneous impression that moral goodness will take one to heaven. The Bible teaches that we must be in the body of Christ, the church, in order to serve God acceptably. The church as depicted in the New Testament consists of the redeemed, the people who have accepted the gospel and are under the headship of Christ.

2. Baptism. Some religious people view baptism as an optional command. Very frequently denominational preachers label it as “non-essential.” Since it is considered elective rather than obligatory, a lot of people see no point in being baptized. However, the Bible makes baptism mandatory to the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5).

3. Virgin Birth And Resurrection. Amazingly, some attach no real importance to the virgin birth, the miracles, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are religious leaders who have been influenced by modernism to the extent that they suppose one can be a good Christian whether he believes in the virgin birth or not. To them it is optional. This illustrates just how far some carry this idea of offering a wide variety of options.

4. Instrumental Music. Many times the argument has been advanced that Christians may sing in worship, or sing and play. To those who make this assertion the accompaniment with mechanical instruments is placed in the realm of human judgment. J.B. Briney, in debate with W.W. Otey in 1908, insisted that instrumental music is authorized in the Bible, but he stoutly denied that it is necessary. Said Briney, “I worship with people where there is an instrument, and where there is none. I do not care whether an instrument is used or not” (Otey-Briney Debate, p. 39).

Open-ended Optionalism

If everything pertaining to religion is optional and therefore inconsequential to God, these conclusions would follow:

1. Every person is a law to himself. If we are free to choose whatever we please, and it makes no real difference to God, each individual makes up his own rules. This view is directly opposed to the Scriptures. God sees man as needing help from above. God therefore issues directives to man (Gen. 17:1; Ex. 19:5; Jer. 10:23; 1 Pet. 1:12).

2. One religion has as much authority as another. If everything is optional, it is irrelevant whether a person serves Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoroaster, or Baha’u’llah. If he wishes, he could exercise the option of serving himself. But the Bible from beginning to end contradicts such a position.

3. An irreligious individual has as much hope as anyone else. If everything pertaining to religion is optional, one could opt to ignore all religion. This would mean that infidels and believers have exercised differing preferences, but one has the same right to his choice as the other. If God cares not what selection we make, the irreligious person has as much right to his judgment as does the religionists.

Obligations vs. Options

If there are some things pertaining to religion that are compulsory (imperative, necessary), how are they to be determined? Here is the rule: Where God has spoken, we must believe and obey if we desire His approval. Of course, we always have the alternative of believing or disbelieving, obeying or ignoring, but not with impunity.

This principle is illustrated hundreds of times in the Bible. For instance, the Israelites were told to look on a serpent of brass to be healed when bitten by fiery serpents (Num. 21:4-9). They were not given the option of looking at a cloud, or looking in a brass mirror, or looking upon a clump of trees. They had to look on the serpent of brass if they expected to be healed.

God decreed that Noah should build an ark (Gen. 6). Noah was not granted the option of building several smaller boats to accompany the ark. Anyone who wanted to escape the destruction by the flood had to enter the ark.

When this fundamental rule is applied to the music question, the conclusion is inescapable that what Christians do in praise to God is not left to human discretion. Uniformly the New Testament teaches one kind of music for the saints on earth in praising God. That music is singing accompanied by the melody of the heart (Eph. 5:18, 19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13; 1 Cor. 14:15; Rom. 15:9; Heb. 2:12).

We have no alternative if we would serve God acceptably but to be “filled with the Spirit” and to “speak” or “teach and admonish” in “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” We are instructed to sing and make melody in our heart to the Lord. We do not have the option of using country and western songs, patriotic songs, or bluegrass songs in praise services. God instructs us to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

We are told in the New Testament to “sing.” That specifies vocal music as opposed to instrumental. If the Bible taught Christians to “make music” (a generic as to kind of music), we would have the liberty of choosing singing, playing, or both singing and playing. But the New Testament teaching is specific as to kind of music – it is singing accompanied by melody in the heart. That gives no freedom to substitute or to add the playing of mechanical instruments.

Note a parallel. Jesus in instituting the Lord’s Supper used two elements: bread and the fruit of the vine. If someone wants to spread cheese, or butter, or jelly on the bread to make it more palatable, he does not have that option. Such things might be considered aids, but they add another element. We are not given the liberty to add elements of our personal preference to those prescribed by the Lord for the Supper.

Some religious people maintain that we have options in how to be baptized. They speak of three “modes” sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. However, the Bible defines baptism as a burial followed by a resurrection (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:3-5) and the word itself means to immerse or dip. Sprinkling and pouring are not modes of immersing.

Playing an instrument is not a mode of singing. Playing and singing are coordinate acts. God teaches Christians to sing in teaching and admonishing and in expressing praise. The option to play mechanical instruments (harps, pianos, organs, etc.) is not granted in the New Testament.

A Glaring Inconsistency

Some preachers and debaters who urge that instrumental music is permissible but not necessary find themselves in a predicament because of other arguments. This is the case in relation to the psallo argument in particular.

Ira M. Boswell and N. B. Hardeman debated the instrumental music question in the great Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, Tenn., in 1923. Boswell affirmed that “instrumental music in church worship is scriptural.” He maintained all through the discussion that we may sing “with or without instrumental music.” Yet he spent most of his time trying to show that the Greek word psallo means to play upon a musical instrument. Since the New Testament commands Christians to psallo, if the mechanical instrument inheres in the word we are obligated to use that instrument.

Hardeman exposed the inconsistency of Boswell’s position by saying, “He suggests at the first that the instrument can be left off, and that it is perfectly legitimate and in harmony with God’s will to worship him in all the demands of high heaven and leave the instrument out; and then before he closes the address, with force and vigor and power he says to you that the instrument inheres in the word `psallo,’ and it must be done” (Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music in the Worship, p. 56).

If the mechanical instrument does in fact inhere in psallo, instrumental music is not optional whether Christians psallo (“sing” or “make ,melody”) or not. Paul taught the first-century Christians to do whatever psallo implies. He did not suggest that what he was urging them to do was purely a matter of personal preference.

To argue that psallo means mechanical accompaniment then to say that instrumental music is optional puts one in an awkward position. The truth is that the mechanical instrument does not inhere in psallo, just as a surgeon’s knife does not inhere in the verb circumcise, and water does not inhere in the verb baptize.

God teaches us through the New Testament to sing. We are not given the option of using instrumental music (playing) in the offering of praise to the Father.

Questions

1. Define “optional” and give an illustration showing its meaning.
2. Name some things popularly regarded as optional, although the Bible makes them essential.
3. If everything pertaining to religion is optional, what conclusions would follow?
4. By what rule do we determine that something is necessary?
5. How do we know that Noah did not have the option of building smaller boats to accompany the ark?
6. Is New Testament teaching generic or specific as to kind of music for worship?
7. What passage teaches that singing is to be accompanied by melody in the heart?
8. Do we have the option of using cheese in the Lord’s Supper?
9. If psallo means to play instrumental music, can such music be regarded as optional?
10. Does it make any difference what kinds of songs are used in worship?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 20, pp. 328-330
May 15, 1980

By Daniel H. King

In all likelihood, the most difficult and confusing aspect of argumentation for or against the inclusion of the instrument in worship is that which surrounds the Greek verb psallo. This is true for a number of reasons, but one of the most obvious is the fact that most people do not consider themselves qualified to evaluate the evidence, since they do not possess the linguistic expertise to follow either the simplest references or the long and drawn-out exercises in deduction that cannot fail to appear before the issue has been laid to rest (at least in the mind of the writer). A second major difficulty lies with the scholars themselves, the sources to which we must all go to derive first their opinions as to the meanings of the word, and second their reasonings behind their opinions. Sad to say, scholars have not changed through the many centuries that have followed the dictum of Horace (65-8 B.C.): Grammatici certant et adhuc sub iudice lis est, i.e. “scholars dispute, and the case is still before the courts.” One may quote renowned scholars on both sides of any issue, I would guess, but I am certain that one can do so on this question.

The problem here is that scholars are human beings and have the same prejudices as the rest of humanity, and in some cases a few more. So, how shall we proceed? To begin with, we shall try with our might to keep the present discussion on the level of the average man so as not to lose you in the shuffle. Second, we will try not to think of men above that which is written (I Cor. 4:6), using sources as merely indicators of human opinion on the issue and not as though they were to be equated with the divine voice.

Psallo’s “Roots”

There appears to be a virtual agreement on the first meaning that the word psallo had, long before Paul utilized it in the form psallontes in Eph. 5:19. It is usually rendered there “making melody.” But at the beginning it signified “to touch sharply, to pluck, pull, twitch, to twang” (Liddell and Scott). That which was touched, plucked, pulled, twitched or twanged could be almost anything. For instance, one might pluck the hair, twang the bowstring, twitch the carpenter’s line, or touch the strings of a harp – and in every case could communicate the idea of doing so by use of the word psallo. Yet in each case he would show by other elements in the sentence or general context what the object of the plucking, twitching, twanging, or touching was. It was in no case inherent within the word itself what its object would be. A modern example would be the word “ride.” One could, let us say, ride a horse, a bull in a rodeo, a car, a truck, or even a jet plane – and in every case he could communicate what he was doing via the word “ride.” But the context would naturally have to show what the object of the riding was. “I rode a camel.” This sentence would, by virtue of simple context and the law of exclusion, communicate the idea that the individual under consideration rode a camel. He did not ride a boat, train, horse, cow, etc. This in spite of the fact that the word “ride” could well communicate that idea if the context demanded it.

In the same way, psallo certainly early had the potential of acting as the communicative vehicle of the idea of instrumental music, along with plucking the hair and twanging the bowstring, etc. But the context had to evince this meaning. Instruments have never at any time in the history of the word inhered in the term any more than camel, horse, boat or train inhere in the word “ride.”

This simple approach to the word is devastating to the cause of those who make the contention that instrumental music in inherent in Paul’s very use of the word psallo in Eph. 5:19. Yet another element must also come into focus. As a matter of simple observation of the ancient texts, it is clear that psallo at some point lost entirely the ability to connote instrumental music and came to mean only unaccompanied singing. This is attested by E.A. Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100). He defines it as only to “chant, sing religious hymns.” Modern Greek retains this meaning and the Greek Orthodox Church, obviously made up of people who speak Greek, does not make use of mechanical instruments.

Many have argued, and I believe rightly so, that this change took place under the influence of ecclesiatical usage. Since the early church did not use instruments of music in its worship, the word no longer was used in contexts where such a meaning was required and so simply came to mean “to sing.” Everett Ferguson cites a comparable development in the case of the Latin psaltere, which meant at the first to “play upon a stringed instrument” or “sing to the cithara” (Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, p. 1483), but under the influence of church practice came to mean “chant” or “sing a psalm” (A Cappella Music in the Public Worship of the Church, 2nd ed., p. 3).

The Harp Mandatory for All

Of those who have made the absurd contention that the instrument is inherent in the word psallo, few have been willing to acept the certain consequences of their position. Two dreadful necessities would follow as surely as night follows day were this view shown to be correct. Firstly, if the word psallo means “to pluck the strings of a harp”, then a harp is absolutely essential to acceptable worship! What Paul tells Christians to do when he commands them to psallo is not a matter suitable for argument insofar as the obligatory aspect is concerned. It is a commandment. Once we have determined what he meant by what he said there is no room for argument on that count. If he intended for us to “sing and make melody with the heart” as all of the major translations suggest, then the commandment is for us to do just that. But if Paul means for us to pluck the strings of the harp, then no one has the right to substitute an organ or a piano, etc. for what inheres in the word! Further, worship in song which does not include the harp must be considered unacceptable.

Second, if the word psallo means “to pluck the strings of a harp” in Eph. 5:19, then a harp is absolutely essential for everyone. It is not enough for one member of the audience or even a few to engage in this. The commandment is for the whole church. Read this and the parallel passages again. All are to “speak one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with their hearts to the Lord.” Once more, if instrumental music inheres in the word itself, then worship in song which does not include each individual playing or “plucking” on a harp is necessarily unacceptable worship.

These are the logical consequences of this position. Yet, as you might expect, no one is willing to accept them. For example, Tom Burgess in his book Documents on Instrumental Music argues that psalmos and psallontes is “singing with instrumental accompaniment” (pp. 114, 118). But seeing where this is logically leading him, he writes: “Paul gives us three ways whereby we might admonish one another in song. A person doesn’t need to do all three” (p. 117). Did the Apostle Paul say that a Christian does not need to do all three? No! He commanded all three. But Tom Burgess knew that in order to get himself out of the corner that he had painted himself into, he would have to loose where God had bound. The same sort of abandoning of their position may be expected in all cases. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that you will look in vain for someone who will accept both this position on psallo and its logical consequences. What proves too much proves nothing!

Unreasonable Demand

We could spend a great deal of time citing the ancient literary and ecclesiastical texts which use the word psallo, but would rather refer the reader to such fine works as M.C. Kurfee’s Instrumental Music in the Worship, James D. Bales’ Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, and that of Ferguson cited above, and calmly reason with the reader on the matter. Really now, is it entirely or even partially logical to believe that Paul commanded all Christians to “pluck the strings of the harp”? It is likely that no greater number of people could play an instrument then than can play one now. That being so, how could Paul have enjoined such a thing upon a readership made up of people who were mostly completely ignorant of musical instruments? It would have then constituted an utterly unreasonable demand upon such folk. And it would be no less so today. But that is not what Paul commanded. Those who make the argument know it as well as I do. It is purely a device to give some semblance of scriptural sanction for what is completely devoid of scriptural authority or divine favor.

Again, is it reasonable to believe that James made it imperative for all those who were cheerful to “pluck the strings of the harp”? No, what James commands in James 5:13 is possible for all: all who are suffering may pray; and all who are joyful may sing (psalleto). Those non-harpplaying Christians then as well as non-harp-playing Christians now may easily obey the injunction of James. His command does not contain the unreasonable demand that all who are cheerful must learn to play a musical instrument before they can heed his advice. Yet that is precisely the demand if instrumental music inheres in psallo, all of the cunning bamboozlements of its advocates notwithstanding.

The Translators Dispute This Contention

Usually when an argument is made that turns upon the meaning of the original language of Scripture, the best and sometimes only method that the Bible student unlettered in these ancient and therefore mysterious tongues may pursue is a careful examination of the rendering of the word or words by the best of modern scholarship, i.c. through the standard translations of the Bible into English. Such versions as the King James, American Standard, Revised Standard, New English, etc. will give him a fair assessment of the meaning without requiring several years of language study as a prerequisite. Such a proliferation of translations is indeed a blessing, and should make it simple for even the most untutored to gain great insight into the meaning of the original. It would be a good idea for every Bible student to collect a good selection of translations for this very purpose in his own private study and class preparation.

One of the things that we might observe along this line is that when some student or even scholar must base his faith upon the ingenious and obscure treatment of the original text, in plain contradiction of the common rendering given in the standard translations, then he is, in all likelihood, on the wrong track. Two examples will illustrate: most of us have met Baptists who argue that the word eis in Acts 2:38 means “because of,” yet they do so in spite of the fact that they cannot produce one standard translation that has ever so rendered the preposition in this verse. Too, the Jehovah’s Witness cultists argue with all sorts of vigor that the standard translations are incorrect in a host of key passages, passages which, it just so happens, totally refute their doctrines and manifest that their whole doctrinal system is a fraud. We ought therefore to always look more than slightly askance at any theory that cleverly tries to cast aside the labors of the ripest translators of our time or of the past.

What I am getting at here is that the view that suggests the instrument inheres in the word psallo fits precisely into this category. Look at the major translations and see for yourself:

King James: Eph. 5:19 singing and making melody in your heart

Js. 5:13 Is any merry? let him sing psalms.

Rom. 15:9 and sing unto thy name.

1 Cor. 14:15 I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

American Standard: Eph. 5:19 singing and making melody with your heart

Js. 5:13 Is any cheerful? let him sing praise

Rom. 15:9 And sing unto thy name.

1 Cor. 14:15 I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Revised Standard: Eph. 5:19 singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart.

Js. 5:13 Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise.

Rom. 15:9 and sing to thy name.

1 Cor. 14:15 I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

New English: Eph. 5:19 sing and make music in your hearts to the Lord

Js. 5:13 Is anyone in good heart? He should sing praises.

Rom. 15:9 and sing hymns to thy name.

1 Cor. 14:15 1 will sing hymns as I am inspired to sing, but I will sing intelligently too.

New American Standard: Eph. 5:19 singing and making melody with your heart

Js. 5:13 Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises.

Rom. 15:9 AND I WILL SING TO THY NAME.

1 Cor. 14:15 1 shall sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also.

New International: Eph. 5:19 Sing and make music in your heart

Js. 5:13 Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.

Rom. 15:9 I will sing hymns to your name.

1 Cor. 14:15 I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

A further investigation of other translations would only reveal more of the same. In his attempt to gain some form of authority from Bible translations, Tom Burgess (Documents on Instrumental Music, pp. 81 ff) along with others of his stripe, is forced to run to such translations as have been made by an individual rather than a committee of scholars and are, at best, of only minimal importance. Such translations amount to no more than one individual’s view of the situation which obtained in the early church and do not constitute a serious rendition of the Greek text. From such Bibles it could be demonstrated that Peter was prone to cursing: “May you and your money go to hell!” (The New Testament in Today’s English Version; Acts 8:20; translated by Robert G. Bratcher); and from the same version that the early disciples ate the Lord’s Supper on Saturday night (Acts 20:7); that Paul slammed an imaginary “dispensational door” in the closing verses of Acts (The Concordant Version, 1919); that the Eunuch was sitting in his “car” when approached in Acts 8 by Philip (The New Testament – An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed, 1923); such uncouth a rendering as “You illegitimate bastard, you!” (Jn. 9:34 in The Living Bible, by Kenneth Taylor) and the doctrine of original sin from the same version, “But I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me,” Psa. 51:5. One can find almost anything among these translations that he could wish. It is always a sign of a weak argument when one must resort to such authority for one’s position.

Yet this is what Burgess and others must do in order to plead their case. Burgess cites J.B. Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, which translated Eph. 5:19 as “Singing, and striking the strings with your heart . . . .” W.G. Ballantine’s 1923 Riverside New Testament is another witness, “singing and playing the harp heartily to the Lord . . . .” Burgess is obviously desperate! As a matter of fact such witnesses could be cited on almost any side of any issue. What the Greek literally says is clear from the way that the standard translations have universally rendered the texts in the citations above. What one or more scholars may think about what the early church did may well be based upon what they are practicing in their own denomination at a particular moment in history, rather than what the Greek actually says or the early church actually did. Once more I repeat that those who maintain this position cannot offer a single major translation that supports their rendering of psallo!

Heart the Instrument

If there is any sense whatever in which psalla should be rendered “play” as the pro-instrumentalists suggest, then it is plain that Paul through inspiration of the Holy Spirit has named the instrument upon which we must play, e.g. the human heart. As James Bales has written, “This is a fitting contrast with the Old Testament, for the New is preeminently spiritual (Jn. 4:23-24). David psalloed with his hands (1 Sam. 16:23), but we with our hearts (Eph. 5:19). The instrument is named in Psa. 33:2 and it was the tenstringed psaltery, but in the New it is the heart. Just as circumcision is spiritual – is of the heart (Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), just so the instrument is spiritualized, i.e. it is the heart.” (Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, p. 146).

Questions

1. How do you view the fact that well-known scholars may be cited on both sides of this question?
2. What was the original meaning of the word psallo?
3. Does an instrument of music inhere in the word psallo? Does water inhere in the word baptizo (bpptism)? Were there other baptisms in the Bible besides baptism in water? How does this relate to psallo?
4. Give other examples of English words besides “ride” which do not contain their object as inherent within themselves.
5. Did the meaning of psallo change at any point in its history? If so, why did it change?
6. How does the Latin word psaltere compare with psallo in this aspect of its development?
7. Some have suggested that all Christians do not have to psallo? What is their reasoning behind this, and how would you evaluate their argument?
8. How does the view that considers psallo to mean “play the harp” constitute an unreasonable demand upon Christians?
9. Do the standard translations of the Bible into English support the view that instrumental music is intrinsic in the word psallo? Can you offer other translations of the Bible in defence of this point?
10. How should we see a point of view which must go for its support to obscure and undistinguished translations as opposed to the standard Bible translations? Do any of the standard translations render psallo as “play” in any of the four places where it occurs in the New Testament?
11. What is the instrument upon which Paul specifies that Christians must “play” if we render it so? How does this relate to Old Testament worship?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 20, pp.325-328
May 15, 1980