Truth Magazine

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

By Tom Wheeler

Sometimes modern man seems to think brains are of modern vintage and therefore almost all tools, devices and instruments are of modern invention. Instruments of music have been in existence almost from the beginning of, time.

“And his brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ ” (Gen. 4:21). Matthew Henry comments on this verse thusly: “Jubal was a famous musician, and particularly an organist, and the first that gave rules for that noble art and science of music. When Jubal had set them in a way to be rich, Jubal put them in a way to be merry. Those who spend their days in wealth will not be without the timbrel and harp, Job. 21:12-13. From his name, JUBAL, probably, the jubilee trumpet was so called; for the best music was that which proclaimed liberty and redemption.” Mr. Henry may have gotten somewhat carried away with his comments. However, the word “father” in the verse must indicate that either the invention and refining of the instruments or the playing of them began with Jubal and continued with his children. I think it refers to both the instrument and its use. This does not show that mechanical instruments were authorized for worship in the Old Testament but does show that they were available.

The words “harp” and “organ” are from words that were more general in meaning. The New American Standard says “lyre and pipe.” The words in the Hebrew apparently mean “string” and “wind” instruments. We do not know when percussion instruments came into being but they were of early origin and may have been the first.

I have no idea how many times reference is made to the instrument of music in the Old Testament. They were used upon occasions to summons the people. They were used to warn the people of danger. They were used during periods of rejoicing and they were used in worship to God.

There are many indications that the mechanical instrument of music was authorized of God in Old Testament worship. They are even called “instruments of God.” “And with them, Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should make a sound, and .with musical instruments of God. And the sons of Jeduthun were porters” (1 Chron. 16:42). “And the Priests waited on. their offices:, the Levites also with instruments of musick of the Lord, which David the king had made to praise the Lord,, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood” (2 Chron. 7:6). On 1 Chron. 16:42, E.M. Zerr says: “`Musical instruments of Odd’ is an inspired expression. David was never condemned, nor even criticized for making and using them. But it was a part of the procedure under the Old Testament regulations and has no bearing on the religious activities of the New Testament.” He further states concerning 2 Chron. 7:6: “The priests did the part exclusively belonging to them, and the other Levites used `instruments of music of the Lord.’ This is an inspired statement, so we must know that after David had made the musical instruments for religious service, the Lord accepted and blessed them.”

Two places where we can read the account of the musicians being given their assignments are 1 Chron. 6:31-48 and 25:1-31. David begins preparation for the temple in 1 Chron. 22 and continues with this preparation, along with exhortation to the people, until his death in 1 Chron. 29. Appointing the musicians was part of this preparation and, as far as I can tell, was as well received by God as the rest of the preparation and exhortation.

In the account of the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem in Neh. 12:36 the musical instruments are called David’s but in the same phrase David is called “the man of God.” “And his brethren, Shemaiah, and Azarael, Milalai, Gilalai, Maai, Nethaneel, and Judah, Hanani, with the musical instruments of David, the man of God, and Ezra the scribe before them. ” David said that he made the instruments used to praise God. “Moreover four thousand were porters; and four thousand praised the Lord with the instruments which I made, said David, to praise therewith”(1 Chron. 23:5). David admits that he made the instruments of music to praise God. David was a man of God. He was not condemned by God for making them and God accepted the worship; therefore, he must have authorized it.

Soon after Cyrus allowed Ezra and 42,360 to return from captivity, they restored the worship and began to rebuild the temple. One of the things they did was restore the use of the mechanical instrument of music in worship to God. “And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David king of Israel” (Ezra 3:10). They must have thought this was important and there is no indication that God was not pleased with what they did.

The use of the mechanical instrument of music in worship predates David by many years: “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a Sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation” (Lev. 23:24). “And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing the trumpets unto you” (Num. 29:1). As far as my sources of reference works go, they take for granted that worship is under consideration here. Looking at the verses and their context, it is obvious that if worship is not under consideration these verses are out of context.

“For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order. So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel. And the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the Lord. And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy” (1 Chron. 15:13-16). What impresses me with this passage is the desire of David, the priests and Levites to do everything correctly this time. In 1 Chron. 13 they had started to bring the ark into Jerusalem and Uzzah was killed because things were not carried out according to God’s rules which had been given to Moses concerning moving the ark. Now they are trying to do things correctly. If God had not authorized the use of the mechanical instrument of music, this would have been an excellent time to say so. No indication is given by God that he is not pleased with its use.

The number of references in Psalms authorizing (commanding) the use of the mechanical instrument of music in praise and worship unto God are numerous (Psalm 33:2, 43:4, 150:1-6 and others). For one to take the position that mechanical instruments of music are not authorized in worship in the Old Testament is to say “I do not believe the book of Psalms is part of the Old Testament.” Surely, no other conclusion can be reached.

“And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place: (for all the priests that were present were sanctified, and did not then wait by course: Also the Levites which were the singers, all of them of Asaph, or Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, being arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the alter, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets.) It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the Lord, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord; So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud.- for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of God” (2 Chron. 5:11-14). If God’s presence does not show approval for what took place here, then I do not know what it would take. If He approves one thing that took place, he approved all things that took place.

Sometimes people say that God allowed the mechanical instrument of music to be used but never was happy or pleased with it. They compare it to God allowing Israel to have a king and His allowing divorce. I can find that God never intended for Israel to have a king. In 1 Sam. 8:5-22 God said the people had rejected him in desiring a king but then He gave commandment for them to have one. God gave command for the use of divorce in Deut. 24:1-4; however, Jesus said this was not His intention from the beginning (Matt. 19:1-12). If someone will show that God did not want, but just allowed, the use of mechanical instruments of music in Old Testament worship we will agree that, that was the case. Until we see the passage that says such, we will not agree.

Some think that Amos 6:5 condemns David for making instruments of music. “Woe to them that are at ;ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Samaria, which are named chief of the nations, to whom the house of Israel came! Pass ye unto Calneh, and see; and from thence go ye to Hamath the great: then go down to Gath of the Philistines: be they better than these kingdoms? or their border greater than your border? Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David; That drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments: but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Therefore now shall they go captive with the first that go captive, and the banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed. The Lord God hath sworn by himself, saith the Lord the God of hosts, I abhor the excellency of Jacob, and hate his palaces: therefore will I deliver up the city with all that is therein” (Amos 6:1-8). Amos 6 is talking about God’s judgment on Israel. Verse 4 talks about beds, couches, lambs and calves. Verse 5 talks about chanting to the sound of an instrument. Verse 6 talks about wine and ointments. Are all of these things wrong? Those who are at ease in Zion are condemned according to verse 1. Brother Homer Hailey says it well in his Commentary on the Minor Prophets (page 114) as he comments on verses 4, 5 & 6. “Their luxury and revelry are revealed in their lying on ivory inlaid beds, lolling on couches, banqueting on the best of fatted lambs and calves, having their depraved spirits lulled and soothed by lascivious songs and music, drinking their wine from large sacrificial bowls, and anointing themselves with the choicest of fine oils. But their debauched spirits were `not grieved for the affliction of Joseph,’ the poor of their brethren. The coming ruin of the nation, as it was being heralded by the rising power of the conquering Assyrians and by the warnings of Amos, struck no responsive chord in their hearts that were satiated by revelry and carousing. The inventing of `instruments of music’ `like (those of) David’ did not refer to the instruments used in worship; nor can this passage be used as an argument against the use of such instruments in worship today as is done by Adam Clarke. They invented musical instruments to be used in the sordid revelry of their feasts and banquets of that day.” Let us always be careful that we do not misuse a passage of scripture either in the Old Testament or in the New. Amos is pointing out the misuse of things that would be good used properly without show of wealth, revelry and a trusting in things.

Yes, I believe the mechanical instrument of music was authorized of God to be used in worship during Old Testament times. This has no bearing on our worship today.

Questions

1. Are mechanical instruments of music of late or early invention?
2. Who does the Bible say is the inventor of mechanical instruments of music?
3. Name three basic types of mechanical instruments of music.
4. When is the mechanical instrument of music first mentioned with reference to worship?
5. Who is given the most credit for introducing the mechanical instrument of music into the worship?
6. Name several ways the children of Israel used the mechanical instrument of music.
7. When the children of Israel returned from captivity (under Ezra) and restored the worship, did they use the mechanical instrument of music?
8. Does Amos 6:5 condemn David for using the mechanical instrument of music in worship to God? Give logical and scriptural arguments for your answer.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 20, pp. 322-324
May 15, 1980

By Weldon E. Warnock

The nature of New Testament worship is spiritual. It is taught in several places. By spiritual, I mean that which pertains to the mind, the soul and the heart in contrast to that which is tangible, external and physical. Spiritual worship is the heart offered to God, molded by truth, and not the rites, ceremonies and pomp of external worship.

Spiritual Sacrifices

The apostle Peter wrote “Ye also, as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). In this passage, God’s people are depicted under two figures: (1) A spiritual house, and (2) An holy priesthood. The priests in this spiritual house (temple, Eph. 2:21) are to offer up to God spiritual sacrifices which are acceptable to God. Many want to offer sacrifices without giving any consideration as to whether they are acceptable to God or not.

“The kind of sacrifices which this holy priesthood is to offer is described as `spiritual’ to distinguish them in nature and character from the sacrifices required by the law of Moses. They are also spiritual to conform to the nature of the building (church) in which they are offered; to the priests which are to offer them; and to the God to whom they are to be offered” (Peter, John & Jude by Guy N. Woods).

Worship In Spirit

When Jesus was conversing with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, He said, “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:23-24).

Worship must spring from the heart. It must be offered sincerely and genuinely in truth as opposed to mere form and ceremony. There is so much formalism and ritualism in so-called Christendom, even in the Lord’s church. Men come to the altar of worship with their praise, but their hearts are empty of holiness and destitute of devotion.

Barclay wrote, “If God is spirit; a man’s gifts to God must be gifts of the spirit. Animal sacrifices and all manmade things become inadequate. The only gifts that befit the nature of God are the gifts of the spirit – love, loyalty, obedience, devotion” (The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, p. 161).

Jesus said of the Scribes and Pharisees, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me” (Matt. 15:8). Those pretenders had the form but their hearts were not in their worship. How true this is today, also. “Formality is always imperilling piety . . . . When a man knows that all his spiritual religion is gone, he will keep up his ritual and be more exact in obeying his rules, and try to persuade himself that `formality’ will do instead of `spirituality”‘ (Pulpit Commentary on Matthew, Vol. 2, p. 125)”

William Temple said, “To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, to devote the will to the purpose of God” (copied from The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2, by Wm. Barclay, p. 117).

The apostle Paul wrote, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence’ in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). “For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son . . . .” (Rom. 1:9). The Pulpit Commentary says, “The word latreuo (`I serve’) when used in a religious sense, most usually denotes `worship’ . . . . Paul’s latreia intended here is not ceremonial function, but a spiritual one . . . . an inward devotion of himself to God’s service in proclaiming and furthering `the gospel of his Son” (Romans, p. 6).

The Hebrew letter says, “By him (Jesus) therefore let us offer the sacrifices of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” (Heb. 13:15). Our sacrifice of praise is to be the fruit of our lips.

Spiritual Acts

Having shown the spiritual nature of New Testament worship, let us direct our attention toward the acts of worship that are specifically prescribed by God’s word and observe how they are to be exercised from the heart or spirit.

(1) Prayer. Jesus taught against stereotyped, insincere prayer in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:5-15). Paul said, “I will pray with the spirit . . .” (1 Cor. 14:15). He told the Ephesians, “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit . . .” (Eph. 6:18). In this verse Lenski translates pneuma (spirit) in the lower case, making it the human spirit. If the Holy Spirit is meant, prayer would still be from the heart as a Christian would pray under the teaching and influence of the Spirit.

(2) Singing. Paul wrote, “. . . but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:18-19). Each worshipper is to sing spiritual songs, making melody in the heart. The heart is to accompany the singing. A parallel verse is in Col. 3:16. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

(3) Lord’s Supper. Concerning the Lord’s Supper we are told, “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. 11:28). Jesus said, “. . . this do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24-25). The Lord’s body is to be discerned (1 Cor. 11:29).

(4) Giving. A Christian is to give from the heart. Listen to Paul: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). Improper motive in giving is condemned by Jesus in Matt. 6:1-4.

(5) Teaching. “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts” (1 Thess. 2:4). “But that on the goody ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience” (Lk. 8:15).

In everyone of the preceding acts, nothing is pompous, artificial or mechanical. All are to be sincerely engaged in. from the heart.

Instrumental Music

In view of the spiritual aspects of New Testament worship, instrumental music in worship must be classified as mechanical, carnal, theatrical, diversive, subversive, formalistic, pompous, artifical and corruptive.

(1) Instrumental music is mechanical because it is machinelike, lacking expression and intelligence.

(2) Instrumental music is carnal because it is materialistic or worldly in contrast to the spiritual.

(3) Instrumental music is theatrical because it is used to entertain. Many go to worship (?) to see and hear a performance rather than to enter into spiritual homage to God.

(4) Instrumental music is diversive because it distracts from the singing of the hymns. People pay more attention to the burst of the guitar, the beat of the drums, the run of the piano or the staccato on the organ than they do the sentiment of the words being sung.

(5) Instrumental music is subversive because it changes the spiritual into the carnal, the holy into the profane.

(6) Instrumental music is formalistic because it is external and outward, having nothing to contribute toward worshipping God in spirit and truth.

(7) Instrumental music is pompous because it is a display of ostentation and showmanship. It is vain pageantry.

(8) Instrumental music is artificial because it is manufactured and constructed by the wisdom, whims and fancies of men.

(9) Instrumental music is corruptive because it destroys the spiritual fiber and vitality of God’s appointed instrument, the heart.

We can see, therefore, that instrumental music has no place in New Testament worship. It is contrary to and different from the very nature and character of the worship Jesus instituted.

Excerpts From Opponents

Instrumental music has been opposed since it was first introduced into so-called Christendom, especially since the Reformation, on the grounds that it would destroy the spiritual devotion and adoration to God. Notice the excerpts from the following men:

John Calvin said, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law . . . . Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise . . .” (Calvin’s Commentary, on 33rd Psalm).

Adam Clarke wrote about the instrument, “Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires his followers to worship him in’ spirit and in truth, for to no such worship are those instruments friendly” (Commentary, Vol. 2, pp. 690-691).

Alexander Campbell wrote in the Millennial Harbinger: “To those who have no real devotion or spirituality in them, and whose animal nature flags under the oppression of church service, I think . . . that instrumental music would be not only a desideratum, but an essential prerequisite to fire up their souls to even animal devotion. But I presume to all spiritually-minded Christians, such aids would be as a cowbell in a concert” (Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. 2, p. 366).

Robert Milligan stated, “The tendency of instrumental music is, I think, to divert the minds of many from the sentiment of the song to the mere sound of the organ, and in this way it often serves to promote formalism in Churches” (Scheme of Redemption, p. 386).

Charles Louis Loos, professor of Greek at Transylvania University, Lexington, Kentucky, wrote in the Millennial Harbinger: “But, before God and man, in its real good and final effects, better by far the humbler music of praise swelling up from the warm, earnest hearts consecrated to God, than the bewildering, heartless, aesthetic art performances of organ and choir. God hears and accepts the one, as he hears and accepts the humblest prayer; but he rejects the other for it is carnal offering to men’s ears, and not to God. Think of it! – Change the worship of God to an attraction for men’s ears! . . . . Tell men honestly that these musical church performances are, like the music on the balconies of museums, shows and theaters, to attract men, to invite patrons, and men will understand you and appreciate the performance accordingly” (Copied from Instrumental Music. in the Worship by Kurfees, p. 232).

Let us close this study with the words of LB. Grubbs: “The soul all alive to a love all divine, gives vent to its emotion in songs and petitions that gush forth in spiritual power from the internal fountains of life. With such offerings God is well pleased. We cannot, we will not tolerate anything that tends to destroy this spiritual life” (Kurfees, p. 234).

Questions

1. What does “spiritual” mean?
2. From 1 Pet. 2:5, list 4 reasons why the sacrifices are described as “spiritual.”
3. Who are the priests in 1 Pet. X2:5? In what place do they offer the sacrifices?
4. What did Jesus mean when he said God must be worshiped “in spirit”?
5. What basic criticism did Jesus make against the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt. 15:8? How does this differ from what Paul said he did in Phil. 3:3 and Rom. 1:9?
6. In Heb. 13:15, what sacrifice did the author say was to be offered to God?
7. List the 5 acts of worship. What do they all have in common from the standpoint of spiritual worship? Show this from Scripture references.
8. Enumerate the 9 listed things that instrumental music does to worship and briefly define each one.
9. Who said that instruments of music in worship would be as a cowbell in a concert to all spiritually-minded Christians? What is meant by this statement?
10. In what way did Robert Milligan say instrumental music would affect worship?
11. Charles Loos said that instrumental music in worship is used for what reason?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 19, pp. 313-315
May 8, 1980