Truth Magazine

By Jon Quinn

In the quest to discover some inkling of Biblical authority for the employment of musical instruments in the worship of the Lord’s church, proponents have searched high and low. Finding no scriptural authority for such in this age and realm, their search takes them beyond the boundaries of this earth to that place we know only by faith and not yet by sight. In this lesson, we shall consider John’s inspired account of the vision he saw and its use (or misuse) today in the vain attempt to justify the innovation of mechanical instruments of music into the worship of the church of Christ.

The Book Of Revelation

The attempt to find authority for the playing of instruments in worship by citing their use in heaven leads one to the book of Christ’s Revelation to John. John had been exiled to the island of Patmos (1:9). The year was 96 A.D., during the reign of the cruel tyrant Domitian. Christians were being severely persecuted because they were refusing to worship the emperor-god. The book of Revelation is God’s encouragement to His persecuted people; if they continue to live by faith that they will ultimately triumph. The message rings forth that despite all earthly appearances, God is still in control of His universe (He is still on His throne). John employs brilliant imagery and figures to communicate unto us the glories which he witnesses. How inadequate human speech must be to reveal the true grandeur of heaven! And yet, how impressed we are as we glimpse its beauty through the words John employs.

In John’s description of the events taking place around God’s throne, he mentions four awe-inspiring creatures as well as twenty-four elders who fall down before the Lamb of God. Each has a harp as well as golden bowls of incense, which John explains represents the prayers of the saints (5:8). Also mentioned are those who have triumphed over the beast. They are represented as standing on the sea of glass holding harps of God (15:2). The message: God knows about the trials being faced for His people and eternal victory awaits those who endure. This is the central purpose of the Book of Revelation.

Now then, the question is not whether musical instruments are mentioned in John’s description of his vision – they are indeed. Nor is it a question as to whether or not these instruments are literal. I am persuaded that the crowns of gold, sea of glass, bowls of incense and the harps represent other things. We have already seen that the incense represents the prayers of the saints. Also, we see in 14:2 a voice from heaven “as the voice of many waters.” Not a voice of many waters literally, but as many waters. Also mentioned is the voice of many “harpers harping upon their harps” which represent the praise offered by these heavenly beings. Certainly the harps do not represent pianos and organs used in worship on earth! But literal or not, that is not what is at issue.

The question is whether mechanical instruments of music are authorized in the worship of the church on earth. That is precisely what is at issue here.

Brief Course In Bible Study

When considering any Bible passage, it is good hermeneutical practice to ask oneself several questions: Who is speaking? Who is being spoken to? What are the circumstances? How does it apply?

For example, after the flood, Noah built an altar and offered a lamb on it. God was pleased with Noah’s worship because he was worshipping as he had been authorized. But what God approved of in Noah, He does not necessarily approve of in us. Noah lived in another time and under another system. God would not accept such an offering on our part because He has not authorized the church to worship Him in such a manner. It would be an abuse of scripture to attempt to justify burnt offerings today on the basis of what God accepted under other circumstances.

In the book of Revelation, we find heavenly, not earthly, creatures worshipping God. The twenty-four elders are not only pictured as having harps, but also wearing crowns (4:10) and offering incense (5:8). We also find the use of a censer (8:5), tabernacle (15:5) and the sea of glass (15:2). If those who attempt to justify the use of mechanical instruments of music on the basis of their mention in John’s vision were at all consistent, then they would also be insisting upon these other items. In fact, if the harps are authorized, then all are, and we have not the right to omit any of them from our worship!

Authority In Heavenly Visions?

Our standard of authority must be God’s word. We must obey the scripture’s commands, examples, and those things which we necessarily infer when they apply to the church. The mere fact that proponents of instrumental music have had to leave behind God’s instructions for the church on earth and search in a heavenly vision for authorization of their innovation makes it evident that they are having a difficult time justifying it in a reasonable way.

The argument for the use of musical instruments in worship based on the book of Revelation is stated in several different ways:

“The only example in the New Testament of a member of the church seeing and hearing singing on the Lord’s day involved an instrument.” This argument leaves out some important information that is revelant to the conclusion being drawn. It leaves out the fact that what John saw did not involve an assembly of saints on earth at all. Besides, what John saw and heard is not, nor ever has been, the cause of division. The issue still is whether the church is authorized to use musical instruments in worship.

“Harps are in heaven; God’s will is to be done on earth as it is in heaven; therefore, musical instruments are authorized for the church (Matthew 6;10).” Infants are also in heaven. Shall we baptize them into the Lord’s body? It is the old case of mixing apples and oranges. God’s will for His heavenly creatures is not the same as His will for His children on earth. Also, the meaning of Matthew 6:10 is distorted by this argument. This verse tells us that we on earth should obey God’s will even as angelic creatures obey Him in heaven.

“Instruments should be used because they are used in heaven and the church sits in heavenly places with Christ (Ephesians 1:3; 2:6).” Of course, “heavenly places” does not refer to the eternal place of reward but to the spiritual nature of the church. It is a divine, blood-bought institution. Heaven is God’s throne and the earth is His footstool, It has been given a plan to follow and this plan does not include what heavenly creatures may or may not practice.

The fact if the matter is that these scenes of heavenly worship are clothed in highly symbolic language. They were intended to encourage faithfulness on the part of persecuted Christians, not to instruct them how to worship God.

Some Final Thoughts

Our God is a jealous God and we must approach Him as He has ordained (Hebrews 10:28-29). The book of Revelation says absolutely nothing about the New Testament church worshipping God with musical instruments. To add “worship of the church” to the harp passages is to add to “the words of the prophecy of this book” and, therefore, falls under the condemnation of Revelation 22:18.

Questions

1. What is the purpose of the book of Revelation?
2. Precisely, what is the issue involved?
3. Do you believe the harps to be literal? Why or why not? Does it make any difference as far as the worship of the church is concerned?
4. The lesson employs the example of Noah. What was the point of this example?
5. Think of another example similar to the above.
6. If Revelation did authorize musican instruments, what kind would be authorized? What other items would also be authorized?
7. Answer the arguments: “The only example in the New Testament of a member of the church seeing and hearing singing on the Lord’s day involved the use of an instrument.”
8. Answer the argument: “Harps are in heaven; God’s will is to be done on earth as it is in heaven; therefore, musical instruments are authorized for the church.”
9. Answer the arguments: “Instruments should be used because they are used in heaven and the church ‘sits in heavenly places in Christ.”‘
10. How does Revelation 22:18 apply to attempting to justify instrumental music in the worship of the church by using the book of Revelation.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 21, pp. 340-341
May 22, 1980

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