Truth Magazine

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

By O. C. Birdwell

The music authorized by the New Testament is clearly identified by such passages as Ephesians 5:19, and Colossians 3:16. In these verses, the writer speaks of “singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” The kind of songs to be used in our worship is also plainly revealed. Paul said, “speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.”

Innovations in authorized music constitute apostasy in music. Such innovations take many different forms. There can be additions, such as adding an instrument, which is a kind of music other than that authorized, to the singing. There can also be a subtraction from that authorized. For example, singing may be engaged in, but not “with the spirit,” as commanded (I Cor. 14:15). Then, there could be substitution. Songs other than psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs could be used. Or, another kind of music could be substituted for singing. All of these kinds of innovations have been made at one time or another. Our task is to discuss some of these innovations which have brought about apostasy in music which is used in worship unto the God of Heaven.

“Responsive Singing”

McClintock and Strong, in their exhaustive Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, lists the first innovation in church music as “responsive singing.” This kind of singing is dated from the 4th century. There is some doubt, however, as to whether responsive singing was truly an innovation. It was singing and it was done without an instrument. This type singing was practiced by .the Jews in the temple. Because of this, some believe it was often used by early Christians. They refer to the epistle of Pliny where he speaks of Christians who sang “alternately in responses.” It is difficult to determine exactly what was involved in “responsive singing.” It seems, however, to have been much more than our “part” singing where we may have a bass, alto, or tenor lead. Their “responsive singing” is described as a type common in the temples of the Gentiles and in the theater, and therefore, was generally rejected by early Christians. Such singing is not believed to have been commonly used for the first 300 years. While there may be doubt , as to whether “responsive singing” involved apostasy, there is little doubt but that it played a large part in the bringing in of special singers and choirs which did constitute apostasy.

Choirs, Theatrical Music, etc.

Singers as a distinct class, along with choirs, and theatrical music, were introduced as early as the 4th century. This apostasy gradually developed, as is the case with most apostasies. One innovation was added to another until it is said that the Council of Laodicea found it necessary to forbid congregational singing. Singing became a form of religious entertainment. The music became so complicated that it could only be sung by the skilled and the well-trained. This called for the choirs and special singers. As one might expect, this kind of music and singing did not go unchallenged. Many objected. The complaint was made that “heathen melodies” were introduced into their “church psalmody.” “Isidore of Pelusium (near 400 A.D.) also complained of the theatrical singing, especially that of the women, which, instead of inducing penitence for sin, tended much more to awaken sinful desires.” Jerome (342-419?) said, “Not like the comedians should they raise their sweet and liquid notes to entertain the assembly with theatrical songs and melodies in the church, but the fire of godly piety and the knowledge of the Scriptures should inspire our songs.” (Quotations and historical references are from McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature and the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.)

Similar Practices Today

From these brief notes of events which transpired in the 4th century, and shortly thereafter, we can see that some present-day practices have been around a long time. Regularly advertised on radio stations and in newspapers are religious singings with special singers, quartets and choirs. The religious entertainers are equipped with popular instruments of music and are often dressed as one might expect from a professional entertainer in a concert or nightclub date. To accompany their “show” are ample jokes and fun to keep the folks laughing. As described, this action, in times past, may have been expected only in assemblies of just some of our religious neighbors. Yet, it is presently happening more and more and even among some churches of Christ. Several years ago, I attended a Sunday afternoon singing where there was quartet singing, many jokes told, much laughter, and one of the leading men constantly wanting to “smell the pitch.” My wife and I walked out on the show. Events like this, in conjunction with speeches from a few preachers I know, would make for an evening of entertainment for those who have the stomach for such. To others it is no less than apostasy in worship.

Reformation Efforts

Reformation efforts of the 16th century and the 19th century Restoration Movement did much to restore singing as taught in the New Testament. Many hymns of a scriptural nature, designed for congregational singing, were penned during this period of time. Many leaders of the Reformation and practically all the early Restoration leaders rejected the use of the instrument in their worship. There are quotations from such influential Reformation religious leaders as Luther, Calvin and Knox that show their attitude toward instruments in music in worship. (For some of these quotations see another article in this series on music called, What have Religious Leaders Said About The Instrument?)

About fifty years ago the secretary of the Tennessee Christian Missionary Society wrote that the literature of the 19th century “Reformers” affirms that they believed in the use of a missionary society in the work of the church and instrumental music in the worship of the church. Brother John T. Lewis, in a series of articles in the Gospel Advocate (printed later in a book called The Voice of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies) denied the statement and, using the printed words of the pioneers, ably presented the truth about the matter. Lewis said, “I `challenge’ the editor of the Tennessee Christian to show, `from the literature of that period,’- where a single voice was heard, among the Reformers, `in favor of instrumental music in churches’ prior to 1859.” This “challenge” shows the confidence brother Lewis had in the evidence of the opposition by early 19th century reformers to the use of the instrument and the accompanying special songs, special singers, and choirs.

Apostasy in Spite of Objections

As before given quotations show, there was early objection to innovations in music. Such objections did not, however, stop the progress into apostasy. “By the seventh century the priests had monopolized the singing and they sang only in Latin.” The musical instrument, which was gradually being more and more accepted, added to the choir and special music problem. With an instrument, or in some cases, a plurality of instruments, the tendency was to move farther away from congregational singing and unto special singers and special songs.

Just as innovations and apostasy developed in the early centuries and corrupted the music of the early churches, we find a similar development in the latter 19th century. Following the Reformation period, the instrument gained greater favor in denominationalism. With this greater favor and dating from 1859, the instrument was used in increasing numbers of churches that had previously made an effort to go back to the New Testament pattern in all worship and work. Again, with this movement to the instrument, the choir and special songs problem occurred to a greater degree. Even the Christian Standard admitted that “there was a tendency on the part of choirs or organists to drift into a style of music that is not only destructive of congregational singing but `deadening to all devotional feeling’ ” (Eckstein, History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, p. 244). This condition seems to have pretty well engulfed many denominational churches during the 20th

century and, since the middle of the century, has made inroads in churches of Christ. Choirs, special singers and songs, and, in some instances, the use of instruments of music, have been reported.

The Instrument Innovation

The innovation of instruments of music into the worship unto God also constituted an apostasy in music.,We have already discussed the use of the instrument as it related to choirs, special singers, and songs. Let us now consider the introduction of the instrument as an apostasy in music.

There is no inspired record, or secular historical account that shows the early churches using instruments of music in their worship. On the contrary, the New Testament shows that they sang psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Historians generally agree with Mosheim when he wrote, “The Christian worship consisted in hymns, prayers, the reading of the Scriptures, a discourse addressed to the people, and concluded with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper” ( Ecclesiastical History).

Concerning early attitudes toward the instrument in worship, Edward Dickinson in Music in the History of the Western Church, made the following observation:

Many of the fathers, speaking of religious songs, made no mention of instruments; others, like Clement of Alexandria and St. Chrysostom, refer to them only to denounce them. Clement says: “Only one instrument do we use, viz. the cord of peace wherewith we honor God, no longer the old psaltery, trumpet, drum, and flute.” Chrysostom exclaims: “David formerly sang in psalms, also we sing today with him; he had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre, with a different tone, indeed, but with a more accordant piety.” St. Ambrose expresses his scorn for those who would play the lyre and psaltery instead of singing hymns and psalms; and St. Augustine adjures believers not to turn their hearts to theatrical instruments. The religious guides of the early Christian felt that there would be an incongruity, and even profanity, in the use of the sensuous nerve-exciting effects of instrumental sound in their mystical, spiritual worship. Their high religious and moral enthusiasm needed no aid from external strings; the pure vocal utterance was the more proper expression of their faith (pp. 54, 55).

The following quotation from McClintock and Strong shows that general acceptance of the instrument in worship was late in coming.

The general introduction of instrumental music can certainly not be assigned to a date earlier than the 5th and 6th centuries; yea, even Gregory the Great, who towards the end of the 6th century added greatly to the existing Church music, absolutely prohibited the use of instruments. Several centuries later the introduction of the organ in sacred service gave the place to instruments as accompaniments for Christian song, and from that time to this they have been freely used with few exceptions. The first organ is believed to have been used in Church service in the 13th century. Organs were however, in use before this in the theater. They were never regarded with favor in the Eastern Church, and were vehemently opposed in some of the Western churches (Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, Vol. Vl, p. 759).

19th Century Apostasy

Apostasy in music among 19th century churches that had endeavored to restore New Testament authority in worship and work began, in the main, following the Civil War. In 1868, Ben Franklin guessed that there were ten thousand congregations and not over fifty had used an instrument in worship (Earl West, Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 2, pp. 80, 81). In 1860, L.L. Pinkerton stated, “So far as known to me, or I presume to you, I am the only `preacher’ in Kentucky of our brotherhood who has publicly advocated the propriety of employing instrumental music in some churches, and that the church of God in Midway is the only church that has yet made a decided effort to introduce it” (From American Christian Review, as quoted by Cecil Willis in W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith).

From these statements we can see that after the early 19th century restoration efforts, the decade of the sixties pinpoints the beginning of the main apostasy in music and by the end of the century there was a clear-cut division over the use of mechanical instruments in worship and missionary societies in the work of the church. Human organizations to do the work of the church and innovations in worship have always gone hand in hand. They both are introduced because of a lack of respect for the authority of the scriptures.

Questions

1. How do we identify the music to be used in worship, in order that we might know what is apostasy in music?
2. List three forms of innovations in music and give examples of each.
3. Would you regard “responsive singing” to be apostasy in music?
4. What were some of the early objections to choirs and special singers and songs in worship?
5. Give examples from your experience, or from what you have read or heard, of innovations similar to the early special songs and music for entertainment.
6. Give quotations you can find from Reformation and Restoration leaders that reflect their attitudes toward instrumental music in worship.
7. Why do scriptural objections often not stop apostasy?
8. When early writers spoke about instruments in worship, what was their attitudes toward it?
9. Discuss the beginning date and progress into apostasy in music made by the 19th century churches.
10. Why are apostasies in worship and apostasies in organization and work often related?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 19, pp. 311-313
May 8, 1980