Instrumental Music
The earliest description of a worship service among
Christians outside of the New Testament is found in the writings of a
non-Christian. Reporting to the Emperor
Trajan around 110 A.D., Pliny the Younger wrote that Christians were in the
habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light and singing hymns
to Christ, as to a god (Letters Book X.
xcvi). The subject of music in the worship service, and especially any
other form besides singing, has always been a hot topic, and not merely among
members of the Church of Christ. Martin
Luther said that the organ in worship is the ensign of Baal (The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie,
4:368). John Calvin compared the
use of the instrument to bringing in the trappings of the Law of Moses (Commentary, Psalms, 1 Samuel). David Benedict, a Baptist historian,
said that the Baptists in times past “would have as soon tolerated the Pope of
Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries” (Fifty Years Among The Baptists).
A number of sources readily admit the non-existence of instrumental
music in not only the early Christian worship services, but its exclusion for
centuries following the first century.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The rejection of all musical
instruments from Christian worship is consistent among the fathers”
(X.106). Another reference work notes,
“The religion of Classical Greece and the Jewish Temple liturgy both used
musical instruments extensively--by contrast, early Christian music excluded
them completely. There is much
evidence for this prohibition” (New
Grove Dictionary, 4.368). The
first widespread use of instrumental music in worship was not until around 950
A.D., and universal use not until 1300 A.D.
In addition, it has only been in the last 150 years that the
denominational world has fully embraced the instrument in worship.
History abounds with "respected" leaders in the
church who opposed the use of any mechanical instrument in worship. Thomas Aquinas (1250 A.D.) said, “Our church
does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries to praise God--that
she may not seem to Judaize”. The
Church of England was at one time (1562) on the verge of excluding instrumental
music from the worship, but the practice was retained by the margin of a single
vote (Hetheringtons's History Westminister Assembly of Divines. p. 30). John Wesley who was a lover of music
said, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided
they are neither heard nor seen” (Adam Clark, Commentary Vol. 4, p. 686). 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” (Calvin's Commentary on the 33rd Psalm). “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” (Music in the History of the Western Church. Edward
Dickinson p. 54).
Why Didn’t The Early Christians Use It?
William Woodson wrote, “It is crucially important to observe
that although instrumental music of various types was readily available
in contemporary society, no passage shows that the churches mentioned in the
New Testament ever used instrumental music in worship. Did they not understand the true meaning of
the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms?
Did they not understand the meaning of various words, such as psallo, etc., so often discussed pro and
con in contemporary debates? Did they
not know the Jewish practices, both in the temple and in the synagogues? Did they not know the mind of God? Most certainly, on all these questions and
much more. Yet, there is not even a
hint of the use of instrumental music in worship of these churches. If present appeals to the Old Testament, the
Greek term psallo, the temple or
synagogue practice, and so on, legitimately warrant such use, why did the
apostles and brethren in the first century not so understand and incorporate
instrumental music into the worship of these churches? Such facts are not lightly to be dismissed
or forgotten” (The Spiritual Sword,
January 1993, pp. 17-18). Please note that all the arguments that are
being used today in the attempt to justify the instrument in worship were
available to those who lived in the first century! These Christians knew that the Old Testament had endorsed the
practice, they knew the background of the Greek word psallo, and that the Revelation letter mentions instruments in
heaven, yet the instrument was still rejected.
Therefore, here is the conclusion: 1. Such instruments did
exist in the first century (1 Corinthians 14:7). 2. Congregations
could afford them (1 Timothy 6:17).
3. They were not viewed as inherently sinful, for many of these converts
had come from the Jewish religion in which these instruments were used in
worship with God's approval (Psalms 150:3-5). Yet according to historians we find such instruments absent from
the worship of churches claiming to be Christians for at least the first 600
years after the church was established.
Commanded
In The Old Testament
While the Old
Testament offers us examples from which to learn (Romans 15:4;
1 Corinthians 10:12), it clearly is a covenant that was
removed by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13; 9:1-4; 10:9-10; Colossians
2:14-16). Most religious people
understand that the following commands or details in the Old Testament have
been removed by Christ: Animal
sacrifices (Hebrews 10:11-12); the Levitical priesthood (7:12);
Jerusalem as the place of worship (John 4:21); Sabbath Day observance (Colossians
2:16); the Jewish feasts (2:16); Circumcision as a religious
practice (Galatians 5:3-4); and the food laws (1 Timothy 4:3-4). Most would also agree that it would be wrong
to incorporate any of the above into Christianity. The same is true concerning music. While we find instrumental music commanded in the Old Testament (Psalm
150), we find "singing" commanded in the New Testament (Ephesians
5:19; Colossians 3:16). Remember,
there has taken place a change of “law” (Hebrews 7:14).
From time to time, proponents of instrumental music in
worship have attempted to prove that instrumental music, or singing to the
accompaniment of an instrument, is inherent in the definition of the
Greek word psallo. Note the following definitions that are given by the experts:
"The original meaning was ‘pluck, play (a stringed instrument) --in the
LXX., frequently means sing whether to the accompaniment of a harp or (usually)
not. The process continued until
‘Psallo’ in modern Greek means ‘sing’ exclusively, with no reference to
the instrumental accompaniment" (Arndt p. 891). Both Thayer and Vine note the same
progression in both words. “In the N.T.
to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song” (Thayer p. 5). “Denotes in the N.T. to sing a hymn, sing
praise” (Vine p. 58 'Melody').
What these definitions reveal is that the instrument was never
inherent in either word. This is
true in the Old Testament as well.
Psalms 98:5 “Sing praises (the Hebrew word here means striking with the
fingers, to touch. But the instrument
must be supplied by the context, hence we find what follows) with the
harp”. The same is true in Psalm 71:22;
33:2; 144:9; 149:3. Compare Ephesians
5:19 to Psalm 98:5. In both
contexts an "instrument" is supplied to "Psallo". In the Psalm it is a harp, in Ephesians it
is the "heart". God specified
the "instrument" to "touch, twang, pluck". But if the instrument is inherent in the
word, then there is no middle ground.
To argue that psallo allows
the instrument contradicts the idea that the instrument is inherent in the
word. In addition, whatever is
commanded in Ephesians 5:19 is commanded of all Christians “speaking one
to another”. Other uses of psallo in the New Testament are:
James 5:13 “sing praise”; Romans 15:9 “sing”; 1 Corinthians 14:15
“sing”. Obviously those that
translated the KJV, ASV, NASV and NIV all understood that psallo, simply means to sing.
“One hundred and forty-eight scholars who translated the American
Standard Version and King James Version have said with one voice that “psallo”
in the New Testament means “sing”. That
alone should settle the matter” (The
Spiritual Sword, April 1997, p. 20).
At the very beginning of this debate some churches defended
the instrument by saying it was used “only in the Sunday School” and not “in
the worship”. This seemed to be a
recognition that it was unauthorized in the worship. Soon, of course, the instrument found its way into the regular
assembly. One of the first serious
efforts to prove that instrumental music was Scriptural was based on the Greek
word psallo. O.E. Payne of the
Christian Church published a book in 1920 in which he argued that “instrumental
music unavoidably inheres in psallo, and that therefore to employ it is mandatory. Payne’s book was widely circulated by
the Christian Church as the “answer” to the instrumental music controversy. This book in turn led to the
Hardeman-Boswell Debate in Nashville in 1923, attended by over 6,000 people
each evening. By the time of the
debate, however, the leaders in the Christian Church realized that Payne’s book
led to a very embarrassing conclusion.
In all the excitement over Payne’s treatment of the term psallo,
it was almost overlooked that he said the use of the instrument is mandatory. That was more than even the most devoted
defenders of the instrument wanted to say. Over the years the line of
argumentation for instrumental music has diverged. Some argued on the basis of Old Testament passages, but had
difficultly justifying David’s harp without endorsing David’s animal
sacrifices. Some contented that it was
an act of worship; others said it was an aid to worship, but not an act of
worship itself. A strange argument has
arisen which says that instrumental music does lack Bible authority, but so
does congregational singing, thus proving nothing. One of the most recent arguments has been “What difference does
it make?” One minister of the Disciples
of Christ argued in Mission Magazine in 1987:
“Why be concerned about whether churches in the Roman era used instrumental
music?” In answer to his own question,
he explained, “We live now; and such music is not only inspiring, but it also
sets us on a par with the Presbyterians and the Methodists”. Of course this argument concedes that the
New Testament does not authorize it, which makes all the difference in the
world (2 John 9).
Only an
expedient?
Some have argued, “The instrument is only an aid or expediency to singing, just like a pitch pipe or song book”. First, an expedient must be lawful (1 Corinthians 6:12). The only thing authorized is singing, and instrumental music is something in addition to singing.
Harps in heaven?
Others have said, “The book of Revelation talks about harps
in heaven (Revelation 5:8), and therefore whatever exists in heaven can exist
in the church”. Of course the book of Revelation equally discusses incense, the
throne of God, horses, and so on. The assumption that whatever is in heaven is
authorized in congregational worship is not true. First, the Lord’s Supper does not exist in heaven (1
Corinthians 11:26), and neither does preaching the gospel to the lost. There are many things in heaven that do not
exist in the church (Revelation 21:4), and there are many things in the
local congregation that will not exist in heaven.
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/mdunagan@easystreet.com