Nevin Instrumental Music Not Prophecy

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC NOT PROPHECY.

---

“Song belongs to prophecy, not to priesthood.” Such is the title prefixed to a section of Professor Wallace’s pamphlet, (p. 14), and it is one of the strange averments among many that are passing strange. The essential idea of prophecy is, that it is a declaration on the part of God of His will to man.* The essential idea of priesthood is, the offering on the part of man of something to God. Paul’s statement in Heb. viii. 3, makes this very clear—“For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.” This being so, it requires no great amount of discrimination, one should think, to perceive under which head the service of song primarily comes. It is the offering of praise to God, and so pertains to the spiritual priesthood of all who are true believers. It has a relation to prophecy, no doubt, for in singing the inspired Psalms one is declaring more or less of the will of God. But this didactic use of the Psalms holds a secondary and subordinate place. In this it differs from preaching, where the didactic holds the first place. The primary design of praise is to offer to God the homage which is due to His great name, and so it is all to be understood as addressed directly and primarily to Him, not to man. It will thus be seen that primarily it belongs to spiritual priesthood, not to prophecy. “By him therefore,” who is the great High Priest of our profession, “let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.”

To be of any use in the argument, however, the allegation must run thus—The instrumental accompaniment in praise belongs to prophecy, not to priesthood. This is in fact what the Professor argues for. “The whole service,” he tells us, “is expressly referred to prophecy, and no part of it to priesthood,” And the proof of this is 1 Chron. xxv. 1–7, where the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun are spoken of as appointed to “prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals,” and chap. xxiii. 5, where it is said, “four thousand praised the Lord with instruments.” Then the Professor adds, “Praising with instruments and prophesying with instruments are alike descriptive of the same service.” When the matter is thus presented, we meet the allegation with a direct and unqualified negative. Whether you refer it to

______

* The verb would seem to have been popularly used sometimes in the sense of to divine, to utter a response oracularly. Thus, the persecutors of Jesus, when they had blindfolded Him, struck Him on the face, and mockingly said, “Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?”—Lu. xxii. 64, and par. pass. But the sense given above is that in which it is usually employed in Scripture.

[Page 34]

priesthood or not, the playing on the instrument, considered apart from the singing, was not prophesying, nor did it form any part of the prophesying. To allege that it did, is, in the very nature of the case, a manifest absurdity. To declare the will of God, and, we may add, to utter rational intelligent praise, there must be the articulate expression of thought. An instrument may be employed to excite, and to express, to some extent, emotion or feeling, but it cannot articulate—it cannot express thought or definite conception or idea. When, therefore, it is said that the Levites prophesied with harps, &c., the meaning, plainly is, that they prophesied in singing, this being accompanied with the music of instruments. But the prophesying was wholly in the singing, the music of the instruments could form no part of it. In singing the inspired Psalms, they might be truly described as prophesying, in the stricter sense of uttering predictions. The Psalms contain many predictions, some of which have been already fulfilled, some are being fulfilled, and some await their complete fulfilment in the future. “Prophecy,” we are informed, “is not symbolical: it belongs to the ministration of the Spirit, and is confined to no dispensation.” By the term prophecy what is most generally intended is the subject matter of prophecy, or the prophetical writings. These, as every one knows, are preeminently symbolical. But we understand the Professor to mean the act of prophesying. The uttering of prophecy is not in itself symbolical of any thing else. True, but what has that to do with the question? Playing on an instrument of music is not prophesying, as we have shown, so the statement is wholly irrelevant. If he means, as we believe he does, that the instrumental music of the former dispensation was not symbolical, then we meet his assertion (it is nothing more) with an opposite, and say it was symbolical. But of this again.

The reader of the Professor’s pamphlet might, not without reason, come to the conclusion that the only idea he attaches to prophesying is that of singing with the accompaniment of an instrument. At page 22, referring to 1 Cor. xi. 5, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoureth her head,” he thus comments on the apostle’s language—“He is addressing the whole membership of the Church on those exercises of public worship in which all men and women alike engage; and it has been held, and apparently with good reason, that the ‘prophesying’ means singing praise, combined as it is with prayer. Women were forbidden to teach or preach in the public assembly; the term therefore cannot have reference to such exercises. Miriam, we remember, was called a ‘prophetess,’ in connection with her services in leading the music in the choir of women at the Red Sea, as we know of no other claim she possessed to the title.” According to this view, any young lady who sits down to practise

[Page 35]

sacred music has a scriptural claim to be called a prophetess, only she must take care not to omit the instrumental accompaniment, else, we presume, she forfeits for the nonce all claim to the honourable designation. The reader will perceive that this is no caricature. There was a class of men in the Church in the apostles’ days called prophets, holding an office ranking next to the apostles themselves, an extraordinary office as theirs was. When Christ ascended, “He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists,” &c.—Eph. iv. 11. The most satisfactory account of the difference between apostles and prophets appears to be this, that, while the apostles were permanently inspired, the prophets were only occasionally inspired to make special communications or revelations of the Divine will. This is the opinion of Dr. C. Hodge, of Princeton, N.J., whose opinions should be held in the highest respect by all orthodox Presbyterians.* While this explanation is simple, it has the further advantage of making the definition of the function of the New Testament prophet to coincide exactly with that of the function of the Old Testament prophet, just as there is an identity in name, for all the prophets of the Old Testament would seem to have enjoyed only occasional inspiration. But there were prophetesses, as well as prophets, under the old dispensation. Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, was “a prophetess,” and judged Israel.—Jud. iv. 4. Huldah, the wife of Shallum, in the reign of the good King Josiah, was a prophetess, and consulting her is made to be synonymous with inquiring of the Lord.—2 Ki. xxii. 14. Nehemiah speaks of “the prophetess Noadiah,” though not in the way of commendation.—Neh. vi. 14. Then we read of “one Anna, a prophetess,” at the time of our Lord’s Advent—Lu. ii. 36. Does any one believe that these females have this title given to them solely, or even in any degree, because of their musical capabilities? The extraordinary effusions of the Holy Spirit, moreover, were not to be confined to Old Testament times. Joel predicted, in reference to the time of the Messiah, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit.”—Joel ii. 28, 29. Peter, at the time of the Pentecostal outpouring, quotes this prediction, as being then and there fulfilled, not omitting the “daughters” and the “handmaids.”—Acts ii. 16–18. There is, perhaps, a very general impression that the gift of tongues at Pentecost was restricted to the twelve apostles. This cannot be gathered with certainty from the record. On the contrary, we are disposed to think that others who were already believers in Jesus, females as well as males, were included, else

_____

* See his Commentary on Ephesians, in loco.

[Page 36]

this prediction of Joel’s would not have had its full accomplishment. The names of any such are not expressly mentioned, but that need not hinder our conclusion. There is at least one recorded instance of Christian prophetesses. When Paul was on his last journey to Jerusalem, he came to Caesarea, to the house of Philip the evangelist. “And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”—Acts xxi. 9. Does this mean simply that Philip’s daughters were adepts in music, vocal and instrumental? It would be quite as rational to set down all the prophets of Scripture as merely musical performers as it would be to set down all the prophetesses, or any one of them, in this category. Professor Wallace, it seems, knows of no other construction to put upon Miriam’s being denominated a prophetess. Why, Isaiah’s wife is called “the prophetess”—Isai. viii. 3—apparently for no other reason than her relationship to the prophet. We might have been inclined to assign a similar reason in the case of Miriam, were she not described as “the sister of Aaron” in the same sentence in which she is styled “the prophetess.” Even as it is, logical construction requires us to believe that her claim to the title arose from something that had place before the occurrences in the narration of which it is assigned to her. She was the sister of Aaron before that, and so she was the prophetess before that. Nor are we obliged to surmise that she got the title merely because of her previous musical performances. If so, “all the women” of Israel who followed her had an equal claim to be called prophetesses. The whole tenor of Scripture where prophets and prophetesses are spoken of points to the conclusion that she must have been so called because she occasionally acted and spoke under the impulse and guidance of supernatural inspiration, although we have no other express reference to the fact. Paul’s declaration, 1 Tim. ii. 12, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,” and his command, 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak ... for it is a shame for women to speak in the church,” plainly have respect only to the ordinary and permanent functions of the Gospel ministry. We are not to confound prophesying with ordinary teaching and preaching any more than with playing on a musical instrument. Paul was not the man to limit the extraordinary and miraculous influences of the Holy Spirit either to sex or class, and Professor Wallace ought to be very far from even seeming to insinuate anything of the kind.*

_____

* We find the following rather curious allegation on page 15 of the Professor’s pamphlet:—“Women could take no part in priestly ministrations, but they were members of the Levitical choirs.” We should like to know what authority he has for the latter part of this statement. He gives none. Is it Ps. lxviii. 25—“Before went singers, behind players, in the midst of damsels drumming” (Alexander’s translation)? That is no proof. Although

[Page 37]

When, however, the Professor alleges that no part of the service of song is expressly referred to priesthood, it seems to have been, not priesthood in general or spiritual priesthood, but the Aaronic that he had present to his mind. Accordingly, in following out his idea, he runs the distinction between Levites and priests beyond all reasonable and scriptural bounds. The singers were Levites, not priests. The priests had trumpets which the singers were not to use. The singers had instruments which the priests were not to employ. There was no doubt such a division of labour among the officials of the former dispensation. But the statement of these undoubted facts—and this is about the amount of what he had scripture warrant for—could make little or nothing for his purpose. So it must be eked out with conjecture enunciated with as little hesitation as though he could quote chapter and verse for it. “The service,” he says, “had its own proper ministers, Levites separated from all official connection with the ritual of service and from all official relation to the economy of types and shadows.” One would almost imagine from this that they were on the other side of the globe, and lived in a different period of the world’s history from that in which the statutes of Moses were fully observed. The Levite singers, we may well suppose, were chosen because of their musical capabilities, natural and acquired. But that they, when not engaged in their “course” in singing, did not assist the priests in the ritual of sacrifice, like other Levites, is to us simply incredible—at least not a particle of evidence for the allegation can be adduced. “Farther,” says the Professor, “the instruments of the singers are never regarded as instruments of the tabernacle. They could not be, for no Levite was allowed to handle the instruments of the tabernacle, nor even

_____

[Footnote continued from p. 36:]

it occurs in a song of praise, yet it is descriptive, not of the tabernacle or temple worship, but of national rejoicing, a triumphal procession, on account of victory—an ideal scene, in fact. We read of the sons of Asaph, &c., as members of the Levitical choirs; but where is there any mention of the daughters? Before we can admit the statement as “evidence” of anything, we must have some evidence of the evidence. Is it 1 Ch. xxv. 5, 6, where, after a list of names, it is written, “All these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer in the words of God, to lift up the horn. And God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of the Lord,” &c.? Some have, indeed, inferred from this that Heman’s three daughters, as well as his sons, were in the Levitical choirs. But the inference is a wrong one. The mention of the number of Heman’s family is manifestly thrown in parenthetically, merely to show the favour of God to him. Then the 6th verse takes up and repeats the first clause of the 5th verse, which stands before the parenthesis, and of course before the mention of daughters. Such we take to be the common-sense construction. But if any one is not satisfied with common-sense, and insists on it that the daughters were in the choirs, be it even so, it affects not our argument in the slightest degree. One thing will not be disputed—the singers were all of the tribe of Levi, the sacred tribe, and Christianity knows no sacred tribe. That is enough for our purpose.

[Page 38]

to look upon them when being covered up by the priests, on pain of death.—Num. iv. 15, 17–19.” And yet, after the priests had covered them up, the Kohathites were required to carry them on their shoulders; and when this method was not observed in the days of David, it was at the cost of Uzzah’s life. The instruments of the singers were not instruments of the tabernacle in the time of Moses, but were they not in the time of David? were they not instruments of the temple? No, the Professor will reply, “this is not the economy to which musical instruments belong.” And this, we rejoin, is very like offering an insult to the common-sense of his reader. The notion which he appears to entertain, of “a different economy from that instituted by Moses,” co-existing and running parallel with it, yet completely separated from it, to which musical instruments belong, and which can be none other than the Christian, is, so far as we are aware, a novel one in theology—as unscriptural and absurd as it is novel.

There are certain broad and outstanding facts in the case which must not be overlooked, and which militate strongly against the Professor’s theory. The whole tribe of Levi was distinguished from the other tribes as the sacred tribe, specially consecrated to the service of God. They were to have no inheritance of the land like the rest; the Lord was to be their inheritance. The descendants of Aaron among them were to constitute the priesthood, and the rest of the Levites were given to them to be their assistants in the discharge of their official functions. In offering a sacrifice there were some things which the person who brought it might do himself, such as laying his hand on the head of the animal, slaying it, and probably flaying it, dividing it into parts, and washing these in water. It appertained to the priest, and to none other, to receive the blood and sprinkle it, to prepare the altar and burn upon it what was to be burnt, whether the whole or only a part. Whether there were some things which a Levite might do, and which the offerer might not do, is not very clear. But we know that they were given to the priests to be their assistants; and that, on some occasions, they acted for the person bringing the offering, doing all he might, and perhaps something more.* The prophets were certainly not all of the tribe of Levi. The Christian economy knows no sacred tribe. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Yet the temple singers were all Levites, and only Levites. Professor Wallace admits this. He says, p. 30, “These Levites were only necessary to the service in the one particular place, the temple.” They were necessary there, then, and he has not adduced one atom of real proof that instruments were used elsewhere in worship. The inference is obvious—the service was as a whole Jewish, and in some of its aspects distinctively so.

______

* See Scott’s notes on Lev. i. 5–9.

[Page 39]

So far does the Professor carry his antithetic method, that he once and again, pages 9 and 15, insists that the silver trumpets were not instruments of the Tabernacle! It depends on the manner in which a trumpet is used, whether we can regard it as an instrument of music or not. It is surely as capable of being so used and classed as the drum, the toph, the “loud-sounding cymbals,” or the sistra. Whether the silver trumpets were so used in Moses’ days or not, they (now multiplied to 120) certainly were so used in the days of Solomon. Of this the proof is explicit and clear. Dr. Lorimer, who, we may observe by the way, was not writing a piece of special pleading on behalf of instruments in Christian worship, though perhaps he does not object to them, found no difficulty, not only in classing them among musical instruments, but in assigning them a musical use as early as the days of Moses. He says—“Their use in the sacrificial rites as a musical accompaniment was limited, Nu. x. 10, to certain occasions, to ‘their solemn days, the beginnings of their months, and the day of their gladness;’ but in the age of David and Solomon their sacrificial use was much extended, and the number provided for the use of the priests was correspondingly increased. At the dedication of the temple as many as 120 priests ‘sounded with trumpets;’ and in the immensely developed ritual then introduced, the part of the musical service assigned to the priests was to blow with the sacred trumpets during the offering of sacrifice, while the Levites accompanied on other instruments of all kinds.”† In several passages of scripture already quoted for a slightly different purpose, we find priests and Levites, trumpets and other instruments, sacrifice and song, mingled together in a way that is suggestive enough. It may suffice to recall one of these. “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 music,” &c.—2 Chron. v. 13. This one passage sweeps clean overboard all the Professor’s fine-spun distinctions in this department of the subject; and we have said enough to show that his broad unqualified assertions—“The priests had no part in the service of song, and the singers had no part in the service of sacrifice;” “There is thus a complete separation between the priesthood and the singers, and between the service of sacrifice and the service of song”—are destitute alike of all probability and of any scriptural support.

_____

* The sistra were a kind of metallic jingling instruments, with a wooden handle, and were used by simply shaking them in the hand. Hence their name sistra, derived from the Greek verb signifying to shake. The reader will find a pictorial representation of some of them in The Imperial Bible Dictionary, vol. ii. p. 312.

† Imp. Bib. Dict. vol. ii. p. 310.