Nevin on Instruments in the Psalms
James Dodson
REFERENCES TO INSTRUMENTS IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS.
A more plausible argument has been derived from the manner in which instruments are mentioned in the Psalms. The righteous are admonished to praise God with a harp, and sing to Him with a psaltery, as in Ps. xxxiii. 1, 2. Hence it is inferred that instruments were commonly used, even in domestic worship. “Suppose,” it has been asked, “that the use of musical instruments had been confined, as anti-instrumentalists assert, to the Levites, and to the tabernacle or temple, how could the inspired psalmist have exhorted every pious Israelite to praise God with harp and psaltery?” To this we reply—
1. The Psalms, in the form in which they have come down to us, were adapted and intended primarily for the Temple service—all of them, and not merely some as has been alleged. Fifty-five out of the hundred and fifty are inscribed “To the chief musician,” and in three of these the name of the chief musician, Jeduthun, is introduced. It were preposterous to suppose that there was such a functionary in every household. The Psalter was probably brought into its full form by Ezra. Some of the Psalms present internal evidence of having been composed so late as the time of the Captivity in Babylon, or even subsequently. Singing praise was no doubt a very early part of Divine worship. Besides the song of triumph at the Red Sea, we have the song of Moses which he gave to Israel recorded in Deut. xxxii., and the song of Deborah and Barak, Jud. v. These have not been transferred to the Psalter, being designed, we may presume, for temporary use. But the 90th Psalm is entitled “A Prayer” (or Psalm, as the Hebrew word might be rendered) “of Moses the man of God,” although we have no allusion to it in earlier scripture. We may well conclude that David found this Psalm of Moses, as well as several others, either preserved in writing, or handed down orally, in common use—that he modified these and added others of his own, under the guidance of inspiration, just as additions to this collection of his were subsequently made—all being, in this collected form, primarily intended for use in the Temple.
2. The Psalms in which these allusions occur are comparatively few—about sixteen out of the whole number. It cannot be regarded as an ascertained fact that these sixteen were ever used in domestic worship, much less that they were so used in the precise form in which we have them now.
[Page 47]
3. Even supposing they were so used, and in this very form, it does not follow that the instruments were used in the family any more than that sacrifice was part of the domestic worship. The exhortation, Ps. cxviii. 27, “Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar,” could be very well sung in the household, with understood reference to the services of the Tabernacle or Temple, in which alone, as a general rule, sacrifices were lawful. So the allusions to instruments could be sung in the family, with understood reference to the instrumental service of the Temple, in which the Levites were the representatives of the whole congregation of Israel. We may add here, that the adaptation of the Psalms to the Temple service, in respect to all of these allusions, only renders them the more suitable for Christian use, as we shall have occasion to show afterwards.
It has been urged that, “if instrumental music be now in its own nature unsuited to the worship of God, then it must have been equally unsuitable in the days of Hezekiah and of David and of Moses.” Transfer this to another subject, and see how it will read—‘If animal sacrifice be now in its own nature unsuited to the worship of God, then it must have been always so.’ Who will accept either premiss or conclusion? Why was this rather metaphysical phrase in its own nature introduced? Let the metaphysics go—we confess we have no great taste for them. Enough for us, that animal sacrifice was once a thing divinely commanded—now abrogated. Will any one say that animal sacrifice is suited to Christian worship, whether ‘in its own nature’ or otherwise? We may be told that sacrifice was typical and symbolical, therefore only of temporary obligation. Well, we have shown that the instrumental music of the former dispensation was typical and symbolical. We do not ask the Instrumentalists to do what they are so prone to ask of us—prove a negative. We have presented Scripture proof. For the denial we have had only “bold assertions” hitherto. Let them set aside our proofs, if they can.
But it may be said, the use of an instrument in worship was in its very nature a matter of moral indifference; the Davidic legislation on the subject only lifted it for a time out of the category of the indifferent; and, by the abolition of the old dispensation, it simply reverted to its former position. If any one adopt this line of reasoning, then we ask, may not circumcision, sacrifice, incense, lighted candles or lamps, and other details of the ancient ceremonial, be equally regarded as in themselves morally indifferent? May not all the mummeries of the Ritualists be, with equal reason, described as morally indifferent? If not, where is the distinction? Are they, therefore, all allowable?
We have deemed it of some importance to show that the argument for instruments drawn from the Old Testament is a complete
[Page 48]
failure at every point along the whole line. We wish it now to be distinctly understood that this is by no means necessary, in order to make good the case as against instruments. Suppose it capable of the clearest demonstration that these were used in the worship of God by those who feared His name from the earliest period of the world’s history, in the family, in the synagogue, in the schools of the prophets—suppose it impossible for us to define with any clearness the relation which the use of instruments bears to prophecy on the one hand and priesthood on the other—impossible to point out anything typical or symbolical in the use of them—yet it by no means follows that the use of them is either lawful or expedient under the Christian dispensation. We can still take the position—we do still take the position—that they belong properly to that dispensation which is now abolished. They were in keeping with the character, as a whole, of that economy which “was made glorious,” and yet now has “no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.”
We hold it to be simply and utterly impossible to define precisely the typical or symbolical significance of every pin and particle, of every jot and tittle connected with the Tabernacle and Temple, or with the services rendered therein. Fancy may be allowed to run riot in such speculation, but it is very questionable whether it is always good to the use of edifying. Some of the grand lessons designed to be inculcated are thus in danger of being overlaid or overlooked. Two of these we may indicate. By the minute and circumstantial specifications given to His people God evidently designed to teach them that He exercises a special, particular, gracious providence over them and all that affects them—that providence which takes cognizance of the fall of a sparrow and numbers the hairs of the head—exercised for their good in time and for eternity. A second lesson is, that we are bound to strive to ascertain as exactly as possible what his will is in respect to every part of the worship and service we render to Him, and then to regulate our practice by what we have thus ascertained, taking due care not to fall short or go beyond in any particular. It was at the peril of the divine displeasure, often at the hazard of life itself, that Israel of old deviated one hairsbreadth, as we may say, from the divinely revealed pattern and prescription. The same two great lessons, with somewhat perhaps of extended application, are taught us in those mysterious chapters (xl—xlviii) which constitute the closing portion of Ezekiel’s prophecy. The most probable, indeed we think the only feasible view of those chapters is, that they are a description, in terms mystically borrowed from the old dispensation, of the Church and her services under the Gospel. Those who feared God among the captives in Babylon were perhaps beginning to think not unnaturally that they and their people, and
[Page 49]
with them the witnesses for truth, were about to perish from off the face of the earth. These visions were given to sustain their faith in the promises made to the fathers, and to show them that these were to have a most signal fulfilment at a future day. Now, it is a fact worthy of being noted, that, while in these chapters we have repeated references to Priests and Levites, with details of sacrificial observances, precise measurements, &c., there is not one word about harps and psalteries or other instruments of music.