Nevin on “PSALLO” in the NT
James Dodson
MEANING OF “PSALLO” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
When the New Testament was written, psallo had evidently come to denote amongst Christians praise simply, and its almost uniform employment in the Septuagint as the equivalent for zamar, the force of which we have already considered, doubtless led to this. It will be seen that it could have no other significance, when we couple its use with the fact that there were no instruments employed in the worship of the early Christians. When our Lord had partaken of the last Passover with His apostles we are told, Matt. xxvi. 30, Mark xiv. 26, “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” The original here for “when they had sung an hymn” is one word, a participle of a verb signifying praise—humnesantes, having hymned, or sung praise. It is generally conceded that what was invariably sung by the Jews at the Passover was ‘the great Hallel;’ that is, Ps. cxiii.—cxviii. On this Professor Wallace says, p. 28, “Reverting to the usage of the Septuagint, we find this same word [humneo] employed to render the Hebrew word so often referred to [zamar], and which expresses instrumental music.—1 Chron. xvi. 9; also in Isai. xii. 5. And a cognate Hebrew noun [zimrah] is translated in the Septuagint by a noun [humnēsis] cognate to that which, in the English New Testament, is rendered ‘sung an hymn.’—Ps. cxviii. 14.” What a roundabout way of getting at a conclusion! It reminds us of the old story of the man who said he saw the man who said he saw the king. But all in vain. It cannot be pretended that humneo ever had for its meaning to play on an instrument, or even had such an application. Yet it is used interchangeably with psallo as a render-
[Page 63]
ing for the Hebrew zamar. The inference is clearly the opposite of what the Professor wishes it to be. Even on the testimony of the dearly-beloved Septuagint, and by the Professor’s own showing, neither zamar nor psallo nor their cognate nouns implied in themselves more than praising, or, if you will, singing praise. We feel not a little grateful to the Professor’s research for supplying us with this argument, which we probably would never otherwise have thought of.
But what has this circuitous criticism to do with “the Example of Christ and His Apostles,” which is the heading of the section of the pamphlet in which it occurs, unless it be to draw away attention from the admitted fact that our Lord and His apostles used no instruments at the last Passover supper? This was the point to be met, and how does the Professor meet it? Why, thus—“the singing at the Passover supper was not an instance of Christ setting an example for the future worship of His Church, but an instance of His complying with an existing custom, a custom, too, originating in no recorded law.” Are we really, then, to understand that the singing of psalms at that time was not intended to be an example for the Church till the end of the world? If in that and other things, on that memorable occasion, Christ was not setting an example for imitation, then we must surely conclude that He never set an intentional example in any act of His life on earth. Or are we to understand the Professor as teaching that a prevailing custom, which men may take up and perpetuate of their own mere motion, without any real Divine sanction, “originating in no recorded law,” may have a greater weight of authority than the unquestioned and unquestionable example of Christ and His apostles? Surely it cannot be a good cause which compels its advocate to have recourse to such controversial shifts.