Nevin on Symbolism of Instruments
James Dodson
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC FORMED, IN POINT OF FACT, PART OF THE SYMBOLISM OF THE OLD DISPENSATION.
We put this proposition purposely in the very terms in which it has been denied. For the denial we find only assertion, not even the semblance of real proof. What we assert we mean to prove. One of the mildest and most accomplished of the Instrumentalists, indeed, has ventured upon the statement that “the strained attempts which have been made to assign to it a symbolic character bring more damage than advantage to the cause on behalf of which they have been made. Its actual use is obvious to all: its symbolical use is undiscoverable by any, except those who object to its actual use.” The latter part of this statement is equivalent to telling us that the Instrumentalists cannot discover the symbolical use. And why can they not? Whether applicable to this case or not, it is a certain truth, that an eye blinded by prejudice cannot perceive what may be plain enough to others. There is a fallacious confounding here, moreover, of present use with past use. The question is not about its symbolical use now, but about its symbolical use under the Old Dispensation. Where, how, by whom, have the alleged strained attempts been made? What is the nature of the straining? Until these questions are answered, we are entitled to say that this is only a general allegation, incapable of being substantiated, and made to cover a felt deficiency in argument.
The typical and symbolical character of many things in the Old Dispensation can only be discovered by reason exercised in respect
[Page 44]
to congruity and the fitness of things. We cannot expect to find direct Scripture proof for the typical or symbolic character of every particular that is rightly deemed to have such character. But in this case we can present two proofs drawn from Scripture, the force of which we think cannot be set aside.
1. The typical character of The two silver Trumpets, which Moses made by Divine command—and these we take to have been the germ of the instrumental service as fully developed in Solomon’s Temple—is generally conceded, so that we need not wait to discuss it. At the dedication these were multiplied to 120. Now, when the “trumpeters and singers were as one; to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord,” by what process of spiritual chemistry can we separate in the one sound what issued from the trumpets, so as to make it typical, from that which was produced by “cymbals and psalteries and harps,” so as to make the latter non-typical? If the one was typical so was the other. The typical character of the trumpets was surely participated in by these other instruments, when they were making “one sound.”
2. Our second proof is derived from The Harps of the Apocalypse. The more discreet among the Instrumentalists say little or nothing about these. But there are others who will rush in where the former class fear to tread, and who think they have made a good argument out of these. Their argument is, in brief, this—that, since the use of instruments was commanded under the law, and since it “is freely employed as descriptive of the devotions of the saints in the dispensation of glory” (literally?), it were passing strange if it were excluded from the dispensation which intervenes and unites these two. Let us examine this.
3. It is assumed that the description is intended to apply to the employments of the redeemed in the glorified state exclusively. A moment’s reflection might show that this, however common the notion may be, is simply a popular error. John seemed to himself in the prophetic trance to be taken up into heaven. Heaven, in this connection, means the locus of the visions, nothing more. In this view it has its own significance, which we need not take space here to explain. The visions seen there were symbolic representations, in the main, not of what takes place in the world of the glorified, but of what was to take place on earth and in time. John sees a throne, and round about it four living creatures and four and twenty elders. These, without entering into detail, are clearly the representatives of the Church on earth. They have “every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours” (censers with incense.)—Rev. v. 8. These latter are expressly interpreted to mean “the prayers of saints.” What saints? Not a select canonized few, employed in the glorified state in interceding for men on earth. No true Protestant will admit the idea. Saints,
[Page 45]
in New Testament language, is a name for all true believers, and prayer is the expression of imperfection, infirmity, want. The reader may begin to think we are yielding the point, but one short step or two more. 2. As the golden censers full of incense are thus seen by inspired interpretation to be symbolic of the prayers of God’s people, common consistency imperatively demands that we understand the harps to be symbolic of the praises of God’s people; and it matters not in this case if you extend the symbolism to the state of the glorified, it is but symbolism still. 3. This actually excludes the idea of literal instruments; for a symbol cannot, without the plainest absurdity, be taken as symbolic of itself. 4. This, further, justifies the conclusion that the instrumental part of the Temple service of old was symbolic. With amazing simplicity the question has been put—“Is it to be imagined, then, that the feelings and proceedings of the saints” (Query, what saints?) “should be shadowed forth under the symbolism of a form of worship that had been for ever abolished?” Yes, of a verity, not only is it to be imagined, but it is to be received as an indubitable canon of interpretation in reference to the Apocalypse, that its imagery has been largely drawn from the abolished economy. Temple, altar, “Lamb as it had been slain,” incense, are all there. Would the symbolism be complete without the harps which had been so closely associated with these? Is there anything astonishing in this? Can a minister preach an evangelical sermon without using illustrations taken from that Dispensation which, being God-given, was made glorious, yet now has no glory, by reason of the glory that excelleth? If he can, he has accomplished what inspired apostles never attempted to do. Has the one who puts the question quoted above never himself read or repeated Paul’s words, “By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually?”
It has been alleged that musical instruments were not introduced for the first time into the worship of the Tabernacle by David—that they had a place there before his time. “The commandment of the Lord by his prophets,” it has been said, “which is so much insisted on, was not a commandment instituting or appointing the use of instrumental music in the tabernacle, but a commandment arranging the order and courses of the Levitical singers and musicians.” The distinction is somewhat ingenious, yet it seems to us altogether untenable. We find the expressions, “Instruments which I made, said David”—1 Chron. xxiii. 5: “instruments of David”—2 Chron. xxix. 26; Neh. xii. 36: and “instruments ordained by David”—2 Chron. xxix. 27. It might be said, indeed, that these phrases refer to some new kinds of instruments ‘invented’ by him, and this idea might appear to be favoured by Amos vi. 5; but it is by no means clear that David
[Page 46]
invented any new species of instruments, and there is certainly not a particle of evidence to show that any instruments, except the two silver trumpets, were used in the Tabernacle before his time, whatever may be inferred or conjectured of their use elsewhere. If David did not introduce them—as indeed it is generally conceded he did—then when, and by whom were they introduced?