Musical Instruments in Divine Worship X.

Page 68

CHAPTER X.

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT WARRANT THE USE OF INSTRUMENTS IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD?

---

It is assumed by the advocates of instrumental music that there is a presumption that it is warranted in New Testament worship, even though there should be no utterance in the New Testament on the subject, on the ground that having been once appointed it, must be shown to have been abrogated. But as the formal worship of God from the offering of Abel to the close of the Old Testament, as it appears in the Scripture record, was mainly ceremonial, and as that character became more prominent in the tabernacle service and still more in the temple service, there becomes in the nature of things a strong presumption against its continued use, for the simple reason that instrumentation is a positive institution, and has in itself no moral principle. This becomes more evident still when viewed in connexion with the temple service, because, when introduced into that service, we find it always existing under the conditions by which it was then limited. When these conditions cease it necessarily ceases unless, like the moral law or the psalms, there be something essential in its nature to preserve it. But this it has not. Hence those advocates of instrumentation, who admit that the New Testament is silent on the subject, are bound to show by the clearest evidence that, being a thing without life as the candlestick or the incense, it has an appointment different from that by which they once existed in the worship of God.

Page 69

We believe, however, that the New Testament is not silent on the subject.

The example of Christ in attending upon the worship of the temple does not indicate anything in reference to the continuance of any ingredient in that worship, because he was himself under the ceremonial law. It is remarkable, however, that with all the insight given us by the Gospels into the religious life of the Savior in his association with the disciples and others, we have no evidence that he ever used a psalmody apart from the temple service, and in connexion with the passover.

Now of course it will be admitted that the observance of the Lord’s supper at the close of the last passover was not a Levitical ceremony. It is the first clear and distinct formal act in the work of establishing a New Testament worship. It has its significance in the fact of its being a representation of the sufferings and death of Christ, and in being placed as nearly as possible to that death. Whatever may have been the religious exercises connected with the passover, those connected with the Lord’s supper are clearly marked as separated from the passover and as belonging to the Lord’s supper and distinguishing it. It had connected with it teaching, prayer, praise and vowing, or self-consecration to God. It was these various acts of Christ in observing the Lord’s supper that furnish us authority as to their mode. The perpetual appointment of the ordinance is made in specific language. “This do in remembrance of me.” But the mode of its observance is described by the example of Christ, and, therefore, of equal authority. To this fact the apostle refers the Corinthians when he is enjoining upon them their duty respecting it, and rebuking them for corruption in the mode of its observance. He describes to them the simple example of the Savior and the

Page 70

Disciples, and infers from the nature of the ordinance its solemnity and the necessity of self examination. It is here then that we have for the New Testament the appointment of the singing of Psalms in the New Testament worship. It is not denied that this was unaccompanied singing. Hence, the mode of praise, in this example, was in the same way and to the same extent the recognition of a New Testament Psalmody, as it was the institution of the Lord’s supper. It carries along with it the exclusive use of the psalms of inspiration, and, upon the same principle, the exclusive use of the voice in singing them. The nature of the appointment is emphasized in its close connection with the Lord’s supper. Every ingredient that enters properly into its observance to-day was in it as observed by Christ and His disciples. This principle necessarily excludes instrumental music, not only from the Lord’s supper, but from the New Testament use of the psalms.

Hence, the foundation of the New Testament ritual was laid in the Lord’s supper. It was the basis upon which is built all the ordinances of the present dispensation. The line between the Old and New dispensations was between the passover and the Lord’s supper. On this side of that line we have the institution of the ordinance of praise, rendered by singing exclusively, and, in complete accord with this, there is not an instance given in the Acts or the Epistles of singing with instrumental accompaniment, or any reference to an approved use of it. It certainly should be taken as a remarkable providence that, in the history of the church, from the day of Pentecost, for so many hundreds of years, with all the zeal and research of the advocates of instrumental music, there has not been found one example of its use in the church of Christ. The most definite and certain mode of settling and limiting the observance of an institution, according to its original appointment, is that of example, for the reason that the series of acts thus described does not vary with the ever changing

Page 71

significance of words. It is not a venture to infer that it was this definite mode of appointment that has preserved the institution of the Lord’s supper in its simplicity, as we have it to-day, and that did preserve the church for so long a time from a change in the mode of rendering the psalmody.

In Eph., 5th chapter, and Col., 3d chapter, we have what are called, by common consent, corresponding passages containing injunctions in reference to the mode of using the psalmody of the church. It is claimed by the writer of the pamphlet referred to, that the passage in Ephesians implies the use of instruments, as existing in that church, whilst a variation of the passage directed to the Colossians implies that they did not use instruments. Feeling that if the exhortation implies the use of instrumental music, it looks like an obligation to use it, against which position the author is all along protesting, he says: “The exhortation seeks only the sanctification of existing practices. If singing and playing formed a universal and indispensable part of the exercises of their meetings, then they were to be conducted in the manner described.” If this means anything, it means,

1st. That the exhortation to the Ephesian church was not applicable to the Colossian church, nor to any other church which does not use instruments, and hence there is no sanction for the use of instruments where they do not exist. But this is contrary to the whole tenor of his argument.

2d. That the exhortation to the Colossians was not applicable to the Ephesian church, nor to any other church where instruments are not used—but being applied to the Colossians and other churches not having instruments, they are abridged in the liberty he claims for all churches, and thus he overthrows his argument for a general warrant.

Furthermore, he affirms “that the presumptions are in favor of the view that not only did that (primitive) church

Page 72

sanction their use, but further, that, at least occasionally, they actually employed them.” He says again, “Now, while it is altogether probable, as we have seen, that the Apostle sometimes conducted services in which instrumental music was used,” &c. Now, the author’s use of the exhortation to the Ephesians avails him nothing, unless the instruments were actually employed by them. Hence he bases his argument upon the positive assumption that the Ephesians did use them. Is this the germ of a future history that shall show that the primitive churches with one exception, used instruments in the worship of God? But, if the Ephesians used instruments, Paul must have introduced them. For he organized that church and continued with them “for the space of three years.” Truly Paul is made to appear in a new and interesting light!! Perhaps, however, they introduced the instruments soon after he left them, and he found it necessary to write them, sanctifying the usage. But we are willing to admit that both these parallel passages teach something with regard to instrumental music. The Ephesian and Colossian churches were mainly composed of converts from heathenism who had been familiar with the abominations of pagan worship and revelry. The two epistles are very much alike throughout, both in the subjects introduced and the mode of treating them. This is especially so in reference to the manner of celebrating festal occasions. The apostle, in speaking to each upon this subject, would naturally think of the pagan festivals with which these converts were familiar, and seek to fortify them against their old habits, and hence institutes a contrast in reference to heathen and Christian festivals, which he carries throughout the exhortations. Thus in Eph. v, 18, he says, instead of being filled with wine, as in the pagan revels, be filled with the Spirit, so that his influences shall control you. Verse 19: Instead of using the corrupting songs of the heathen banqueting, use the psalms, hymns and spiritual

Page 73

songs appointed for christian worship; and instead of singing with the instruments employed to make the melody of the idolatrous festival, sing with the accompaniment of heart melody to the Lord.

The same contrast is carried throughout the passage in Col. iii, 16. Be not filled with wine of drunkenness, but with the wisdom of the word dwelling richly in you. Teach not one another the obscene songs of heathen revels, but the spiritual psalms, hymns and songs of christian worship. Accompany not your singing with the harp, but with grace in the heart. That the exercise of the heart to which he exhorts in each passage is the same cannot be doubted. The same means were to be employed to produce this result, and what is indicated by “making melody in the heart” is expressed by the phrase “with grace in the heart.” It is the effort to bring the heart into harmonious accord with the truth of the word by the aid of the Spirit. Now we repeat that the accompaniment of the singing in each exhortation is the heart attuned to the song that is sung. Conybeare translates, Eph. v, 18–19, thus, “Be not drunk with wine like those who live riotously, but be filled with the indwelling of the Spirit when you speak to one another. Let your singing be of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, and make melody with the music of your hearts to the Lord.” His paraphrase upon the passage presents the true idea so clearly that we insert it. “When you meet let your enjoyment not consist in fullness of wine, but in fullness of the Spirit; let your songs not be drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart, while you sing them not to the praise of Bacchus or Venus, but of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (See Conybeare, note 9, on Eph. v, 18–19.) No proper interpretation of either of these passages can

Page 74

possibly justify the literal use of instrumental music. On the other hand there is a clear condemnation of it in the evident substitution of heart exercise instead thereof.

As conclusive evidence that the writer of the pamphlet is not satisfied with his own interpretation of the passage in Ephesians, he supplies a word to harmonize his view with the expression “in your hearts.” There cannot be literal playing in the heart, and if there is not literal playing here he can claim nothing from this passage. Hence he says, “The apostle urges them * * * to let their singing and playing be with grace in the heart rather than alcohol in the brain.” Furthermore, it requires a different rendering of the word which he translates “playing” from that which he gives to the same word in James v, 13. The word which he translates “playing” in Ephesians he claims to mean both singing and playing in James. The word is psallontes in the former passage—a participle from the verb psallo and psalleto in the latter, an imperative from the same verb. To attach to the verb, as used in the passage Jas. v, 13, the meaning that he gives to it in Eph. v, 19, he would make it read “Is any merry? let him play.” On the other hand to attach to psallontes in Eph. v, 19, the meaning that he would give the word in Jas. v, 13, the passage would read, “Singing and singing and playing in your hearts to the Lord.” By his own testimony, therefore, the word has a different meaning in these two passages. We need not follow the author in his elaborate and, to a great extent, irrelevant, effort to show that the verb psallo and the name Psalmoi, by which the Psalms are designated, necessarily imply instrumental accompaniment. His quotations from various lexicographers and commentators upon the Psalms, with one exception, view the word mainly as it was employed to denote the temple praise ser-

Page 75

vice. This is true of Alexander, whom he quotes so extensively. So also of Murray and others. They all have reference to the meaning of the word as applied to the Psalms in their lyrical character, and their temple instrumentation. The whole force of the criticism which the writer employs is in favor of that view of instrumental music which is seen alone in the temple service. He is constantly reminding us of what would have been the opinion of a Jew in reference to the apostle’s use of the word Psallo, and referring us to the fact that the temple was still standing, and its worship was still continued when Paul and James used the word. The Jew would find, according to the theory of the writer, that the New Testament instrumentation accorded exactly with that with which he was so familiar in the temple service. Hence, as that service was obligatory, the Jew would infer that it had been transferred to the New Testament as such; and the apostles, presenting the subject without any reserve or qualification as an injunction, he would feel that the obligation was as strong in the new dispensation as it was in the old. But even the Jew would have his difficulties in adopting the interpretation of Psallo which the author of the pamphlet gives. His view of instrumental music in worship must undergo a very great change before he can accept the theory that Paul or James warrants the use of the harp alone. For this is all the instrumentation that is claimed for the word. He is accustomed to instrumental music in worship as confined to the temple, in the hands of the priests and Levites. He sees no resemblance in what is authorized by Paul and James to that which was daily witnessed in the temple. He must abandon all his ideas of that formal and showy worship, to which he has been accustomed, as abrogated, and he must accept instead thereof that humble and unpretending worship which has the features of the cross in all its simple rites. It would not be difficult for him, guided thus far by the Spirit, to feel that the gorgeous ser-

Page 76

vice of the temple instrumentation had passed away, and with it had gone even the harp; to conclude, in his familiarity with the Greek language, that as Psallo does mean to sing, to praise, to melodize, Paul did not mean literally to play the harp when he wrote to the Ephesians, and that James did not mean the harp when he used the word Psaleto. With regard to the meaning of Psallo, we need not go outside of the authorities of the author of the pamphlet to show that while the word often means to sing alone, and often means to sing with accompaniment, where the instrument is designated by an accompanying word it means simply to sing, to sing praise, &c. Omitting the other meaning, given by the lexicons from which he quotes, his first author Pickering, gives “to celebrate with hymns.” Green gives the New Testament usage of the word exclusively, “to sing praises.” Greenfield, “to sing, and with a dative, of a person to sing in honor or praise of, sing praises, to celebrate in song or psalm.” Liddell and Scott, “to sing to the harp.” For an illustration of this definition, Liddell and Scott refer to Eph. v, 19. To show that this definition cannot apply to Eph. v, 19, on the theory that instrumentation is there referred to, we need only refer to the fact that adontes is there used to denote singing, and psallontes would be employed to denote singing to the harp. According to this authority, the proper translation would be “singing and singing to the harp” in your heart to the Lord. Now Green says the New Testament usage is “to sing praises,” and we have “to celebrate in hymns” in Pickering. Greenfield gives, “to sing, and with a dative of person, to sing in honor or praise of, sing praises, to celebrate in song or psalm.”

What more do we need to settle the question that when James says “Psalleto,” he means that they should sing praise, and that when Paul says, “adontes kai psallontes en ta kardia humon to kaino,” he means, “singing and praising, or melodizing in your heart to the Lord.” [The printed transliteration appears defective here: Eph. v, 19 reads τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, not “ta kardia humon to kaino.”]

Page 77

One more passage in the New Testament on this subject deserves special notice and needs little comment. “By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” Heb. xiii, 15. It may be proper to remind the reader that the Apostle has shown the Hebrews that their ceremonial system has passed away, and that he incidentally refers in the 9th verse to the sacrifices offered at the altar, and affirms in the 10th verse that we have an altar in the present dispensation, of which they have no right to partake, who cling to the ceremonial dispensation. As the bodies of beasts whose blood was used in the sanctuary or temple were burned without the camp, so Christ suffered without the gate—turned His back upon the ceremonial service, as no longer profitable. The Hebrews are, therefore, exhorted to follow Him by forsaking the literal Jerusalem, with all its ceremonial associations—going forth without the camp, bearing His reproach. No doubt this reproach, in the experience of a Hebrew, would be his forsaking the ritual, which was the pride of the Jews, and accepting the simple service of the gospel, which distinguished the followers of Jesus. The celebration of the Lord’s supper, which was a memorial of His suffering without the gate, would especially subject them to this reproach. Instead of the sacrifices, therefore, of the temple service, the Apostle enjoins the sacrifice of praise continually. The fire of the sacrifice had been kept burning continually upon the altar. The incense had been a perpetual burning. The priests and the Levites had continued the song and the sounding of the instruments day and night. “Now do ye, instead thereof, offer the sacrifice of praise continually.” Lest they should conclude that the instruments employed in the temple might still be used, he so limits the injunction as to leave no place for them. For he so explains it as absolutely to exclude the use of instruments. The praise must be wholly the fruit of the lips, and that alone. However

Page 78

uttered, in prayer or singing, it is to be without the incense—without the instruments, and by the lips alone. We could not have a more specific declaration as to the mode of praise under the present dispensation, as definitely limited to the voice, and excluding the use of instruments. The injunction is emphasized by its being the continuance of the contrast which is instituted between the temple and New Testament worship. It is one of the principles set forth by the Apostle as a veritable “term of communion” in the Christian church—a condition of partaking at the altar, to which they have no right who cleave to the temple service. It is, moreover, a badge of devotion to Christ in reproach—that which was “to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.” It is just what the worldly spirit to-day denounces as foolishness, because it cannot see the wisdom of such a limit to the divine appointment in the praise of God.