Instrumental Music

Sunday Sermons

Mark Dunagan
06/05/05 - Sunday Morning

Instrumental Music

The earliest description of a worship service among Christians outside of the New Testament is found in the writings of a non-Christian. Reporting to the Emperor Trajan around 110 A.D., Pliny the Younger wrote that Christians were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light and singing hymns to Christ, as to a god (Letters Book X. xcvi). The subject of music in the worship service, and especially any other form besides singing, has always been a hot topic, and not merely among members of the Church of Christ. Martin Luther said that the organ in worship is the ensign of Baal (The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie, 4:368). John Calvin compared the use of the instrument to bringing in the trappings of the Law of Moses (Commentary, Psalms, 1 Samuel). David Benedict, a Baptist historian, said that the Baptists in times past “would have as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries” (Fifty Years Among The Baptists). A number of sources readily admit the non-existence of instrumental music in not only the early Christian worship services, but its exclusion for centuries following the first century. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The rejection of all musical instruments from Christian worship is consistent among the fathers” (X.106). Another reference work notes, “The religion of Classical Greece and the Jewish Temple liturgy both used musical instruments extensively--by contrast, early Christian music excluded them completely. There is much evidence for this prohibition” (New Grove Dictionary, 4.368). The first widespread use of instrumental music in worship was not until around 950 A.D., and universal use not until 1300 A.D. In addition, it has only been in the last 150 years that the denominational world has fully embraced the instrument in worship.

History abounds with "respected" leaders in the church who opposed the use of any mechanical instrument in worship. Thomas Aquinas (1250 A.D.) said, “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries to praise God--that she may not seem to Judaize”. The Church of England was at one time (1562) on the verge of excluding instrumental music from the worship, but the practice was retained by the margin of a single vote (Hetheringtons's History Westminister Assembly of Divines. p. 30). John Wesley who was a lover of music said, “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen” (Adam Clark, Commentary Vol. 4, p. 686). John Calvin said, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law” (Calvin's Commentary on the 33rd Psalm). “Many of the fathers, speaking of religious songs, made no mention of instruments: others, like Clement of Alexandria and St. Chrysostom, refer to them only to denounce them” (Music in the History of the Western Church. Edward Dickinson p. 54).

Why Didn’t The Early Christians Use It?

William Woodson wrote, “It is crucially important to observe that although instrumental music of various types was readily available in contemporary society, no passage shows that the churches mentioned in the New Testament ever used instrumental music in worship. Did they not understand the true meaning of the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms? Did they not understand the meaning of various words, such as psallo, etc., so often discussed pro and con in contemporary debates? Did they not know the Jewish practices, both in the temple and in the synagogues? Did they not know the mind of God? Most certainly, on all these questions and much more. Yet, there is not even a hint of the use of instrumental music in worship of these churches. If present appeals to the Old Testament, the Greek term psallo, the temple or synagogue practice, and so on, legitimately warrant such use, why did the apostles and brethren in the first century not so understand and incorporate instrumental music into the worship of these churches? Such facts are not lightly to be dismissed or forgotten” (The Spiritual Sword, January 1993, pp. 17-18). Please note that all the arguments that are being used today in the attempt to justify the instrument in worship were available to those who lived in the first century! These Christians knew that the Old Testament had endorsed the practice, they knew the background of the Greek word psallo, and that the Revelation letter mentions instruments in heaven, yet the instrument was still rejected.

Therefore, here is the conclusion: 1. Such instruments did exist in the first century (1 Corinthians 14:7). 2. Congregations could afford them (1 Timothy 6:17). 3. They were not viewed as inherently sinful, for many of these converts had come from the Jewish religion in which these instruments were used in worship with God's approval (Psalms 150:3-5). Yet according to historians we find such instruments absent from the worship of churches claiming to be Christians for at least the first 600 years after the church was established.

Commanded In The Old Testament

While the Old Testament offers us examples from which to learn (Romans 15:4;

1 Corinthians 10:12), it clearly is a covenant that was removed by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:6-13; 9:1-4; 10:9-10; Colossians 2:14-16). Most religious people understand that the following commands or details in the Old Testament have been removed by Christ: Animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10:11-12); the Levitical priesthood (7:12); Jerusalem as the place of worship (John 4:21);Sabbath Day observance (Colossians 2:16); the Jewish feasts (2:16); Circumcision as a religious practice (Galatians 5:3-4); and the food laws (1 Timothy 4:3-4). Most would also agree that it would be wrong to incorporate any of the above into Christianity. The same is true concerning music. While we find instrumental music commanded in the Old Testament (Psalm 150), we find "singing" commanded in the New Testament (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Remember, there has taken place a change of “law” (Hebrews 7:14).

Ephesians 5:19: “Psalms”

From time to time, proponents of instrumental music in worship have attempted to prove that instrumental music, or singing to the accompaniment of an instrument, is inherent in the definition of the Greek word psallo. Note the following definitions that are given by the experts: "The original meaning was ‘pluck, play (a stringed instrument) --in the LXX., frequently means sing whether to the accompaniment of a harp or (usually) not. The process continued until ‘Psallo’ in modern Greek means ‘sing’ exclusively, with no reference to the instrumental accompaniment" (Arndt p. 891). Both Thayer and Vine note the same progression in both words. “In the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song” (Thayer p. 5). “Denotes in the N.T. to sing a hymn, sing praise” (Vine p. 58 'Melody'). What these definitions reveal is that the instrument was never inherent in either word. This is true in the Old Testament as well. Psalms 98:5 “Sing praises (the Hebrew word here means striking with the fingers, to touch. But the instrument must be supplied by the context, hence we find what follows) with the harp”. The same is true in Psalm 71:22; 33:2; 144:9; 149:3. Compare Ephesians 5:19 to Psalm 98:5. In both contexts an "instrument" is supplied to "Psallo". In the Psalm it is a harp, in Ephesians it is the "heart". God specified the "instrument" to "touch, twang, pluck". But if the instrument is inherent in the word, then there is no middle ground. To argue that psallo allows the instrument contradicts the idea that the instrument is inherent in the word. In addition, whatever is commanded in Ephesians 5:19 is commanded of all Christians “speaking one to another”. Other uses of psallo in the New Testament are: James 5:13 “sing praise”; Romans 15:9 “sing”; 1 Corinthians 14:15 “sing”. Obviously those that translated the KJV, ASV, NASV and NIV all understood that psallo, simply means to sing. “One hundred and forty-eight scholars who translated the American Standard Version and King James Version have said with one voice that “psallo” in the New Testament means “sing”. That alone should settle the matter” (The Spiritual Sword, April 1997, p. 20).

A little history lesson

At the very beginning of this debate some churches defended the instrument by saying it was used “only in the Sunday School” and not “in the worship”. This seemed to be a recognition that it was unauthorized in the worship. Soon, of course, the instrument found its way into the regular assembly. One of the first serious efforts to prove that instrumental music was Scriptural was based on the Greek word psallo. O.E. Payne of the Christian Church published a book in 1920 in which he argued that “instrumental music unavoidably inheres in psallo, and that therefore to employ it is mandatory. Payne’s book was widely circulated by the Christian Church as the “answer” to the instrumental music controversy. This book in turn led to the Hardeman-Boswell Debate in Nashville in 1923, attended by over 6,000 people each evening. By the time of the debate, however, the leaders in the Christian Church realized that Payne’s book led to a very embarrassing conclusion. In all the excitement over Payne’s treatment of the term psallo, it was almost overlooked that he said the use of the instrument is mandatory. That was more than even the most devoted defenders of the instrument wanted to say. Over the years the line of argumentation for instrumental music has diverged. Some argued on the basis of Old Testament passages, but had difficultly justifying David’s harp without endorsing David’s animal sacrifices. Some contented that it was an act of worship; others said it was an aid to worship, but not an act of worship itself. A strange argument has arisen which says that instrumental music does lack Bible authority, but so does congregational singing, thus proving nothing. One of the most recent arguments has been “What difference does it make?” One minister of the Disciples of Christ argued in Mission Magazine in 1987: “Why be concerned about whether churches in the Roman era used instrumental music?” In answer to his own question, he explained, “We live now; and such music is not only inspiring, but it also sets us on a par with the Presbyterians and the Methodists”. Of course this argument concedes that the New Testament does not authorize it, which makes all the difference in the world (2 John 9).

Only an expedient?

Some have argued, “The instrument is only an aid or expediency to singing, just like a pitch pipe or song book”. First, an expedient must be lawful (1 Corinthians 6:12). The only thing authorized is singing, and instrumental music is something in addition to singing.

Harps in heaven?

Others have said, “The book of Revelation talks about harps in heaven (Revelation 5:8), and therefore whatever exists in heaven can exist in the church”. Of course the book of Revelation equally discusses incense, the throne of God, horses, and so on. The assumption that whatever is in heaven is authorized in congregational worship is not true. First, the Lord’s Supper does not exist in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:26), and neither does preaching the gospel to the lost. There are many things in heaven that do not exist in the church (Revelation 21:4), and there are many things in the local congregation that will not exist in heaven.

Sunday Sermons