Leroy, Richland Hills, and Instrumental Music
Leroy Garrett has written this wonderful essay about the decision at the Richland Hills Church of Christ to add an instrumental service. I’m using it with Leroy’s gracious permission.
INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CHURCHES OF CHRIST
It is significant that the Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth recently announced that it would soon have a service with instrumental music in addition to its usual services where the traditional practice of acappella singing will be preserved. It is significant not only because Richland Hills is one of our largest congregations, if not the largest, but also because it is one of our most influential churches, if not the most influential.
Unlike some of our avant garde churches, Richland Hills has been cautious and moderate in the changes it has made through the years. A number of churches have “progressed” beyond the point of any identity as Churches of Christ, and have more or less disclaimed any connection. They have not only gone “instrumental” completely, but they have taken some generic name in place of Church of Christ. They say that name is an impediment to their mission. And yet their leadership and membership are largely from Churches of Christ, and they are likely to practice communion and baptism as before. They are particularly “grace-oriented.”
When I discussed this with Rick Atchley, senior minister at Richland Hills, he said being “Church of Christ” was no problem to them. He appeared to agree with what I have long said: We should be busy being what we believe a true Church of Christ should be – unsectarian, unity-minded, Christ-centered, and faithful to our heritage both in Scripture and to our Restoration tradition. That is what reformation/restoration is about – not leaving and becoming rootless, but staying and effecting renewal from within.
This is what makes Richland Hill’s decision to go instrumental for even one service historic. It is something of an exemplary congregation, one that has kept its balance amidst decades of change, and it has remained loyal to its heritage in Churches of Christ. It has in fact through the years conducted workshops for our leaders on “how to do church.” Are they now showing their penchant for leading the way by going (partly) instrumental?
While there are several Churches of Christ that still wear that name that are now instrumental in one service, it is not yet a trend – perhaps no more than six or eight congregations. The Jenks Church of Christ in Tulsa has the unique arrangement of simultaneous services, one acappella and one instrumental, one upstairs and one downstairs. They supposed that the instrumental service would be for the youth, but to their surprise a number of oldsters attend as well.
The Farmers Branch Church of Christ in the Dallas area also has simultaneous services Sunday a.m., a “contemporary” service in the Family Center that uses instruments, and a traditional acappella service in the sanctuary. There is a second acappella service on Sunday morning.. There is also a contemporary service on Saturday p.m., with instruments. These contemporary services use keyboard, guitars, drums. The four weekend assemblies total upward of 1500 in attendance. Considering its background as a non-Sunday school congregation (It still has no Sunday school!), Farmers Branch is a phenomenon among Churches of Christ, with dynamic leadership.
As might be expected, this innovation of having even one instrumental service is viewed with concern, if not dismay, by many in Churches of Christ. It is probable that for the foreseeable future most of our churches will remain uncompromisingly acappella. But there will almost certainly be a continuation of some congregations –the larger and the more progressive – going instrumental for one or more services. Now that Richland Hills is among that number the pace could accelerate.
Churches of Christ have such a rich tradition of acappella singing that it is unlikely that it will ever be completely abandoned. Even our most progressive congregations will almost certainly continue to do some singing without instruments. And for good reasons, one being that we often do it well. It is common for visitors to our services to comment that we don’t need instruments. We can also believe that acappella music is more in keeping with the simplicity and beauty of New Testament worship.
Nor are Churches of Christ uniquely acappella, except in some American communities. Throughout the history of the church there has been a substantial presence of acappella singing, sometimes acappella only, as in the great Orthodox churches, the most ancient of denominations. All churches sometimes sing acappella, and some of the great choirs of the world use only the human voice. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland not only objects to instruments but to man-made hymnals as well. They use the hymnal that is in the Bible, the Psalms. The only scriptural hymnal! I don’t know how we missed that one!
This is why I questioned the thesis of a publication by a professor at Abilene Christian University some years back on The Case for Acappella Music. I pointed out that no case has to be made for acappella singing, for reasons noted above. Beside, insofar as Churches of Christ are concerned that is not the issue. The professor’s book should have been on The Case for Making Acappella Music a Test of Fellowship.
No one faults us for singing acappella. That has not been our sin. We erred when we made the use of instruments a test of fellowship and allowed it to be a divisive issue. We went wrong when we moved acappella music from being an opinion or preference to being an essential. We took it from our small t traditions, where it properly belongs, and made it part of our capital T tradition, the core gospel which we share with all believers.
And that, thank God, is what is changing – not in a trickle, but massively. Instrumental music is a dead issue in most mainline Churches of Christ. Many churches – that will adamantly remain non-instrumental — have gone on record of no longer making it a condition of fellowship. Even those who view it as a sin should they sing with an instrument no longer apply that judgment upon others.
It does not matter all that much whether Churches of Christ remain acappella or whether they become partly or completely instrumental. The church catholic has long labeled such questions as adiaphorous (matters of indifference). In our own Restoration heritage we have it in the motto: “In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, love.” We got off track and betrayed our own heritage when we turned opinions and methods into essentials.
What is important, whether we are acappella or instrumental or something of both, is that we love and accept all other believers as equals in Christ. How they sing in their assemblies, or how they otherwise “do church” is adiaphorous, so long as they are devoted to Christ and hold to the essentials of the faith.
History could do an irony on us, a benevolent one. Churches of Christ could end up with both instrumental and non-instrumental churches, while we remain united. That would put us where our Stone/Campbell heritage was 150 years ago. For an entire generation we had “organic” and “inorganic” congregations without a rupture in fellowship. This was the case until editor-bishops appeared who insisted that “It can be only one way,” and divided us.
This transition we are going through – and remember the “law of change” is the “law of God – isn’t really about instrumental music. It goes much deeper and is much more complicated. It is the old issue of “form and substance” that goes back to the ancient Greek philosophers. Is reality and truth in the form (anything material or outward) or is it in the substance (the ideal, or what’s in the heart)? Or s it somehow both? Plato, for instance, held that material things are but a shadow of reality, which is mind or idea.
We are all exposed to this problem in one way or another. We know that unless baptism is a “circumcision of the heart” (Col. 2:11-12) one only gets wet. And we agree with Shakespeare in reference to prayer that “words without thoughts never to heaven go.” And unless it is an act of heart and conscience the Lord’s Supper is in vain. Form must have substance, and substance must have priority. Errors of the heart are far more serious than flaws in the form.
Our people are becoming more spiritually discerning, and this includes being more aware of what matters most, the heart. If the heart is right (substance) the form might be adiaphorous – or at least matters on which we can differ. Not that form is unimportant, for it is sometimes ordained of God, but our sincere responses to form might differ in detail. Foremost, God looks upon the heart, not outward appearance.
So, just how we do music — hymnals are only the Psalms, shaped notes or round notes, choirs or solos or congregational singing, acappella or instrumental – may not be that big a deal with God so long as the music is from the heart and glorifies Christ. And so we are to unloose and renounce the old fallacy that “It can be only one way.”
Herb:
You raise an interesting question: “What changed when the Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant?”
I believe we have one New Covenant Letter which deals with that question and that is the Letter to the Hebrews and this writing defines all that changed: Mediator-Moses to Jesus, High Priest-Aaron to Jesus, Place of Worship-Tabernacle/Temple to the Gathered Congregaton, Sacrifice for Sin-Animals to Jesus on Cross.
Practicing Old Covenant customs is not a problem until these are imposes as conditions of salvation upon New Covenant people. That is the point of the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem. There it was decided that the Jewish segment of the church could not impose fleshly circumcision upon the Gentile segment of the church. But as soon as Paul won the argument, granting Gentiles freedom from imposed circumcision, he took Timothy out and circumcised him to make him more acceptable to his work among Jews. Paul also took the Nazarite vow so that the Jewish believers would not get the idea that he was rejecting the Temple and Jewish ways of doing things. And part of the Nazarite vow involved an animal sacrifice and extended period of fasting.
It is absurd to assume that all Old Covenant worship customs were trashed at the cross in light of the following: (1) Acts 2–Post-Pentecost disciples praising God at the Temple daily where we know the praise involved both kinds of music. (2) Acts 15:1-16:5–Practicing fleshly circumcision so long as it was not imposed on anyone as a condition of salvation. (3) Acts 21:17-26–Taking vows with sacrifices and all like Paul did at the Temple to prove that he never intended to be interpreted as saying Jewish believers had to turn against the customs of Moses, give up circumcision, etc.
Also, the only Bible of the earliest church for at least four generations was Genesis-Malachi. It is a real challenge to our thinking to think about being New Testament Christians with nothing but an Old Testament to study, teach from and carry to church. But that was real New Testament Christianity.
The passages in Col. 3 and Eph. 5 state that we should sing. I still say that to use the instrument is to bring us back to the shadows and types fo the Old Testament. The reality is found in Jesus Christ. In Colossea they were being assaulted by a heresy that included Jewish legalism , binding the law to the life of Christians saved by grace.
The introduction of the instrument is what is causing the division. We can reach out to a lost world without bringing in the instrument. Teach the gospel . Worship in such a way to emphasize the freedom we have in Christ without the shadow of the law lingering to hamper our growth in Jesus.
Good point, Keith, about the early church not having the NT. Jesus used the OT to explain Himself in Luke 24-”And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
When God opens our eyes to see Him in the scriptures, it is an awesome thing: “And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” Luke 24:32
As you mentioned in Acts and other places in the NT, the early church obviously had many Jewish influences, customs and traditions. In a way, the church was in its infancy gradually growing as the Lord was being formed in them. Gal 4:19-My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you”
But Paul was leading them out of this into the freedom of Christ.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Many things did indeed change with the cross which would be another interesting blog more interesting to me than arguing about instruments. But, alas, here we are stuck in the blog of instruments. How do we get out of this blog? I guess I could stop writing comments. But I am still impressed with your Psalm 150 and how singing Pslams are part of the NT worship. And, at what point in history did it become a sin to worship with instruments? I guess God enjoyed being worshipped with instruments until Pentecost, when the body/church was formed.
And, Ray, I do agree that the Colosians were being assulted with Jewish legalism. Legalism was every where and a real enemy of the gospel. Paul even said we could nulify the cross with legalism. I am not sure I see the instrument as being legalism, though or the instrument being linked to the law. I do agree we should not bring in instruments just to reach a lost world. Jesus and His gospel will reach the lost. The shadow cast, as you mentioned, is the shadow of the law. If Paul encouraged us to sing Psalms to each other and as Keith noted, Psalm 150 if full of instrumentramental praise, not sure Paul would have wanted us to praise under the law. Freedom in Christ is being able to praise however the Spirit leads.
To me, this issue of instruments or no instruments is up to each church, the congreation and leaders as they prayerfully study the scriptures and seek God with an open mind. One church may decide that instruments are okay but we prefer not to use them, we have the freedom to worship without them.
When we make doctrine out of not using instruments we are getting close to being legalistic the same way the Galatians said you had to be circumcised to be saved. If we are saying you are not saved if you worship with instruments, then bingo, we have legalism. This is in effect saying, not worshipping with instruments saves us. But, we know only Jesus saves us, there is nothing we can add to improve on what He did on the cross.
Since when do we cater to what people like and disregard what God says? The only time I saw any reference to instruments with regard to worship of any kind, was in the old tesatment with DAvid. And since David has no heaven or hell to put me in I think I will decline in doing what he did..God’s word does not need gimmicks to get the point across, you either get it or you need to pray more.. It seems to me like a strong delusion has been sent.. If you want it bad enough you’ll believe anything…Please reconsider Richland Hills and pray for a discerning spirit…..
INSTRUMENTAL PRAISE
WAS ALWAYS INCLUDED
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES
AND NEVER EXCLUDED
Greek ADO always meant to “sing” with or without accompaniment.
Greek PSALLO always meant to either “praise with instruments” or “ praise with accompanied singing.”
OUR HEARTS must be the source (not the agent or instrument) of all our praise to the Father whether we are praising Him with ADO or PSALLO.
Ephesians 5:18-21 In Ten Translations
Amplified: 18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but ever be filled and stimulated with the (Holy) Spirit. 19And speak out to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, offering praise with voices [and instruments], and making melody with all your heart to the lord, 20At all times and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father. 21Be subject to one another out of reverence or Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One.
American Standard Version: 18And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit; 19 speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20 giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; 21 subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.
Authorized Version (KJV): And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
English Standard Version: 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
New American Standard: 18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; 21and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
New Century: 18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; 21and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
New International: 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
New King James Version: And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God.
New Revised Standard: 18 Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, 20 giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Young’s Literal Translation: 18 and be not drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness, but be filled in the Spirit, 19 speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the God and Father.
Brad- I have to agree with your earlier post.. SIning has never been an issue. WIth that said, Let’s just sing. Worhip is not for entertainment. It is just that.. WORSHIP…. from what I know about my GOD, he is not interested in satisfying what makes you feel good. So instead of the after worship conversation being, “that message touched my soul” we will then hear, “He sure can play that piano”.. The focus is now lost.. I agree, everyone has their own opinion and have a right not to be looked down upon by man.. But as for me and my house and the Saints at 15th STreet in Pompano Beach, Florida, We will do what the word says. If it doesn’t mention it, we won’t either…
I agree that it finallycomes back to local autonomy and it will have to be an individual decision. I do not think that discusions like this , even docrinal discussions are any form of legalism. Doctrine / teaching is vital to our understanding of scriptures . It is essential to understand the nature of New Testament worship. My personal conviction is that psallo does not include an instrument and it would be a violation of worship in the new covenant of grace and freedom in Christ.
Another personal observation : The issue of the instrument is not what I emphasize in my preaching and in evangelistic outreach. Preach the gospel and the response to the good news. Also, I have not experienced in my lifetime the music issue as being a major concern for Christians but it is a part of the discussion and learning of the scriptures.
Thanks for the discussion.
Keith,
I’ve got to ask you this question then. Did the early church and the church fathers get it all wrong then by singing without instruments? Did they not understand the Holy Spirit’s intention? Wouldn’t Paul, or for that matter any of the apostles , have corrected the church’s they attended if they misshandled the truth? My Strong’s concordence defines ADO as sing, it doesn’t add with or without accompaniment. Could it be that since Paul used the word ADONTES in Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 that for almost 1000 years (and later for Thomas Aquinas and even later for most protestent) the church carried out this imperative( sing) to the best of they’re understanding?
This is the definition I get when I look up the word PSALLO:
1) a striking, twanging
a) of a striking the chords of a musical instrument
b) of a pious song, a psalm
Psallo is used in Eph 5:19. Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
I have to admit I have not spent a lot of time studying this topic and have been prompted by this blog to dig a little deeper, trying to stay open and learn. Keith and others have been the prompters.
Much ado (excuse the pun) has been made about the silence thing, where the bible does not speak and so on. This scripture and the definition of the word Psallo does not sound very silent to me. Maybe there is another dictionary that can counter this definition but it kind of sings out “instruments”.
I agree, Ray, having this discussion is not legalism or legalistic. It is good to dig, study and share opinions, even if they differ. And, I respect your perspective. I bring up the term legalism because I think it might apply, in some situations, to the issue of instrumental worship. Every church is different so I am not saying it fits everyone or church that does not allow instruments.
What is legalism? I think any scripture, from the OT or NT can be made into legalism. From Gal 2:16:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
When we take a scripture and use or miuse it in such a way that we depend on that scripture for our justification, it becomes legalism. As I said and do not want to be misunderstood, but probably will be, each church and person is different. Some churches have misused the issue of non-instrumental worship in such a way that salvation is dependent on persons not worshipping with instruments. In other words, we earn our way into heaven by not worshipping with instruments. But, Paul said in the above scripture that we are not justified by the law, by keeping any law or any doctrine. We are justified by faith in Christ.
I know there are many C of Cs that keep this in balance and have not made a legalistic issue out of instruments. But, historically, this doctrine has been misused and has been a source of great division. Any time a scripture or doctrine is used to exclude rather than include, it is divisive. It is the same as if many C of Cs have had a sign above their front door saying, “We do not worship with instruments. If you do not agree with this doctrine, stay out”. Some may say, no way, everyone is welcome here. Yes, until their differing beliefs are brought to the surface and they soon find out those beliefs of using instruments are not welcome.
Look at the splits that have taken place over this issue. I am not even trying to make an argument for instruments with these thoughts. When a teaching, belief or doctrine becomes a source of such division, something is deeply wrong. Look at the fruit.
If people have strong feelings about no instruments, that is fine. It is when those feelings get so strong they judge other brothers who worship freely with instruments. I am a brother with another believer because we have both been born again and Christ lives in us. I am not a brother because we both believe in non-instrumental worship. Our common ground is by birth not by how we worship.
What should it say above the church door? Believers and non-believers are welcome here. Of course it does not do any good to have a sign like this if the congregation does not really believe it.
Even though I see some of these scriptures differently than many of the comments made in this blog and think it is okay to worship with instruments, I respect those that feel strongly the other way and feel like we are still of the same family, we belong to one body with Jesus as our head.
Mitch:
I need to clarify. ADO always meant and means “to sing” but it is still ADO even if accompanied. PSALLO always meant and means “to praise with instruments” or “to sing with instrumental accompaniment.”
The Ephesian passage calls for both believers to both ADO AND PSALLO. Paul was not commanding us to “SING AND SING.”
I sincerely believe the earliest church did worship with instruments. In Acts 2 if they were worshipping with their neighbors daily in the Temple courts and winning the favor of the people and many were coming to Christ from the non-Christian Jewish commuity, they were praising with instruments as was the case of Temple worship.
Reading Revelation 5 and seeing a parabolic picture of the gathered church with Jesus on the throne and the elders leading the worshippers with harps in hand certainly does not lead one to the conclusion that even the last writer of the New Testament was outlawing instrumental praise. That passage is a picture of the “church age” and not eternity after time ends because Jesus is still on the throne there and is addressed as the one who WAS, and IS, and IS TO COME.
Many of the early Christians had to worship in private and did not want to draw attention to themselves or their gatherings because of severe persecution so probably much of their praise was pretty quiet.
Early church history does not provide evidence that it was a universal view among the first centuries of the church to reject instrumental music on conscientious or scriptural grounds.
Ony Scriptural arguments are valid. Historical arguments are of no real value. Historically, the earliest churches did not have million dollar facilities but met in homes, had no communion sets, pulpits, pews, speaker systems, offerings dedicated to real estate, paid preachers to “edify the church” while elders met in board rooms. Historical innovations are neither right nor wrong except as they help or hinder our obedience to the will of God.
Psallo as used in the New Testament was never used to mean to sing with an instrument. It was used to mean to sing a spiritual song.
Brother Ray:
With all due respect, my 40 plus years of research in the biblical languages has not come up with one reputable piece of scholarship to suggest even a hint of PSALLO’s usage without an instrument. I would be happy to share some of the linguistic studies with you. ADO means “sing” with or without an instrument but not PSALLO.
I would like to ask someone about this silence thing: We will speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent. Where did this come from? Who thought of this? Is this saying from the scriptures? If so, which scripture?
If there is no scripture to back this up then why is so much doctrine based on something with no scripture as a foundation? Is this a nice little slogan with no scriptural foundation?
“You sold me on the PSALLO thing, Keith. Now, maybe you can help me understand the scriptural foundation for the silence thing. By the way, I liked the last paragraph in your comment before last:
Ony Scriptural arguments are valid. Historical arguments are of no real value. Historically, the earliest churches did not have million dollar facilities but met in homes, had no communion sets, pulpits, pews, speaker systems, offerings dedicated to real estate, paid preachers to “edify the church” while elders met in board rooms. Historical innovations are neither right nor wrong except as they help or hinder our obedience to the will of God.”
I have a feeling you may have some issues with the paid preacher concept but we can save that for a later blog discussion. For now, what is the scripture to support this so, C of C slogan?
With regards to the “We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent,” that is a slogan from the founders of our denomination (I mean movement). It was either from the Thomas or Alexander Campbell or Barton W. Stone. It is based upon several passages of Scripture (Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverb 30:6; Revelation 22:18) that warn believers not to dare add to the text of God’s revealed word. God revealed word is truth (when properly interpreted) and we have no right to add more revelations or more commandments to what is already in the text.
We dare not give place to add the unwritten commandment or creed which essential states, “Thou shalt not add instrumental praise (which Scriptures commanded and never condemned) or you will be condemned because WE have decided that only a cappella praise is acceptable this side of the cross!”
That is a real violation of the “silence” commitment. I have no real problem (in fact I support) the principle of preaching the word straight but when the Scriptures stop, we leave the rest for the conscience of individual believers to work out. That is what Romans 14:1-15:6 is all about.
I have no problem with “paid local preachers” in fact I was one for 29 years. I do have real problems making that person a “hireling” of the Elders/Pastors/Shepherds whom they can hire and fire at will. I believe such servants should do the kind of work that was given to Timothy and Titus, along with the authority to play a central role in the teaching, selection, ordaining and disciplining of other Elders as those men were given. I do not believe in a “one-man Pastor-system” even if we call him a capital “M” Minister. I do believe he should be one of the Elders/Pastors/Shepherds of the congregation. This is especially true since we hire him to do the “culturally defined work” normally given to denominational Pastors but just do not give him the authority which goes with the office. Remember Timothy was told that Elder/Pastors/Shepherds, who labor especially in teaching,(1 Timothy 5:17-20) are to be given double honor which in context is a salary so they can serve fulltime.
I enjoy serving as a teaching Elder/Pastor/Shepherd without needing to be on payroll but serve in the shepherding role with two men who are fulltime staff Elders/Pastors/Shepherds.
Kieth,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree because all my years of the same kind of research convinces me of the convictions I have on the issue.
Ray,
I really would welcome your directing me to any sources which suggest PSALLO (up through the First Century) ever meant anything other than “to praise with instruments, or where it ever meant “to sing” without instruments.
The most common C of C response in the past twenty years has been that PSALLO really does mean “to praise with an instrument” but the instrument (which accompanies our singing) is our hearts.
This attempts to make a figurative (rather than literal) application of PSALLO. This all began with one of the debates in the first half of the Twentieth Century.
The breakdown (in my judgment) on interpretation, given in the above paragraph, is that the Ephesians 5:19 passage uses “in/by/with the heart” to modify both ADO (sing) and PSALLO (make music). In my judgment, if the “heart” is the instrument of PSALLO and therefore mechanical instruments must remain silent, then the “heart” is also the instrument of ADO and therfore the human voice must also remain silent. This especially is accented with the Colossians 3:15-16 passage where only ADO is used but in the text “in/by/with the heart” is cited twice.
The reformer, Zwingley, took the position that all praise to God must be left in the heart and not expressed with either the voice or instruments. Praise time in the Zurich church was a time of quiet meditation like we might expect in a Quaker meeting. Zwingley was consistent. Sometimes we are not.
If you wanted to share an email address, I would be glad to pass on to you some of the lengthy research results I have accumulated.
Let me say this though that neither your salvation or mine depends on getting these passages perfectly interpreted. Our salvation was completely bought and paid for at the Cross. Our praise (whether silent, with singing or with other music) must always be first and foremost a full expression of gratitude to our Father who planned the grand scheme of salvation, to Jesus Son of God who died on the Cross to set us free from all sin, and to the Holy Spirit who has drawn us to faith in the Cross for our salvation.
In another context a spiritual principle was stated which seems very relevant to our worship controversies, “Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart.”
Kieth,
It is not a metaphorical or symbolic argument to me or the silence issue that always seems to surface. It just appears that the teaching is to sing for the purpose of praise to God and to edify one another. I cannot understand how the instrument can help to praise or edify. As to when this all became a practice in the early church it would be hard to say. There was a lot of transition in the early church. My greatest concern is the direction this will take us. It seems like there is a determination by some to go in an ecumenical direction. Then there will be damage to the distintive nature of the church for many generations. And then we could become engaged in salvation issues.
We can go on for a long time and even exchange resources but our individual research has brought us to different convictions . Like it has already been said this is not the core issue. It has been an interesting discussion.
Keith,
Paul, in Eph 5:19, named the instrument to be used to accompany the singing. He also names the instruments to be used to accompany singing in 1 Cor 14:15(mind and spirit).
In you response to Ray:
” my 40 plus years of research in the biblical languages has not come up with one reputable piece of scholarship to suggest even a hint of PSALLO’s usage without an instrument.”
Look at Thayer’s Lexicon. There is a statement where he states that in the New Testament psallo meant to sing praise and celebrate…
In “Lexicon of Greek during the Roman and Byzantine periods” EA Sophecles defines psallo as chanting or singing a religious hymn.
As far as worship in the temple I believe Alfred Edershiem depicts a differnt picture. The congregation did not do any singing only the Levitical chorus, the congregation is prostrate on the ground in worship.
Did your research find any writings affirming instrumental music in worship? Of course, all references that I have found have spoken negatively of the instrument in worship.
Your basis for excluding a histrorical perspective is illogical but understandable given that most early church documents I’ve read don’t support your view. So I would then assume from your statement, that the hisorical is of little value, that you don’t consult commentaries then for further elaboration of biblical precepts , and from what you said you consider the works of Justin Martyr, Origin, Iraneaus, and others of little value as well.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it Keith.
Mitch,
Thank you and diito. My research has brought me to the same conclusions. I cannot see from scripture, history, theology and the biblical doctrine of worship in the New Testament for the inclusion of the instrument.
Brother Ray,
Thank you for the compliment and thank you for standing up for the old path.
Yes, brother Ray, you did a good job of standing up for the old path. You too Mitch, you came in there at the last minute and saved the game with a Lexicon touchdown. Who would have thought… The old path was on the ropes but Mitch strikes em out with the ole Thayer’s Lexicon curve ball. Long live the old path! As the scripture says, greater love hath no man than he that can lay his life down for the old path. Yep, you veer off that old path too far and it is a slipery slope towards who knows what, heaven forbid, maybe unity with the new path brothers. But, hey, this is why we learn all that Lexicon stuff, spend the big bucks on the degrees. It is a tough job but someone has to defend the old path, keep the sheep in the old path fold, protect them from the new path wolves.
You guys made me proud. I am glad I stuck with this marathon blog. It has been a real eye opener.
Thanks for the ridicule, Herb. To me the old path is the path which Jesus walked and which we are called to walk as well( 1 John 2:6).
From what I understand then in order to have unity with you Herb, Ray and I must surrender our convictions. One thing that I’ve read over and over again here which is instrumental worship is a personal preference. We believe that God prefers praise with the voice( look at Heb 13:15). It’s not about our personal preference.
There were many things shed from the Old Covenant in bringing in the New, incense, circumcision of the flesh, and in my humble opinion instruments…etc, but Herb I’m confident that you and I stand together in saying that the most important thing shed in the Old Covenant was the blood of Christ for our forgiveness. Upon that premise I’m honored to call you my brother.
Mitch,
Unity with Herb or others is not surrendering your convictions. You say you are defending the old path, standing up for the old path and the old path is the path Jesus walked. So, you are in essence saying you are walking the path of Jesus and I am not or those accepting instrumental worship are not walking the path of Jesus. What are the implications for not walking the path of Jesus? Sounds pretty ominous. Also sounds like you are more obedient to Jesus than those using instruments.
You said the Old Covenant included instrumental worship and now that we are under the New, then I must still be under the Old since I accept instrumental worship. Sounds to me like you are saying your walk is more elevated, a more obediant walk, a more righteous walk than those using instruments.
You mentioned Heb 13:15–By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.
Good example. I assume you believe the writer is saying lips only, no instruments. Yes it does say lips and does not mention instruments but it does not say “do not use instruments”. I would argue you have made a command out of what it does not say.
I am not asking you to give up your convictions about this. I can see how you have come to your conclusions. I accept you as a brother with those conclusions. I do not think you are an inferior Christian because of your conclusions.
We are always going to have disagreements over the scriptures. We are always learning as the Spirit leads us into all truth. Having disagreements can be a way of learning, causing us to press in, study more, seek a closer walk with Him. But when disagreements divide the body, we are soon cut off from each other.
I apologize for my sarcasm, Mitch. I get exasperated at these arguments because I believe they are superficial arguments. I think there is much more going on under the surface of this issue and many other controversial issues in the universal church. There are many deeper spiritual dynamics going on beneath the instrumental stuff.
I really am not that interested in arguing over instruments because I do not believe we are going to accomplish anything. When we approach a topic in the bible with an open mind, willing to let the Lord teach us and willing to discuss the issue in love with our brothers and sisters then He can lead us into deeper truths. When we approach something to prove others are wrong, arguments will ensue and very little learning takes place. Most of these comments, mine included, have been with this attitude.
I have learned a lot about why you and others believe the way you do. I do not sense you are one of the people that believe I am living in sin because I can worship with instruments, at least I hope you do not believe this. As I have said a bunch of times, and you said the same thing, we are brothers because of our new birth in Him, not because we both sing with our lips only. If we can agree on this, man, we have made a lot of progress. We start the discussion believing we are related no matter what we believe about instruments. Then, we go from there. You do not have to give up your convictions for us to be related. It is when we stop seeing each other as brothers that the division starts.
I told myself my previous comment was it. I am checking out. But, you brought me back for one more comment. I am looking forward to Kieth’s response but maybe he is gone for the holidays or maybe he has a life. Just kidding. Merry Christmas.
The old saying if it is not broke, don’t fix it holds true here. Your congregation has grown to where it is now without instrumental music, so what are you saying God can not continue to do what He said that He was going to do? God does not need your help to grow His church. He wants us to plant the seed and then He will make the increase. Who are you to say that adding instrumental music will allow you to reach more people. Maybe those people do not want to be reached, they are not looking for God’s church, they are looking for something to make them feel good. You have churches that cater to hip hop, gays, lesbians, etc. and all they have to do is find the one that caters to their life style and then it’s all good, you are not at Burger Kings, you can’t have it your way in God’s church. Do you think that God will bless your efforts if you are not doing it the way that He says it should be done? God has always been a God of order, He has always been specific about what He wants (example: Noah and the ark, God told Noah specifically what kind of wood to use, how high to build it, how many windows, what to bring on the ark etc). The whole doctrine of the Church of Christ is based on the Bible which includes the 5 steps of salvation which are Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess and to be Baptized, why do we make things difficult that are not? What makes the Church of Christ any different than these other churches if we do not stand out and do what God in His Word has told us to do, the Bible says that we are a peculiar people. Why are you allowing satan to penetrate your worship?
In regards to what Herb said, I am saying that if you are using instrumental music in your worship that it is wrong. If you are going to take from the Old Testament the part of using instrumental music in your worship then you have to take all of it, do you have burnt offerings in your worship, do you go to Jerusalem? You can’t decide what you are going to do in God’s house. That is like going over to someone’s house and they have a christmas tree and you go and take it down because you don’t like it. I am seeing more and more every day how the Bible and it’s prophecies are coming true. DON’T YOU SEE IT??!! Everybody wants the church to be what they want but guess what?? it is not your church it is God’s and until everyone realizes what God’s Word says and adheres to it you will be lost. I am not being judgemental I am saying the facts. I can’t sugar coat the truth, either you believe it or you don’t, that is up to you.
Let me make a correction, the whole doctrine of the Church of Christ is based on the New Testament. When Jesus died on the cross, those things in the Old Testament were superceeded. The Old Testament is there for our learning, it is there so that we can learn from what they went through. I thank God that Jesus died on the cross because if He had not then I would have been dead a long time ago. It is because of the blood of Jesus Christ that we can go to God and ask for forgiveness. Thank God for grace and mercy.
Thanks Beasly for not sugar coating the truth, for not being judgemental and telling me I am wrong and lost. Excuse me while I fall on my face and repent. There, that felt good. I am never going to read the Old Testament again, never going to look at or listen to an instrument and am going right now to throw away my altar sacraficed meat I have been keeping in the garage freezer.
Whoops, there I go again with the sarcasm.
Sarcasm aside, Beasly. You mentioned that I am still under the Old Testament law if I worship with instruments. I would say just the opposite. It sounds to me as if you have created an Old Testament type law with non-instrumental worship.
How did I get there? You are saying I am lost and under God’s judgement if I worship with instruments. Or, another way of saying the same thing, I can avoid God’s judgement, win His approval and gain salvation if I do not worship with instruments.
But wait, the only way to salvation is through the cross, through His blood. So, in essence you have added something to the cross. It is the cross plus no instruments that gain salvation. What you are saying is: God, you did not do a good enough job by offering your Son. I need to add to what you have done and include no instruments as a condition for salvation.
If I am lost and under God’s judgement I guess you do not consider me your brother. This makes me sad. If you have been born again, I consider you my brother. This teaching has divided us. The only way we can be brothers is if I denounce instruments? What is wrong with this picture?
Brethern…I have read only a few of the comments so far, but I feel compelled to make a comment about the instrumental controversy, brother Leroy’s letter and my experience in this arena.
In 1946, I was baptisd in a muddy lake in the Midwest by an Instrumental church of Christ Minister. At that point I didn’t even know that a church of Christ existed that did not use an instrument. That was not an issue talked about at the time. We were to busy preaching against denomenational churches. (another issue that has been approached incorrectly, in my opinion) When I came to Califonia, we started attending the local church which was non-instumental.
Over the years I have attended worship in instrumental churches, if my situation required it, and do not feel that I have sinned in doing so. I have to say that we of the non-instrumental persuation are not the only ones that have preached that it is a sin to worship other than the way we do.
A few years ago, because of the circumstances, I attended a Worship Service at an Instumental church of Christ, enjoyed the service and went home. I later received a letter thanking me for attending, then it went on to give a short sermon on why I was going to hell for worshiping without the instrument. I was shocked! I didn’t know that those in Instrumental Churches felt that way. I wrote back and said that in my opinion, neither of us was going to hell because of our style of worship, but the opinions that we held of each other could put us there.
I believe that our brother Leroy has done a marvelous job of stating what our position should be. I do not want go see us abandon what most likely one of the most beautiful parts of our tradition, but if another church wants to incorporate the instrument, I can still fellowship them. And Do!! One of my best friends is Victor Knowles who, before it became a popular thing to do, championed the call to abandon this controversy and embrace each other in love.
I have been an elder in the church for 32 years and have wrestle with many changes that includes our worship style. I am still not comfortable with including Instrumental Worship in my congregation. Again I can’t make that judgment for others, another of our great traditions is our autonomy.
I want to offer some perspective from someone who was not raised COC but rather Assemblies of God. I was raised in a very conservative Christian environment. I traveled with my family all over the Southeast as a young man singing gospel music…even in Churches of Christ. When we sanf ata COC, out of rspect for their beliefs we left our instruments at home. It was not an issue. I attended a AofG seminary and was in full time ministry for 22 years as an associate minister with music emphasis (Interpreted I was a Minister of Music) I have witnessed thousands of lives changed by the Power of God with and without instruments. Fast forward 30 years. I married a COC girl and started attending her local COC. With my Charismatic A of G background I directed an A Capella chorus in that church for 3 years. My wife;s staunch COC parents have not spoken to here nor their grandsons in 5+ years now because of my background and their uninformed and judgemental views of my divorce after 24 years of previous marriage. It grieves my heart that many that would otherwise liley come to Christ and claim Him as Lord and Savior want NOTHING to do with this “form” of Christianity. I hear so many in the traditional COC hide behind their “traditions” as blame them on New Testament “Truth” Brothers…and I do mean Brothers, there is plenty in the New Testament that condemns the bickering and quarreling I see occuring among so many of you. The last time I checked the New Testmant, those with unbrodled tongues that cause dissention, quarrel and backbite have the same place in eternity as adulterers, liars and thiefs. If you are genuinely concerned about the souls of those of us you view as being headed for hell, then where are the tears of mourning that should accompany the pain and sorrow of anyone that is lost. Quite candidly, I have seen none. I have seen hatred and bitterness and families no longer speaking to each other. Jesus cannot identify with individuals naming Him as Lord and acting out such vile spewing which He declares is contrary to those who follow Him. My spirit is very grieved for you, not angry in any way. I leave you with this to ponder. Under my wife’s aprents belief system as traditional COC people, their grandsons, while they may not care for it, can be okay playing an instrument in a Rock band that has no association with Christ as all (as long as they have been baptized), BUT if they are baptized and love jesus with all of their heart and are talented with playing a musical instrument (Which that talent is given by God as well) and decide to use that talent for God’s Glory and play in a church group, they are doomed for hell. This is exactly what has happened in my family. I urge you to show me where in the New Testament jesus commands any of us to turn our backs on our family or any sinner due to belief differences or for that matter anyone living in obvious sin. Brothers, it is NOT in the scriptures anywhere. I admonish each of us to open our eyes, hearts and minds and allow God to be God. I close with Jesus’ words to us in John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Sorry for all of the typos. I hit submit before I could check my spelling. I believe you can understand what I tried to say. My prayer is that God would cause such an overwhelming conviction of love toward each other that we are genuinely more concerned for lost souls than we are about instruments in a church. I obviously cannot speak for our Lord but I can only imagine how grieved He must be seeing His children behaving so poorly. I often wonder how many souls actually WILL die and go to hell from the behavior they have seen within “the church” and by those who call Jesus Lord and Savior.
Hi Herb,
If you’re still out there. Thanks for your reply. Yeah I realize now when I engage the brain that old path probably wasn’t the right cliche. Bad choice of words.
I’m not saying I’m more righteous, obedient, or more elevated. I guess I’m saying why can’t we just let the New Testament guide our worship in the assembly? In your response to Heb 13:15 I guess I would humbly ask you to accept what the writer said not more than he said. Both Paul and John tell us not to go “beyond what is written”.
It may suprise you that I grew up in the Christian Church with instruments, of course. My best friend is a Christian Church minister. My position on instruments began to change during a radio program about 22 years ago where the Church of Christ was being ridiculed for their stance on instruments so I decided to check it out more for myself and came to the conclusion that maybe I was taking too much for granted.
But anyway enough digressing.
Hope your Christmas was great! (Another CoC bugaboo)
God Bless
Thanks for your response, Mitch. Funny, even though we do not agree on the instrument stuff, I feel like we have made progress. If you can fellowship with a Christian Church minister then you are not all that bad. Just kidding. I am glad to hear you have the freedom to be friends with this minister.
As I touched upon in my last comment, my issue with this whole thing runs a little deeper. Even though doctrines are usually biblically based, they tend to exclude those that disagree, they separate the body because of the way they are used or misused.
When a doctrine divides brother against brother, then something is wrong. Look at how many denominations we have. Look at how many splits in the CoC we have. I really do not believe Christ had this in mind when He established His church. The hand is separated from the arm, the foot is over in another church not talking to the leg. What separates us? Doctrine. Most doctrine is good, from the scriptures. It is the way it is misused that cuts up, mutilates the body.
This has been going on for hundreds of years. Not much you and I can do about it except one thing. We can avoid letting the doctrine of instrumental music separate us, right?
Thanks for your touching story, Mike. Sounds like you have learned first hand how much damage we can do to each other in the name of doctrine. The world will know we are of Him through our love, not through how we do this or that but through our love for each other. Well said.
” We can avoid letting the doctrine of instrumental music separate us, right?”
That’s right Herb.
“When a doctrine divides brother against brother, then something is wrong. Look at how many denominations we have. Look at how many splits in the CoC we have. I really do not believe Christ had this in mind when He established His church. The hand is separated from the arm, the foot is over in another church not talking to the leg. What separates us? Doctrine. Most doctrine is good, from the scriptures. It is the way it is misused that cuts up, mutilates the body.”
The divisions in the CoC brings to mind shopping for grits. I can have regular, instant, quick, butter flavored, and many other flavors. Too bad the church wasn’t meant to be a shopping expedition for whatever tickled my fancy. Christ sure didn’t have this in mind, only we could think this up and call it good.
I wonder if it might be somewhat theraputic if everybody would be willing to shout out one big “It’s not about me”.
Take care and God bless
Seems like we are the only people left on the blog, Mitch. Since these comments go from top to bottom, I guess that makes us the bottom dwellers. We will have to get our comments in at the top next time.
I like your shopping analogy. One more thought about doctrine. I have been trying to get to this all along and your comments have helped me get here.
Not only can doctrine be misused and divide the body, it also has a tendency to morph into a NT type law, similar to the OT law. We are no longer under the law but we have created new laws and put ourselves right back under law.
Most of these laws (legalism) that have crept back into the church have their genesis from our doctrines. How do we know when doctrine morphs into law? We thought we could please God by keeping His laws. We thought we could earn righteousness and justification. But we read in Gal that no man can be saved by law or be made righteous by keeping the law.
When we start relying on our doctrine for justification, feeling righteous because we have kept our doctrine then it has probably become a law. And, when we judge others for not keeping this doctrine, we are getting into legalism. There is only one way to salvation and righteousness: the cross.
I could go on about this but I think you probably agree. I am not so much concerned about the argument for or against instrumental music as I am about this issue becoming a dividing doctrine, a legalistic doctrine. When Christians are condemned for believing one way or the other then it has become legalism.
Each heart and each church are different. Some have let this issue become law judging those that do not agree. Others have kept it in balance accepting believers no matter what position they take on instruments.
One last point: I think the amount of legalism or lack thereof is in direct proportion to the freedom of the Spirit allowed in a body of believers. In other words, if you find a church that is encouraged to walk in the Spirit, enjoy the freedom of the Spirit, you will find less legalism. I am not talking about charasmatics, penecostals, but biblical freedom of the Spirit where His children are led by the Spirit.
From one bottom dweller to another, have a happy New Year.
Brothers:
Back from holiday travels.
KNOWING, BEYOND ALL QUESTION,
WHAT MUSICAL PRAISE IS CALLED FOR IN PAUL’S WRITINGS
IS A MATTER ABOUT WHICH MEN OF CAREFUL STUDY
AND GOOD CONSCIENCE HAVE DRAWN DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS
Personal note: Personally, my parents were baptized in an a cappella Church of Christ when I was 7 years old in 1947. I was baptized at age 12. I preached for 29 years for Churches of Christ. I served as an elder (in two different congregations) for a total of 22 years. Two years ago a few of us established a non-denominational congregation. In addition to many conversions, many from both a cappella and instrumental Restoration Movement Churches have joined us. Our allegience must be only to Jesus and the word and we dare not equate any denomination (by whatever brand name) or historic movement as being the sum total of the body of Christ. That faulty equasion is the real essence of sectarianism.
The central question for understanding the meaning of psallo/psallein in the New Testament writings hinges on our understanding of the evolution of the meaning of these Greek words; they went through this chain of evolution in their change of meaning over centuries:
1. Snap a carpenter’s chalk line (Prior to time of the Psalms of David)
2. Play a stringed instrument (Prior to time of the Psalms of David)
3. Play any musical instrument, stringed or wind (Prior to time of the
Psalms of David)
4. Sing with the accompaniment of a musical instrument (Prior to the
time of LXX Greek translation of O.T.)
5. Sing without the accompaniment of a musical instrument (No clear
evidence of this meaning before 444 A.D.)
That which follows is a summary of the research done and conclusions drawn by some members of our Restoration Heritage who conscientiously believe that the New Testament scriptures authorize instrumental accompaniment to songs of praise in the church.
I. The central dispute, related to the use or non-use of instrumental music in church, focuses on the definitions of the Greek noun, psalmos (psalm) in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, and the Greek verb, psallo/psallein (to make music/making music) as found in Ephesians 5:19:
A. Without controversy, for centuries the psalmos (psalms) were originally prepared to be “praises to the Lord presented with both singing and instrumental accompaniment” and psallo/psallein (to make music/making music) originally meant “to sing praises to the Lord with instrumental accompaniment.”
B. One position is that the definition of psallo/psallein (to make music/making music) changed, shortly BEFORE the New Testament period and came to mean “making vocal music only, exclusive of instrumental accompaniment.” The A CAPPELLA position insists that stage number 5, in the word’s evolutionary chain, occurred prior to the first century and the writings of the New Testament Scriptures.
C. Another position is that the definition of psallo/psallein (to make music/making music) remained basically unchanged during the New Testament period and its meaning remained basically as it had been in the Septuagint “to sing praises to the Lord with instrumental accompaniment.” The change of meaning was in the Middle Ages and part of the advent of the Modern Greek Language. The INSTRUMENTAL position insists that stage number 5, in the word’s evolutionary chain, occurred much later in the history of Christianity as supported by contemporary usage in different centuries.
II. Consider the question of music in the New Testament as discussed by ENGLISH lexicographers, “Since instrumental music was so much in the history of the word psalm, as is evidenced by your tracing it to the Greek psalmos, did you mean to define the English word psalm as praises to the Lord offered by singing “only,” to the exclusion of instrumental accompaniment.?”
A. “We certainly know of no evidence to suggest that the word psalm in English was ever intended to exclude the idea of instrumental accompaniment.” F. Stuart Crawford, G. & C. MIRRIAM COMPANY, 04/27/62)
B. “The Greek word psalmos means literally the plucking of a string… It refers to the plucking of a lyre string and hence to the sound produced by such an instrument… There is no evidence that pagan Greeks ever used the word (psalm) ever used the word for a vocal composition.” (F. Stuart Crawford, G. & C. MERRIAM COMPANY, 03/07/62)
C. “The Greek very psallein, from which our psalm ultimately derives, means in its basic sense ‘to twitch or pluck.’ From this it came to mean ‘to play (a stringed instrument) with the fingers rather than a plectron.’ Still later it acquired the meaning ‘to sing to the accompaniment of a harp.’ This meaning of psallein was already well established by the third century B.C., for it appears in the Septuagint. It also appears in parts of the New Testament whose authorship dates to the latter half of the first century A.D.” (David B. Guralnik, Dictionary Editor, THE WORLD PUBLISHING COMPANY, 04/16/62)
D. “It has only the specialized meaning (singing) in modern Greek. One might reason that the word retained its more general meaning ‘to sing with the accompaniment of a harp’ until well into the Christian era in spite of its specialized use in the Septuagint (3rd century B.C.)… It would be a safe guess, certainly, that psallein still meant ‘to sing with the accompaniment of a harp’ in the 1st century A.D.” (Robert L. Chapman, Managing Editor, FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY, INC., 04/16/62)
E. “According to many of the citations of usage in The Oxford English Dictionary, it would appear that throughout the history of the word, it has been used in connection with singing and musical instruments. (Note: one historical reference which connect it with the singing and musical instruments was written thirty-eight years after the King James Translation, 17th Century)” (Sandra Miller, Dictionary Department, THORNDIKE-BARNHARDT DICTIONARY, 1962)
F. “Another sense may be derived from the Septuagint and the New Testament–’to sing with a harp or cithara.” (Laurence Urdang, THE AMERICAN COLLEGE DICTIONARY, RANDOM HOUSE, INC., 04/19/62)
III. Consider the question of music in the New Testament as discussed by GREEK Lexicographers, “What did Paul mean when he used the verbs adontes (to sing), psallo (to make music) and psallontes (making music) and the nouns psalmos (psalm), hymnos (hymn) and ode (song)?”
A. “(The meaning of psallo is) to sing to the music of the harp; in the New Testament to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song [James 5:13, Ephesians 5:19, Romans 15:9, 1 Corinthians 14:15].” (Grimm & Wilke, translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1886, p. 675).
B. Thayer concluded Grimm’s discussion of psalmos by saying, “Syn, see hymnos, fin. [fin. Mensa, or near the end].” (Grimm & Wilke, translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1886, p. 675)
C. “While the idea of psalmos is a musical accompaniment; and that of hymnos praise to God, ode is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject… The words occur together in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19.” (Grimm & Wilke, translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1886, p. 637).
D. “Psallo, as a verb, literally means to twang or strike strings of a musical instrument like a harp or lyre. Originally in (a) Paganism and (b) Hebrew Greek, like the LXX Version of the Old Testament, used for (1) song of praise to the gods or God, (2) with musical accompaniment as in Psalm 18:49 quoted in Romans 15:9)… There is no reason to suppose that the early Christians did not in this ordinary sense praise God aloud in a song set to a musical instrument… I think this statement by Professor Moffatt expresses the general judgment of our Committee. Ephesians 5:19 does not refer to a silent inward melody of the heart as might be judged from the translation in the King James Version: American Standard translators sought to clear this up by translating it: ‘making melody with your heart to the Lord.’ The Revised Standard Version has sought to make it yet clearer by translating the passage: ‘making melody to the Lord with all your heart.’” (Luther A. Weigle, Chairman, The Standard Bible Committee [R.S.V. Translators], 03/16/62)
E. “Psalmos, from psallo, properly a touching, and then a touching of the harp or other stringed instruments…, and last of all the song sung with this musical accompaniment. It is in this latest stage of its meaning that we find the word adopted in the Septuagint; and to this agree the ecclesiastical definitions of it.” (Richard C. Trench, SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1953, p. 296)
F. “…Psalmos was later (LXX., New Testament, Ephesians 5:19) a song sung to the harp.” (H.G. Liddell and G. Scott, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON, 1958, p. 2018)
G. “…Psallo, in Septuagint and New Testament ‘to sing, to chant, properly as accompanying stringed instruments; James 5:13, Ephesians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 14:15…” (Edward Robinson, GREEK AND ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1836, p. 904)
H. “Psallo, properly = ‘to play on a harp,’ but in the New Testament, as in James 5:13, = ‘sing a hymn….’ Psalmos, ‘psalm’ or ‘song,’ sung to a harp accompaniment.’” (J.H. Moulton & G.M. Milligan, VOCABULARY OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Wm. B. Eedrmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, 1959, p. 697)
I. “Psallo: (a) to play a stringed instrument with the fingers; (b) later, to sing to a harp, sing psalms (LXX); in New Testament, to sing a hymn, sing praised, James 5:13. Psalmos: ‘a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm (LXX): 1 Corinthians 14:26, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16.” (G. Abbot-Smith, A MANUAL GREEK LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Edinburgh, England, 1921, p. 487, 456)
J. “Psallo: ‘I play on the harp [or other stringed instrument].’ Psalmos: ‘a psalm, that is a song of praise to God, with an accompaniment on the harp.” (Alexander Souter, A POCKET LEXICON TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1916, p. 286)
Note: the most imminent Greek scholar, F. W. Gingrich contradicts himself and tries to explain his contradiction:
K. “Psallo: in accordance with Old Testament usage, sing to the accompaniment of a harp, sing praise [Romans 15:9 quoting Psalm 17:50, Ephesians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 14:15, James 5:13].” (W.F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 899)
L. “The verb psallo originally meant to ‘pluck’ anything, then to play a musical instrument by plucking. It is true that by New Testament times the emphasis had shifted to ‘sing,’ with or without instrumental accompaniment. The Liddell-Scott-James lexicon of Greek gives the meaning, ‘sing to a harp’ for the New Testament passages Ephesians 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 14:15. The Moulton and Milligan lexicon gives simply ‘sing’ for the New Testament. In our translation of Bauer’s lexicon, Dr. Arndt and I gave the meaning as ‘sing [to the accompaniment of a harp]; meaning that the singing could be with or without accompaniment. It seems to me that you cannot exclude the possibility of accompaniment in the New Testament passages, since psallo still means ‘play on the harp’ in Lucian, who wrote in the second century A.D.” (F.W. Gingrich, 04/29/62)
M. “In Modern Greek (KM Note: long after the word baptism was changed to include pouring and sprinkling because of the practice of the developing church in contrast to the ancient church) psallo means “sing” exclusively; cf.: singer, chanter, with no reference to instrumental accompaniment. Although the New Testament does not voice opposition to instrumental music, in view of Christian resistance to mystery cults, as well as Pharisaic aversion to musical instruments in worship, it is likely that in some sense “make melody” is best here (because it is more inclusive than rigidly imposing the very earliest meaning of “playing an instrument.” (F. W. Gingrich & Danker, A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 899)
IV. What did psallo and psalmos mean in the first century according to contemporary references? Did these terms include or exclude the use of instruments?
A. Lucian, in The Parasite, section 17, stated it was impossible to psallo without a lyre or harp, “Just as it is not possible to ride a horse without a horse, so was impossible to psalein without a lyre (KM note: Lucian wrote approximately 160 A.D.).” (Dr. Julius R., Editor, A MANUAL OF GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, 06/02/62)
B. “Josephus’ use of psallo is illustrated in Antiquities, Book VI, 9, 3; Book IX, 13, 2-3; Book XII, 323 is ‘honoring God with songs of praise and the playing of harps (KM note: Josephus lived from 27-95 A.D.).’ In Plutarch Morals IV, 334 harp players are mentioned and the instruments on which they played are mentioned also (KM note: Plutarch lived from 46-120 A.D.). Philo (born B.C. 20) stated that hymns were sung with instrumental accompaniment.” (Dr. Julius R., Editor, A MANUAL OF GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, 06/02/62)
V. Consider the question of music in the New Testament as discussed by early post-apostolic church leaders, “What is the meaning of psalmos as interpreted by the early church or how late did the earliest meaning of psalmos (instrumental praise) extend into the Christian era?”
A. “A musical composition, as when the instrument is rhythmically played according to the harmonic scale.” (LEXICON ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria, 444 A.D.)
B. Basil (A.D. 329-379) states that he had the ‘Psalms rendered by skilled presenters after the manner of the triumphal Odes of Pindar, the congregation joining with the accompaniment of lyres.” (James Orr, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, William B. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 1952, Vol. III, p. 2494) “For it is a song and not a psalm, because it is rendered with musical expression by the voice alone, without the accompaniment of the means of instrument… The psalm is a musical discourse when it is played rhythmically on the instrument with harmonic sounds.” (Basil the Great, HOMILY ON PSALM 44, A.D. 329-379)
C. “Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) distinguishes these as follows: Psalms were accompanied by instruments, the hymns were mainly vocal, and the song, ode, was a general term comprehending both. This distinction might suggest that the psalm belonged especially to the public worship of the church, while the hymn was the production, more of less spontaneous, of he individual members.” (James Orr, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, William B. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 1952, Vol. III, p. 1445) “A psalm is singing which is affected with the aid of instrumental music.” (Gregory of Nyssa, COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, died A.D. 395)
VI. Consider the question of music in the New Testament (especially the meanings of psallo and psalmos) as discussed by scholarly commentators on the New Testament?
A. “Of the various kinds of this music, the ‘psalms’ and ‘hymns’ are easily distinguished. The ‘psalm,’ as the word itself implies, is music with instrumental accompaniment… The ‘hymn’ is purely vocal music…” (Charles J. Ellicot, Chairman of English Revised Version Translators)
B. “The distinction between ‘psalm’ and ‘hymn’ appears to be that the former is a song with a musical accompaniment, and that the latter is vocal praise to God.” (Alfred Barry, COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE [Colossians 3:16], Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI., 1954, Vol. VIII, p. 50)
C. “‘Giving utterance’ is general; the next two participles specify: ‘singing and playing with your heart to the Lord.’ Singing is done by means of the voice; playing by means of an instrument. Psallo means to let a string twang and thus to play a lyre or a harp, and to play any instrument as an accompaniment to the voice. Thus the two are here combined: ‘singing and playing.’ ‘Making melody’ (our versions) will do if it is applied to instruments. But the view of some commentators that the dative indicates place: ‘in your heart,’ and that this is silent singing in the heart, is untenable. ‘Giving utterance’ does not refer to audible music, over against which the non-audible ‘in your heart’ is placed. There is no Kai before the second participle. The second and third participle define the first: all acts are audible. (R.C. Lenski, THE INTERPRETATION OF ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE GALATIANS, TO THE EPHESIANS AND TO THE PHILIPPIANS, The Wartburg Press: Columbus, OH, 1946, p. 620)
D. “Psallo: a song sung to a harp, a psalm… As regards your other question, the meaning of psalmos and psallein in Greek shows that the idea of accompaniment is included in the definition of these two words.” (Henry S. Gehman, Editor, WESTMINSTER BIBLE DICTIONARY, 04/21/62)
VII. What is the meaning of psalmos and psallo according to Biblical linguists?
A. “Psalmos: a song of praise [on an instrument].” (Robert Young, ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE TO THE BIBLE, Eerdman’s Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, 1951, p. 783)
B. “Psallo: to sing praises with a musical instrument.” (Robert Young, ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE TO THE BIBLE, Eerdman’s Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, 1951, p. 893)
C. “Psalmos: primarily denoted a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings); then a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm.” (W.E. Vine, AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, Oliphants Ltd.: London, 1953, p. 229)
D. “Humnos: denotes a song of praise addressed to God (Eng. Hymn), Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16, in each of which the punctuation should probably changed; in the former ‘speaking to one another’ goes with the other end of verse 18, and should be followed by a semi-colon; similarly in Colossians 3:16, the first part of the verse should end with the words ‘admonishing one another,’ where a semi-colon should be placed. Note: The psalmos denoted that which had a musical accompaniment; the ode was the generic term for a song; hence the accompanying adjective ‘spiritual.’”(W.E. Vine, AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, Oliphants Ltd.: London, 1953, p. 241)
E. “The apostle Paul commanded (Ephesians 5:19) that we use spiritual songs (addressed to men), hymns (addressed to God), and that we sing these with musical accompaniments, psallontes, (present active participle), and with our hearts to God. Since the verb psallo and the noun psalmos from the beginning of Greek usage always meant singing with musical accompaniment, and certainly denoted that during the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., we have unimpeachable and uncontradictable evidence to prove that to psallo meant to play on an instrument as well as to sing in the New Testament usage.” (Dr. Julius R., Editor, A MANUAL OF GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, 06/02/62)
F. “Psalmos: comes from the verb psallein, ‘to pluck, twang [a bowstring], and signifies, first, the action of playing any harp like instrument, then the music thus produced, and finally the song sung to the accompaniment of a harp like instrument…” (Vanden Born, A., ENCYCLOPEDIA DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, 1963, p. 1954)
G. “PSALM: ‘from a Greek word meaning to pluck a string, hence a harp-song, taken from Jewish religion by the Christian & highly developed, in various manners.’” (Hughes, Rupert, MUSIC LOVERS ENCYCLOPEDIA, Garden Life Press: Garden City, NY, 1939, p. 662)
H. “Psalmos: ‘…of the three psalmos suggests a musical accompaniment.” (Williams, A. Lachine, CAMBRIDGE GREEK TESTAMENT, Cambridge University Press: London, 1928, p. 142)
I. “‘Singing and playing,’ says the Apostle. For music aided song; voice and instrument blended in his praise whose glory claims the tribute of all creatures.” (Findlay, G.G., AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, 1908, p. 87)
J. “Singing and making melody means singing and playing, voice and instrument Barlow, George, PREACHERS HOMILETIC COMMENTARY, p. 262)
K. “Psalmos [from psao, rado, i.e. to sweep the strings] is properly with an instrumental accompaniment, as a harp; ode [from aido, cp Theocritus, xv. 96, 99] is vocal melody; hymnos is a hymn of praise.” (Wordsworth, Chr., THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, London: Gilbert and Revingron, 1872, p. 303)
VIII. These recorded responses were received from approximately fifty (50) Head Professors of Greek to the question, “In the First Century, did the Greek word psallo and its noun form Psalmos mean “to sing only,” or did they mean to sing with musical accompaniment? What, in your opinion, is its meaning in Ephesians 5:19?”
A. University of New York, Albany: “I think psallo nearly always means to sing to the accompaniment of a harp and the noun means often ‘a song sung to a stringed instrument, a psalm’ as Liddell and Scott Greek dictionary says. In Ephesians 5:19, I think it means ‘psalms accompanied by the harp’ all in one word.’”
B. University of Florida: “Psallo means first to play on a stringed instrument from ‘to pluck” then later, ‘to sing to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument.’”
C. University of Indiana: “I can only refer you to standard dictionaries. Liddell-Scott-Jones say ‘a song sung to a harp,’ citing your passage. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1957) say the same ‘to sing to the accompaniment of a harp.’”
D. University of Hawaii: “As nearly as I can make out psalmos means singing to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument.”
E. University of Connecticut: “Basically, the term psallo means to strike an instrument. It does, however, admit to singing as well. My feeling is that the singing was accompanied.”
F. University of Kansas: “The answer to your question is that it meant to sing with musical accompaniment.”
G. University of North Dakota: “Psalmos is derived from the verb psallo which means ‘to pluck,’ ‘to pull’ (as strings from a harp) and came to mean ‘to play’ especially a stringed instrument. To me it appears that it retains its original meaning in the passage you have sent me. The only difficulty lies in the attempt to translate literally; but if you think long enough you will find yourself that id cannot mean a singing without music.”
H. University of Wisconsin: “The word psalmos means music with an accompaniment of a stringed instrument plucked with the fingers, no plectrum being used.
I. University of Vermont: “There is no question in my mind that psalmos, when it refers to singing, indicates singing with musical accompaniment…. I believe that you will quickly discover that there is no support at all for the idea that psalmoi were sung a capella, and that theRe is every indication that they were songs with stringed accompaniment. My impression is (though I cannot prove it) that hymnoi were a capella, and that odai were either with or without accompaniment. But there seems no doubt about psalmoi.”
J. University of Virginia: “…to answer your question in a musical sense psallo would mean ‘to sing to a harp accompaniment.” psalmos such a song, i.e., it would imply a harp accompaniment.”
K. University of Kentucky: “According to Liddell and Scott, the very psallo originally meant to pluck, to play a stringed instrument with the fingers. Later in the first century, it acquired the meaning to sing to a harp, or to sing with a stringed accompaniment. Psalmos was originally used to designate the sound of plucked stringed. A twanging. Later it meant a song accompanied by a stringed instrument, always; plucked, never bowed.”
L. University of New Mexico: “Classical: to pluck, to play a stringed instrument; New Testament–to sing to a harp. Psalmos–classical: the twanging with the fingers of a bow string); mostly used of musical strings; New Testament–a song sung to the accompaniment of the harp.”
M. University of Georgia: “It would seem that this word always suggests a musical accompaniment, that is, specifically of the harp…. The passage in Ephesians would certainly imply the songs to be sung to the accompaniment of a harp.”
N. University of Mississippi: “,,,In Classical Greek the primary meaning of psallo is ‘pluck’ or ‘twang’, and its secondary meaning is ‘play a stringed instrument.’ This secondary meaning was later extended to ‘sing to the accompaniment of a stringed instrument’, but I cannot off hand recall its being used with the meaning ‘sing alone.’ Similarly, psalmos means at first ‘music’ of a stringed instrument,’ later ‘song accompanied by a stringed instrument.’”
O. University of Illinois: “Our best authority on New Testament vocabulary, Arndt and Gingrich’s revision (1957) of Bauer’s Lexicon of the New Testament states unequivocally that the verb psallo means ‘sing (to the accompaniment of a harp), sing praise’… Presumably this implies the Hebraic practices of musical accompaniment to the voice, unless something in the context of the word forbids that interpretation. Though psalmos in Ephesians 5:19 clearly refers to Christian songs of praise, as also in I Corinthians 14:26 and Colossians 3:16, we know nothing about these Christians songs which forbids us to assume that they were performed with musical accompaniment. Therefore the word in Ephesians 5:19 does mean ‘songs of praise (with musical accompaniment).’”
P. University of Pennsylvania: “In Ephesians 5:19 I should think psalmos means just what we mean by psalms. By psalm I understand a song whose verbal content was of religious significance devised for accompaniment by stringed instrument or of the same style as songs composed for such accompaniment.”
Q. University of Alabama: “In the Classical period, psallo usually refers to the playing of a stringed instrument; in the New Testament, the verb means ‘to sing to a harp.’ Psalmos generally means ‘the sound of the harp,’ and, in the New Testament, the noun means ‘a song sung to a stringed instrument.’ In the passage under consideration, the word retains the same meaning, in my opinion: to sing a song accompanied by music. The distinction between the three words–each of which could refer to the same song–is as follows: ode is the generic term for a song, whereas psalmos and hymnos are specific. Hymnos is a song dealing with the praise of God, and psalmos designates a song taking its general character from Old Testament Psalms. The main idea in psalmos, however, is that of musical accompaniment.”
R. Summary of opinion of heads of Greek Studies in various universities: “Their replies were divided into three divisions. The first group said that instrumental accompaniment was definitely included in the word. The second group included those who said (1) The words meant either accompanied or unaccompanied and (2) They didn’t know. The third group said that the words meant unaccompanied numbered three. Of those three, one was from the University of Texas and another from Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas.
Compiled from a variety of sources
I disagree 100% with the Richland Hills decision. People are so disrespectful to God’s authority. Jesus never mentioned in any of His passages the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church. Read Colossains 3:16-17, Ephesians 5:19, and the book of Hebrews. There is no authority for the use of mechanical instruments. Revelation 22:18-19 says that if we add or take away from the commands that God has given us, He will take away our part in the Book of Life. Instrumental worship is a salvation issue and will cause a person to fall from grace, because he or she is sinning when doing so. How can Richland Hills be so sure that instrumental worship is acceptable to God. How can they prove so. I picture Richland Hills as a denomination. Denominationalism is very sinful. 1 Corinthians 1:10 says, “I bessech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing; and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.” Why do we not all see the Bible alike? There is no excuse for this divisiveness. Division is sinful as described in 1 Corinthians 1:10.
Richland Hills has false teaching in it and I have no desire to ever go there. The Lord speaks against false teaching. Matthew 7:21-23 is referring to all of us. “Not everyone that saith unto Me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in your name? and in thy name cast out devils? and thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you. Depart from me. Ye who practice lawlessness.” It does matter what we believe in this life and it does matter what church we worship with. Many churches of Christ have jumped from being the true church to denominationalism. Look what has happened to Shannon Oaks Church. Everytime I look at their website, it just makes me sick. Why can’t we just go by the scriptures and do nothing but what the scriptures teach? I don’t understand it one bit.
Good to have you back, Kieth. Whew. Quite an impressive study. I just have one question. The weight of opinion and research for psallo seems to be pretty conclusive for stringed instruments in worship. What about using the piano? Just kidding. I do not want to get another debate started. Your church sounds interesting. I would like to visit but I have a feeling you are many states away. I think you mentioned earlier that you are in Florida. Is that right?
It is good to see the a cappella and instrumental discussion within its historical context of the earliest church. In my judgment, when the Apostle Paul gave the BOOK OF PSALMS to the church for its praise, he did so without editing it. And the version of the PSALMS, available to Paul recognized the musical notations as being part of the original composition.
Obviously, the Psalm-singing included accompaniment by the use of not only stringed instruments but also wind and percussion instruments.
HISTORY OF MUSIC IN THE CHURCH
Material drawn from Music in Ancient Israel, by Alfred Sendry, Philosophical, Library, New York, 1969
“We know that the early Christian Church was the immediate successor to the Jewish cult. The sacred ceremonies of the Temple, or of the Synagogue, were taken over almost without any change by the Judaeo-Chistians. The music of the Temple, at least its vocal aspect, constituted an important element in their sacred service, as it also did, later on, in that of the apostolic Christians. Singing of psalms, hymns, spiritual songs and responses with or without instrumental accompaniment, was considered by early Christian congregations an indispensable form of worship, just as it used to be in the service of the temple. (Page 64)
The Book of Psalms was one of the recommended hymnals of the earliest church. Musical instructions were in the text of the Psalms from earliest times and would have been there for early Christians as well (Pages 112-139):
• Mizmor –song accompanied by instruments, by rhythmical instruments or by clapping of hands.
• Shir – lyric song intended for singing, Psalm sung by the coral group alone.
• Naggen –to play on stringed instruments.
• Zammer –to sing with the musical accompaniment.
• La-menazzeah – psalm with substantial solo passages, with or without participation of the chorus. (55 Psalms carry this instruction)
• Al-neginot – instructions to accompany the singing with instruments (8 Psalms carry this instruction)
• Al ha-gittit – instruction to accompany the singing with stringed instruments (3 Psalms carry this instruction)
• Al-alamot – instruction to accompany the singing with high pitched instruments (1 Psalm carries this instruction)
• Al ha-sheminit – instruction to accompany the singing with low pitched instruments (2 Psalms carry this instruction)
• Al mabalat – instruction to accompany the singing with pipes (2 Psalms carry this instruction)
• El ha-nehilot – instruction to accompany the singing with wood-wind instruments (1 Psalm carries this instruction)
Continuing the synagogal practice, the Judaeo-Christians probably accompanied their psalm singing with instruments as well. Despite its official banishment after the national catastrophe in 70 C.E. the instrumental music in the Synagogue was indeed never completely abandoned at least in some larger localities. (Page 182)
Since the musical practice of the Temple, at least in its larger outlines, was taken over by the Synagogue, and this includes the use of instruments, it is certain that the Judaeo-Christians, too, continued the tradition of the Temple. (Page 183)
In the New Testament psalm-singing is mentioned only in two passages (1 Corinthians 14:26; James 5:13). But the reports of the Early Church Fathers about the meetings of the first Christians comprise numerous references to the paramount importance attached by the new religion to psalm-singing, as practiced in the traditional, i.e. Jewish, manner (which was singing with instrumental accompaniment). (Page 189)
Clement of Alexandria (died in 215): “The Christians, however, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to God. And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or the lyre, there is no blame. Thou shalt imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God.”
Clement further testifies that there existed accompanied and unaccompanied hymns and psalms, which proves that Christian singing partly followed the usage of the Temple (accompanied psalms), and partly followed that of many Synagogues (unaccompanied psalms). In the opinion of the Church Fathers, the accompaniment by instruments does not seem to have affected the ethical value of psalm-singing; singing was the essential part, accompaniment merely a subordinate factor. And this was true for the sacred as well as for the secular psalm-singing. (Pages 203-204)
Herb:
Contact my email address and I will send you information on the formation of our new congregation. KiethM@aol.com.
I can’t help to think that RH is just trying to attract others from demonminations (i.e. instrument using one) to come to RH. Obviously, music is a big attraction and for the unlearned acappella singing appears old fashion or strange if that is all they are use to. Do they think acappella singing is keeping people away?
If so, I believe there is a better way to attract people to the church. Teach the truth about the one Lord , one faith, and one baptism. True beliveres won’t care if it is accapella singing or not.
I believe acappella singing allows better focus on the words, i.e expression from the heart and not on the instruments (entertainment value). I believe always make the best effort to true worship from the heart.
Also, many congregations are headed to the “I think” and “it feels
good” kind of religion. Personal opinions are really messing the world up. Opinions have no value when it comes to religion. Opinions only lead to destruction. Jesus did not say in Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth according to his own opinion.” Neither did he say in Luke 6:46 “And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and doeth not according to your own opinion.” It doesn’t matter if the church of Christ makes a big deal out of everything, because it is good to make a big deal out of everything. Religion is a big deal. Why do many churches of Christ have praise teams. God talks to everybody when he says “sing and make melody in your heart.” The point of the matter is, we all better be in that praise team. The whole congregation should be the praise team. It doesn’t matter if I’m making a big deal out of everything. I’m not saying these things, because they are my opinion. It is God’s Word and people are duty bound to accept it and follow it.
Thank you Jack and Micah. You both have some excellent points for all of us to consider. And yes it is all very important when it is God and His word.
Blood brothers in Christ:
In my humble judgment, this discussion is not primarily an issue of who takes God and His Word seriously. For centuries, people has used “nothing but Scripture” to support many notions which have nothing to do with God’s will or His word.
A more important issue is how we “handle God’s word.” We ned to become so acquainted with Jesus that we handle and interpret the Scriptures like He did; NOT like the Pharisees, who were the Bible-bangers of their day, but who crucified the Lord of Glory thinking they and they alone were doing God’s will.
Most discussions about Praise Music in the Lord’s church is just a superficial expression of a much deeper problem. The real problem is ungracious sectarianism which is such a cancer for any of us who grew up with a rigid “right church” exclusive mentality.
We must use the Scriptures to help fulfill part of the mission for which the Son of God came to this earth, lived and taught, comforted and healed, suffered and died:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
(Luke 4:18-19, NIV)
The greatest poverty of all is not lacking necessary things to survive but is spiritual poverty, having to live as if there were no Heavenly Father to care and provide every spiritual blessing through His grace and mercy.
There is no greater captivity than being locked into spiritual prisons where believers are held hostage to religious systems whether they recognize it or not. Sometimes this happens without sincere believers even being aware of the fact. Religious institutions, as well intended as they might be, frequently stifle dynamic faith and destroy freedom of life in the Spirit. Systems control faith and life by imposing the doctrines and commandments of men.
There is no greater blindness than spiritual blindness, not being able to see that Jesus came to set His followers free so they would never again have to fall under the oppression of religious leaders and systems.
There is no greater oppression than spiritual oppression which keeps Christians from realizing a central truth of the Gospel of Christ:
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
(Galatians 5:1, NIV)
Spiritual slavery is present wherever Christians are conditioned to measure their faithfulness to the Lord in terms of the forms and patterns of a particular historical period, even the First Century. It is equally burdensome to feel locked into the ways of “doing church” which are most comfortable for a particular generation, tradition or denomination. The Lord’s directive is that His disciples not let themselves ever be burdened with the doctrines and commandments of men but remain free in the Spirit of our God.
Spiritual oppression is present whenever Christians try to serve the Lord under the control of leaders and institutions which impose the doctrines and commandments of men in the absence of a clear word from the Lord. The Gospel heralds freedom under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and within the clear perimeters revealed in the Word of God.
I, and perhaps others, feel very sad as we see the deep harm Satan and sin do to our lives both before and after we become disciples of Jesus Christ. Another part of the sadness may relate to having to acknowledge the harm which the institutional church (religious systems at large and more specifically the way many of us have experienced it) can do to good and sincere people.
The sin of sectarianism is present any time our allegience is to separatist religious groups (whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or Non-denominational), groups which see themselves as the sum total of the body of Christ to the exclusion of believers in other groups.
How do religious movements and groups get to the point of feeling they possess a monopoly on the truth of the gospel? Some claim their exclusive standing with the Lord on the basis of their long history. Others claim their exclusive standing with the Lord by perceiving they possess a more accurate understanding of Scriptures and display more faithful obedience than others. Others claim their exclusive standing with the Lord on the basis of spiritual experiences, alleged signs, wonders and miracles.
There is so much damage that can be done to ourselves and others by either perpetuating or getting caught up in the “right church mentality” which must reject other equally committed believers. All of these circles of believers, caught up in the “right church mentality” reflect their own perceived place in the mosaic of historic Christianity. They see themselves in contrast with all other Christians and groups of Christians as uniquely the “right church.” This always implies others are in the “wrong church.”
May the Lord Jesus convict our heats with one simple little paragle. Jesus addressed this parable “to some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else.”
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
“The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
(Luke 18:9-14, NIV)
May the Lord forgive us all of our sectarian spirit and ungracious ways of viewing the rest of His children or even the way we view “Godfearers” if some believers we know and love are not yet fully in covenant relationshiup with the Father through the Son.
Jesus did not die on the Cross to establish a cappella praise or, for that matter, instrumental praise. Jesus died to make us loving, gracious and kind like He is!
It is not sectarian to believe we should just sing. It is simply a conviction based on the study of scripture or at least it is for me. Is it being a Pharisee to have biblical convictions ? And those convictions do bring about a freedom in Christ. Some must think being doctrinal or believing in a divine pattern is oppressive or legalistic. It just seems to me we are moving more and more to a time when having a serious scriptural conviction is wrong and it makes me wonder if there is now a time of reversing the legalism when expressing a well studied expessions of faith as narrow and detrimental to people who are searching. I have in over 35 years of personal evangelism found hundreds who rejoice in hearing the gospel as well as the distinctive doctrines of the church . And those who have responded to the good news of salvation, being saved by grace through obedient faith and then who continue to hear the whole will of God who sense a great freedom in Christ. They are excited about being just a Christian and knowing they can have the freedom of being added to the church as identified in the New Testament and being set free from the human traditions that have caused the religious chaos and confusion. Just one brother’s observation and experience.
God certainly knows details. He was very detailed with His instructions for the temple, for the ark etc. But, He did not provide that many details for how we do church. He could have. Rather than depend on details, numerous rules for His church, He gave us something else. It is no wonder that without this ingrediant, we have a divided body, fighting amongst ourselves, devouring one another.
1Cr 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
We cannot even say “He is Lord” on our own, we can only say this by His Spirit.
1Cr 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Cr 12:5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
1Cr 12:6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all {persons.}
The same Spirit in all of us gives the gifts, the ministries. He works all these things in us.
1Cr 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
We do not decide which gift we want, He decides, He works in us. When we cut ourselves off with our divisions, we are cutting off the flow of the Spirit the very life of God.
1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
We all have something in common, no matter which denomination, which non-denomination, if we are of Him, we all drink of the same Spirit.
1Cr 12:25 so that there may be no division in the body, but {that} the members may have the same care for one another.
How do we do church? The theme in 1 Cor 12 seems to be by His Spirit. His body is put together, held together, joined together by His Spirit. We function by His Spirit. His Spirit gives us gifts, places us in the body.
When there is an absence of His Spirit, there will be division, doctrine will rise up and become more important than His body, than His Spirit. Without this Spirit as a vital, living, leading part of our church activities, body life, we are a group of well intentioned humans trying to play church without the power. Without this Spirit it is no wonder we are divided, it is no wonder instruments become more important than worshiping the living God. The letter of the law kills while the Spirit gives life. Trying to live by the letter will kill our churches. Arguing over the letter of the law is like arguing over the corpse in a grave. Who wants to go there? Have you ever been in a church where the worship service sounds like a funeral service? I would venture to say the letter rules in this place.
How do we do church? As the Spirit leads. The question then becomes: How do we walk in the Spirit, how do we worship in the Spirit. Is the Spirit a vital part of our church life, our sermons, our teachings, our prayers? Lord, teach us to walk and live by your Holy Spirit.
With all due respect, SECTARIANISM if present whenever we make our “distinctive” view of “doing church” a point of doctrine.
It is the doctrine of Christ alone which gives us life and sustains our live in the Lord. The “doctrine of Christ” has little or nothing to do with most of the excuses we manufacture for our divisions in the body of Christ. The “doctrine of Christ” has nothing do do with either a cappella or accompanied praise! Sectarianism is really idolatry, where we make our doctrinal conclusions so important that they come between us and our brothers. And that which I permit to come between me and my brother of necessity gets in the way of my relationship with our common Father.
This is the underlying message, whether it is subtly stated or boldly proclaimed, of virtually every separatist or sectarian group postured in spiritual isolation: “We are the sum total of the one body of Christ to the exclusion of all or most others. If you have not come to us, you most likely have not come fully to Christ. To leave our fellowship is to leave the Lord and separate from the saving benefits of Jesus’ blood and the power of His cross.”
This theological mentality is unfortunately a vivid illustration of both SECTARIANISM and being “confident of their own righteousness and looking down on everybody else.”
From a faith perspective whenever anyone measures his relationship with the Lord in terms of what he understands or what he does as a Christian, that person is building on the sandy foundation Jesus warned about. (Matthew 7:21-27).
Any amount of confidence placed in oneself, whether in his biblical understandings or his faithful obedience, diminishes the central truth of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Trusting in oneself, whether ones understanding or performance, inherently diminishes trust in the Cross. We make our intellectual conclusions or religious performance the covering for the sin-stained soul rather than being fully covered by the blood of Jesus.
All of this is in sharp contrast with the Christian gospel of pure grace, mercy and forgiveness. No amount of understanding or good deeds can cover any guilt and shame and no amount of theological or moral error need go uncovered by the Lord’s mercy and the blood of Jesus for a true and devoted believer.
Anyone who places any degree of spiritual confidence in the sandy foundation of his correct knowledge, his catalog of faithful obedience or religious affiliation is dead wrong!
Anyone who owns up to and confesses his humiliating and shameful nature and rebellion (his being a sinner) can be made righteous and eternally alive in Jesus Christ by the divine act of justification or pardon from the Lord. Righteousness, before the Lord, is a gift received from Him; it is not a status achieved through any kind of self-effort or self-justification.
Let us not hesitate to insist that faithful obedience is essential. Faithful obedience is not a bartering chip to exchange for divine mercy. Faithful obedience is a believer’s token of gratitude offered lovingly to the Heavenly Father for all the Lord has accomplished in the precious death of his Son and our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
This religious tension between the diametrically opposing emphases (viewing any part of justification as being achieved by obedience as opposed to a sinner’s simple but desperate cry for mercy) is the single most foundational difference among all movements within the body of Christ across Christianity’s long history.
This still remains the dividing line, a line in the sand, between the true and the false in Christianity. When any group regards itself uniquely as the “keeper of true doctrine and performer of faithful obedience,” there lie the seeds of essentially a Christ-less Christianity.
Righteousness is not about us. Righteousness is all about him! Being righteous with the Lord of the universe is not about anyone’s understandings but about the Lord’s grace and mercy.
It is not about anyone’s works of obedience but about the Lord’s perfect sacrifice. It is all about the divine operation the Lord performs, the work of redemption he completes in each believer’s life through the forgiveness of Jesus’ blood and the power of the Holy Spirit.
The SECTARIAN spirit, the separatist and spiritually isolationist posture found in historic Christianity is as old as when the Pharisees destroyed Jesus while sincerely thinking and believing they were doing the Lord’s will.
This error is as old as when the Messianic Jews of the First Century (those who believed Jesus was their Messiah) tried to impose their centuries-old circumcision, dietary laws and holy days upon Gentile Christians as conditions of salvation.
Every generation of believers in the Lord Jesus has seen some kind of legalistic rigidity, self-righteousness and authoritarianism imposed upon them.
Every generation of believers has also witnessed brave men and women who, like the Apostle Paul in confronting even the Apostle Peter, see freedom in Christ so precious that they feel compelled to reject authoritarian leadership along with their “doctrines and commandments of men.” They are deeply convicted that the rigid isolationist mentality in the body of Christ must be rejected and eradicated at any and all cost. Paul’s free-spirited boldness becomes a template for all (in every generation) who aspire to be just Christians, faithful disciples, simply God’s children. This deeply held concern is equally valid for all congregations and all movements of the Lord in our own time.
“This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.”
(Galatians 2:5, NIV)
To teach sound doctrine is to be free in Christ whatever the doctrine that is being taught. All of the doctrine taught is the doctrine of Christ. The scriptures are inspired by the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit.
When scripture is taught then there will not be sectarian division. It is only when the traditions of men are taught that you have a sectarian spirit.
” What you heard from me , keep as the pattern of sound teaching , with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. ” ( 2 Timothy 1 : 13 and 14 , NIV )
Biblical teaching involves taking the text of Scripture very seriously. To this we all agree.
Taking the text seriously sometimes involves our getting help and understanding the text in its original language.
TAking the text seriously also involves interpreting the text in a manner consistent with the overall congruency of the entire word of God. If the Lord is ONE, His message (from one end of the Book to the other) must be interpreted in a manner that is congruent.
God does not command something of His people in one part of the Bible (even the Old Testament) and “silently” define that same thing as a SIN in another part of the Bible (even the New Testament).
Even in the case of OT physical circumcision, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians practicing the ordinance, so long as they do not impose it on all Christians (Jews or Gentiles) as a condition of salvation. That was the central issue of the Acts 15 Jerusalem conference. Paul, James and others won the debate that day and (by inspiration) concluded that the Jewish segment of the church could not impose circumcison on the Gentile church (or even the Jewish church) as a condition of salvation in Chist.
But as soon as Paul got out of that conference where he and others carried the day and (by revelation) defined the will of the Lord, even Paul immediately went out and CIRCUMCISED Timothy to make him culturally acceptable to work among Jews.
Even if instrumental praise were just a case of Christians doing what the Lord commanded in the Old Testament, from that we might conclude that neither a cappella nor instrumental praise can be imposed as a condition of salvation in Christ!
But by the same token, there would be nothing wrong with praising the Lord in the two ways He once commanded. In light of the circumcision ruline, why would this not be the case?
But the New Testament does address the issue. Ephesians 5:19, speaks of both ADO & PSALLO as mediums of praise to the Lord in Christ.
Without question, ADO always meant “sing” with our without instrumental accompaniment.
Without qeustion PSALLO meant to praise the Lord with instrumental accompaniment and this meaning can be unquestionably substantiated up until long after the time of the earliest church. See the research offered earlier in this exchange.
How do we feel when some of our religious neighbors insist that the Mark 16:16, BELIEVE & BE BAPTIZED really means BELIEVE & BELIEVE? We would call that a tampering with the text and not following the “pattern of sound teaching.” And by that I am asuming that we are all speaking of believing or trustring in the finished work of Christ on the Cross when we are baptized, not trusting in baptism to remove the sin stains which only the blood of Jesus can do.
How must our Lord feel when we dismember (tear to shreds by our divisions) His one body by insisting that the Ephesians 5:19, ADO & PSALLO (SING & MAKE MELODY/MAKE MUSIC) really means ADO & ADO (SING & SING)? Would the Lord not call this a tampering with the text and not following the “pattern of sound teaching”?
In reading the two texts they still teach we should sing. That is not tampering with the text. It is following sound teaching.
An observation…. I have yet to find one English translation that ever translates to sing with an instrument in the New Testament passages being considered…Eph. 5 and Col. 3.