Indeed, God commands the use of musical instruments in worship over and over again. Both grace and law join hands in beautifying worship with instrumentation. Scripture says, “Sing to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of a psalm, with trumpets and the sound of a horn” (Ps. 98:5-6).
Music has been around since the beginning of creation “when the morning stars [i.e., angels] sang together” in joyful worship of their Creator (Job. 38:7). Lucifer was one of those singing angels in whom God delighted,1 and one of God’s purposes for creating Lucifer was to provide musical accompaniment for this worship:
You were in Eden, the garden of God… The workmanship of your tambourines (תֹּף)2 and pipes (נֶקֶב)3 was prepared for you on the day you were created. (Ezek. 28:13)
It is clear that God created musical instruments for the worship of heaven from the very beginning of time. Though fallen man also invented musical instruments (see the harp and flute in Gen. 4:21), we should not forget that God created them first, and we should not think of musical instrumentation as being intrinsically evil.4 The same God who gloried in the “perfection” and “beauty” of angelic music on day one of creation (Job 38:6-7; Ezek. 28:12-15) continues to glory in instrumental music in His heavenly throne room today (Rev. 5:8; 14:2; 15:2; etc.). The instrumental music of heaven is played with “harps of God” (Rev. 15:2). This either refers to harps owned by God or given to them by God. Either way, it shows divine warrant for the heavenly delight in instrumental music.
God wants us to glory in this same music. He wants us to pray, “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” If heaven is the pattern for everything we do (see Col. 3:1-2), then worship music should be patterned after the worship music of heaven. This involves not only singing new songs (see Rev. 3:8,11; 5:9,12,13; etc.), but also valuing the instrumental music that God loves so much (see Rev. 5:8; 14:2; 15:2).
This is no different than what happened in the Old Testament worship of temple and synagogue.5 God showed Moses “the pattern” for their worship (Ex. 25:40; 26:30; Numb. 8:4; Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5). It was not enough for heaven to be beautified with such music. God’s heavenly kingdom invaded Earth’s earthly kingdom and enabled David to affirm that the “praise of the upright is beautiful” (Ps. 33:1) even when it is accompanied by the same kind of instrumental music that characterized heaven (vv. 1-3). Just as there are “harps of God” in heaven (Rev. 15:2) there are “musical instruments of Jehovah” on earth (2 Chron. 7:6). We will see in chapter 3 that the Booth of David, which is the paradigm for the New Testament church (cf. Amos 9:11,12; Acts 15:15-17) was filled with glorious instrumental music (1 Chron. 15:16ff).
The bottom line is that God loves music and He moves His people to delight in music. David says, “He put a new song in my mouth – praise to our God” (Ps. 40:3). It was God who moved David’s music, and through David God continues to call His people to “sing to Him a new song” “with a ten stringed instrument” and to “play skillfully with a shout of joy” (Ps. 33:1-3). It is not enough for heaven to be beautified with such music – earth too must be made “beautiful” by music (Ps. 33:1; Ps. 147:1).
Indeed, God commands the use of musical instruments in worship over and over again. Both grace and law join hands in beautifying worship with instrumentation. Scripture says, “Sing to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of a psalm, with trumpets and the sound of a horn” (Ps. 98:5-6). “Sing praises on the harp to our God” (Ps. 147:7); “Let them sing praises to Him with the timbrel and harp” (Ps. 149:3); “play skillfully” (Ps. 33:3); “Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet; praise Him with the lute and harps! Praise Him with the timbrel… Praise Him with stringed instruments and flutes! Praise Him with loud cymbals; praise Him with clashing cymbals!” (Ps. 150:1-6).6
Every time God commands us to sing a “psalm” He is commanding us to appreciate the accompaniment of musical instruments since both the Hebrew7 and the Greek8 terms for “psalm” refer to a song accompanied by musical instruments. Even the term “Selah,” which occurs 74 times in the Old Testament,9 is an instruction to use musical instruments since it refers to a forte (or very loud) antiphonal response of trumpets to the other musicians.10 If the Psalms are for today, can we ignore these oft-repeated Selahs? What about the instruction, “Higgaion” (cf. Psalm 9:16 with 92:3)? That is an instruction to use “quieter music.”11 It is hard to spiritualize such instructions that God has preserved for us.
Even the inspired titles of the Psalms show us that God loves musical instruments. Can we really forbid stringed instruments while singing Psalm 3 when the inspired title calls us to sing it “with stringed instruments”? Can we really forbid wind instruments when Psalm 5 calls us to sing those words “with flutes”? Can we really object to variety in musical instruments when God’s instructions range from “an eight-stringed harp” (Ps. 6,12; etc.), to “an instrument of Gath” (Ps. 8,81; etc.), to a neginoth or generic “musical instrument” (Ps. 54,55; etc.), or when God left the instrumentation up to the judgment of “the chief musician” (Ps. 4,5; etc.)? Certainly David modeled the use of “all kinds of instruments” (2 Sam. 6:5) and authorized the use of all kinds in Psalm 150.
God loves variety. Suzanne Haik-Vantoura12 has demonstrated how the diacritical marks above and below the Hebrew text of the Old Testament have given the church the foundations for Western music. The exquisite nature of this original music exhibits variety in voice and instrument, melody and harmony, modality and rhythm. The fact that the same words are sung to one tune and instrument in one psalm and to another tune and instrument in another psalm shows God’s flexibility. His Biblical guidelines for music are not inhibiting but spur us to reverent creativity. God loves music and He wants us to love music.
Some have had their consciences troubled by the belief that musical instruments were exclusively tied to the ceremonial sacrifices and were only authorized for temple Levites to play. I will deal with this objection in much more detail later, but here it is sufficient to note that God allowed Levites (1 Chron. 15:16; 2 Chron. 7:6) and non-Levitical prophets (1 Sam. 10:5), kings (2 Sam. 6:4; Is. 38:20) and ordinary citizens (Ps. 33:1-3; 2 Sam. 6:5), males (1 Chron. 13:8; 15:16) and females (Ex. 15:20; Ps. 68:25) to worship God with musical instruments if they were adequately skilled13 and if they had the character qualifications that are laid out in Scripture.14 The instrumental worship that God speaks against is that which comes from a bad heart (Eph. 5:19) or that which is produced by those with a lawless life (Amos 5:23).
I will have more to say about the wide variety of instruments that David played by God’s authorization in a later chapter, but this chapter is simply trying to demonstrate that God loves music and wants us to love it. We may find ourselves criticized for our music just as Michal criticized David, but if we are solidly grounded in the Scripture, we can respond with the confidence of David, who, knowing that God delights in music said, “I will play music before the LORD” (2 Sam. 6:21). God vindicated David and disapproved of Michal (2 Sam. 6:23), not because there was no room for disagreements on this subject, but because “she despised him in her heart” (2 Sam. 6:16). I do not despise my brothers and sisters who defend a cappella worship, and it is my hope that they will not despise me. This book is simply my response to those who claim that we have no Biblical basis for musical instruments and who assert that we are violating the Regulative Principle of Worship. It is my hope that I have fairly represented their position on the subject and that I have adequately answered their objections. It is also my hope that the church will at some point be united in giving God the kind of music that He loves.
David by inspiration commanded the use of all kinds of “musical instruments” in order “to raise sounds of joy” (1 Chron. 15:16). Can this become fake and fleshly joy? Yes, but the solution is not to get rid of music, but to “sing and play music from the heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). Can instruments inappropriately overwhelm the words? Yes, but the solution is not to get rid of the instruments, but to make sure that “the song to the LORD” is “accompanied by the instruments” (2 Chron. 29:27), not replaced by instruments.15
Any number of reasons can be introduced as to why musical instruments should be minimized or eradicated. This book will attempt to deal with the three most compelling arguments for a cappella singing. Though some of the argumentation in the following chapters is of necessity detailed and heavy (because it is responding to detailed and heavy a cappella arguments), it is my hope that the reader will be freed by this information to sing with joy to the glory of God and not have conscience-issues with musical accompaniment. Ultimately, it is my hope that this book will glorify God and bring Him great joy.
You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; …whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. – Deuteronomy 12:32-33 Rejoice in the LORD, O you righteous! For praise from the upright is beautiful. Praise the LORD with the harp; Make melody to Him with an instrument of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song; Play skillfully with a shout of joy. – Psalm 33:1-3
In 1983, Crown & Covenant Publications published a brochure by Robert B. McCracken – What About Instruments In Worship? What Place, If Any, Do Musical Instruments Have In The Worship of God? This well-written tract has had a great deal of influence in convincing people that it is a sin16 to accompany singing in worship with any musical instrument. While I myself once held to that position in my early twenties, and while this position has had a long and distinguished history,17 I have come to the conclusion that this viewpoint is unbiblical. Indeed, imposing his thesis upon the church would not only involve the church in legalism (adding to God’s law the mandate of a cappella singing – a commandment nowhere to be found in Scripture18), but it would also involve the church in antinomianism (disobeying many direct commands from God to use musical instruments19). History tells us that any time we subtract from God’s law (antinomianism) we will inevitably add man-made laws (legalism).20 The two are not opposites; they necessitate each other. It is in the interest of preserving the church from both legalism and antinomianism that this book has been written.
I should point out that both McCracken and I believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship.21 This principle correctly teaches that we may not introduce anything into worship that is not explicitly authorized in the Bible. Deuteronomy 12:31-32 summarizes the Regulative Principle of Worship quite well when it says,
You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way…Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
It is important to realize that both sides of that commandment are equally important – it is just as sinful to take away from God’s commands relative to worship as it is to add to God’s commands. Thus, the Regulative Principle of Worship should cause us to avoid both a minimalistic approach to worship (failing to implement all God’s commands) as well as a lax approach to worship (adding novel elements to worship that are not found in the Bible). It is my contention that McCracken and all others who speak of the use of instrumentation in worship as sin are in reality the violators of both sides of the Regulative Principle of Worship.
Nevertheless, because many men whom I respect have held to this position, and because this is a sincerely held conscience issue for many people, I want to give a Biblical response. Though the literature already cited contains many subsidiary arguments against instruments, they can all be boiled down to three main arguments:
The use of instrumental music was strictly Levitical in the Old Testament, tied to the temple, and passed away with the rest of the ceremonial law. The use of instruments in worship is foreign to “New Testament church worship.” Since neither synagogue nor early church used musical instruments, any other understanding of the Biblical material is impossible.
If these three main pillars can be shown to be wrong, the rest of the subsidiary arguments will automatically fall to the ground. It is my hope that this book will liberate the consciences of friends who have been troubled by the legalism of instrument-abolitionists.
3. Dealing with a cappella’s first pillar
Then David and all the house of Israel played music before the LORD on all kinds of instruments… – 2 Samuel 6:5 Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth; break forth in song, rejoice, and sing praises. Sing to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of the psalm, with trumpets and the sound of the horn; shout joyfully before the LORD, the King…” – Psalm 98:4-6 They have seen Your procession, O God; the procession of my God, my King, into the sanctuary. The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the maidens playing timbrels. Bless God in the congregations… – Psalm 68:24-26
A summary of the argument: the claim that instrumental music was purely Levitical, ceremonial, and tied to the temple
The first pillar of the a cappella advocates is that all authorized instrumental music in the Old Testament was tied exclusively to the Levites and temple, and thus all Old Testament references to musical instruments are part of the ceremonial law. Kevin Reed states the argument succinctly:
…it is indisputable that these musicians [of 1 Chronicles 23ff] were part of the Levitical priesthood… The priestly services of the Levites have been replaced in the New Testament. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with the proponents of instrumental music; they must prove a divine warrant for such a service apart from tabernacle or temple ordinances, if they wish to introduce instrumental music into new covenant worship. Without such a warrant, it is improper to reintroduce such ceremonial observances back into public worship.22
The argument can also be stated by way of syllogism:
Premise one: God-authorized use of musical instruments in worship was entirely restricted to the Levitical order and to the temple.23 Premise two: The Levitical order, the temple, and the ceremonial laws have passed away.24 Conclusion: instrumental music passed away when the Levitical order passed away.
It is their contention that it is no more proper to play instruments in worship today than it would be proper to sacrifice sheep or oxen today. They believe that both kinds of action would be an ungodly reversion to Judaism. To those who respond that the Psalms continually command the use of musical instruments, the response is simple: treat such references like we would similar references in the Psalms to sacrifices, bulls, blood, and hyssop. It is the meaning of those types that is important, not the literal presence of the types. It is claimed that just as sacrifices pointed to the atonement of Jesus, musical instruments typified the joy that believers were ushered into through Christ’s atonement.25 The typical meaning of the sacrifices and instruments remains, but not the type itself. The very simplicity of the argument has been compelling to many Christians down through the centuries. Fearful of the accusation of “Judaizing,” they have abandoned any use of musical accompaniment to songs.
Problem one – Non-Levites were clearly authorized to play musical instruments in worship
Brian Schwertley represents many when he says,
A careful study of the use of musical instruments in worship in the old covenant reveals that musical instruments were only played by certain authorized classes of Levites. Non-Levites never used musical instruments in public worship.26
Despite the categorical “only” and “never,” he backtracks at points and acknowledges that musical instruments were used by prophets (1 Sam. 10:5; 2 Kings 3:16-17), though that fact is dismissed as an irrelevant exception since prophets no longer exist. He admits that instruments were played in Jehoshaphat’s victory celebration (1 Chron. 15:14-28), but insists that since the parade ended at the temple (v. 28), that it was ceremonial and therefore the instruments must have been used by Levites, though the text implies otherwise,27 and though the text makes clear that they at least had musical instruments at a non-temple worship service before traveling to the temple.28 He admits that the Psalms are replete with admonitions to use instruments in worship, but he dismisses those passages as either commands to Levites in the Old Covenant or typological of joy for the New Covenant. Where that is not possible, he uses an ad hominem argument that if instruments are admitted, then dancing and sacrifices also need to be admitted.29 He admits that non-Levites played musical instruments at victory celebrations in Exodus 15, 1 Samuel 18, Judges 11, and Jeremiah 31:4, but believes he can dispose of them with five reasons.30 These examples at least illustrate that a cappella advocates must constantly nuance their categorical statements with exceptions, assumed contexts, and circular reasoning. Indeed, there are so many “exceptions” that the rule should be questioned rather than assumed as proved.
Though we could debate some texts endlessly, I will seek in the rest of this section to show clear evidence that God authorized non-Levitical instrumentalists to play in public worship services in the Old Covenant. Even women were authorized to play music in church. If this can be demonstrated clearly, then numerous other passages that have been dismissed or explained away by the a cappella advocates suddenly become a resounding chorus of calls to use musical instruments.
Illustrated in Psalm 98
The first clear passage comes from Psalm 98. God gives the following command to “all the earth”:
Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth; break forth in song, rejoice, and sing praises. Sing to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of the psalm, with trumpets and the sound of the horn; shout joyfully before the LORD, the King… (Ps. 98:4-6)
There are three things that need to be highlighted in this passage: First, this paragraph is describing a formal worship service, since the singing and playing is done “to the LORD” (v. 5) and “before the LORD” (v. 6).31 Indeed, the strong literary parallels that commentators have noted with Psalm 9632 make it impossible to escape the idea of a public worship service (see Ps. 96:7-9). Therefore this passage cannot be as easily dismissed as being “non-worship celebration” as so many other passages have been cavalierly dismissed.33 It is clearly intended to speak about people gathered before the LORD in public worship.
Second, the instruments are said to be in the hands of “all the earth,” which in the immediately preceding sentence is defined as “all the ends of the earth [which] have seen the salvation of our God” (v. 3). Here is a clear reference to non-Levitical Gentiles who have been commanded to use musical instruments in a worship service.
Third, it cannot be claimed that all the earth is simply being commanded to have the joy typified by the musical instruments. If the musical instruments were indeed types, then (on their own hermeneutical principles) the ceremonial types could only have been in the hands of the Levites. So this passage would prove too much if it were said to be a type. It would prove that even in the Old Testament the type could have been in the hands of a Gentile. So either way it demonstrates our point. If it was a type, this passage shows that it was not a distinctively Levitical type since Gentiles in Old Testament times used them. On the other hand, if all types were Levitical, then such instruments could not be a type because these worship instruments were in the hands of non-Levites. Thus premise one is clearly proved to be false. There is yet more evidence:
Illustrated in Psalm 68
Psalm 68 is another passage that authorizes non-priestly singers and instrumentalists to go into the “sanctuary” with their music. It says,
They have seen Your procession, O God; the procession of my God, my King, into the sanctuary. The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the maidens playing timbrels. Bless God in the congregations, the LORD, from the fountain of Israel. (Ps. 68:24-26)
There have been various attempts to get around the clear meaning of this passage, the most common one being the claim that it is describing a “procession celebration” that was not worship, but rather, people travelling to Jerusalem prior to worship.34 However, even if this were true, it is inconsistent for instrument-abolitionists to categorize five other “procession” texts as being Levitical temple worship since the procession was leading up to the temple,35 and to fail to see this Psalm as describing exactly the same temple worship when the procession mentioned is right “into the sanctuary.”
Apart from that inconsistency, the instrumental playing in this Psalm cannot be categorized as non-worship. Several features make it clear that public worship was happening. First, God is present in their midst (“Your procession, O God, the procession of my God”). Whatever movement was happening, God was at the center of it. Second, the procession is “into the sanctuary” not simply towards Jerusalem. Third, the grammar of verses 24b-25 indicates that the maidens were still playing after they had entered the sanctuary. The order of entering “into the sanctuary” was that “the singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the maidens playing timbrels.” There is no evidence that the musical instruments were left at the door. Fourth, the result of their procession into the sanctuary is a call to everyone to “bless God in the congregations” (v. 26). This fits the context of the whole Psalm which has called the righteous to “rejoice before God” (v. 3), to “sing to God” (v. 4), to “extol Him” (v. 4), and to “rejoice before Him” (v. 4) by recounting his wonderful deeds (vv. 5ff). It is difficult for me to conceive how this worship is any less worship than the typical procession passages that a cappella advocates use to prove the regulative principle, such as 1 Chronicles 13 and 15-16.
Second, this passage deals with worship by non-priests in both the temple and the synagogues of Israel. Verse 24 refers to the temple procession as God’s procession, and a procession of music that went “into the sanctuary” (v. 24). That phrase deals with the temple worship of the whole congregation of Israel. Subsequently these same players are commanded to “bless God in the congregations” (v. 26). Note that this is a plural word in both the New King James Version and also in the Hebrew – “congregations.” These “congregations” were various synagogues that met on the temple precincts in the numerous meeting rooms.36 If it was appropriate for maidens to play on timbrels in the various congregations/synagogues37 that met on the temple precincts, then such playing would also be appropriate to the congregations/synagogues that gathered in the “meeting places of God” (cf Ps. 74:8) scattered throughout the land.38 In any case, this passage makes clear that it was not simply Levitical officers who played instruments. Maidens also played instruments within the central sanctuary, giving us a second clear proof of the falsity of premise one.
Illustrated in Psalm 33
The same can be illustrated in Psalm 33:
Rejoice in the LORD, O you righteous! For praise from the upright is beautiful. Praise the LORD with the harp; make melody to Him with an instrument of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy. (Ps. 33:1-3)
While it cannot be categorically proved that this verse is a command to play within a formal worship service, it is certainly a call to worship God, and this call is addressed to the congregation of believers (“you righteous… the upright”). And it is within some kind of worship that the author issues a command to use both harp and lute. Third, the grammar indicates that the ones being commanded to play these musical instruments are a broader group than simply the Levites. It is a command directed to “you righteous” and “the upright.”
Illustrated in the Practice of David
It is also clear that David himself did not believe that the use of musical instruments in worship was to be restricted to the Levitical office. David was not a Levite (Ruth 4:12,18-22), yet he not only invented new musical instruments (Amos 6:5; 1 Chron. 23:5) such as the ten stringed lute (Ps. 33:2; 144:9), but he also joined others in playing such instruments before the Lord:
Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets. (1 Chron. 13:8)
Then David and all the house of Israel played music before the LORD on all kinds of instruments of fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and on cymbals. (2 Sam. 6:5)
At this point a cappella advocates are divided in their response, with some insisting that David was condemned for inventing instruments (Amos 6:5) and playing instruments (1 Chron. 13), while others simply say that David received special revelation concerning changes to Levitical worship. Either direction poses problems. Scripture is clear that David’s invention of instruments was authorized by the commandment of the Lord (2 Chron. 29:25). Most agree, emphasizing the fact that Levites are the only ones authorized to use such instruments in this last verse, but this ignores the fact that David himself played instruments in worship even though he was a non-Levite. Though this is often admitted, it is still insisted that David only used the instruments for temple worship and he did so by divine warrant. However, we have already seen that David authorized a broader use of instruments in Psalm 68 and 98. So even though David’s use of instruments in the temple is marshaled by a cappella advocates to prove an exclusive Levitical function, their exegesis is muddied and often backtracks on principles that were earlier insisted upon. Therefore, I will seek to examine David’s use of instruments in more detail.
Instrument-abolitionists agree with us that these verses are descriptions of public worship (“worship before the LORD”), and that they do indeed teach us much about the Regulative Principle of Worship. We also agree that David in some way violated the Regulative Principle of Worship because David said, “the LORD our God broke out against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order” (1 Chron. 15:13). We are agreed that every aspect of public worship must be regulated by God.
Where we differ is whether the use of musical instruments in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles was condemned. According to many a cappella advocates, 2 Samuel 6, 1 Chronicles 13,15, and Amos 5:6 all condemn David’s use of unauthorized music. Their argument is that “all Israel played music” in 1 Chronicles 13:8, whereas “the Levites… [were appointed] to be the singers accompanied by instruments of music” in 1 Chronicles 15:16. They also say that chapter 13 violated Mosaic law because non-Levites played music. Chapter 15 followed Mosaic law because the instruments were used by Levites. Therefore, even though there is no specific prohibition of non-Levitical use of instruments, the implication is that the music of chapter 13 was just as unbiblical as the faulty handling of the Ark of the Covenant.
It is true that God did get angry with Uzzah and judged him with death for violating His laws related to worship (2 Sam. 6:7; 1 Chron. 13:10). I am in agreement that this passage teaches us that God is not pleased with anything unauthorized being introduced into worship. However, it is not correct to say that the use of musical instruments by non-Levites was in any way condemned. We will see that the passage teaches the exact opposite.
The judgment of God fell because Israel violated four laws. First, God’s law required the ark to be carried by the Levites alone (Deut. 10:8; 31:9; Numb. 4:1-20), yet others were involved in carrying the ark in direct violation of Mosaic law (1 Chron. 15:2,12-14). Second, the ark had rings on it through which poles were inserted, and the Levites were supposed to carry the ark by placing those poles upon their shoulders (Ex. 25:12-14; Numb. 4:5-6,15), whereas David imitated the Philistines by carrying the ark on an ox cart (compare 1 Sam. 6:7 with 2 Sam. 6:3-4). Third, the ark was supposed to be completely covered so that it could not be seen when it was carried (Numb. 4:5-6,12), whereas no covering prevented Uzzah’s hand from touching the ark (2 Sam. 6:6; 1 Chron. 13:8-9). Fourth, no one was to ever touch the ark on any account (Numb. 4:15,19,20), whereas Uzzah touched the ark (2 Sam. 6:6; 1 Chron. 13:8-9). This much is clear.
However, the a cappella legalists add a sin that is never mentioned. They claim that God’s wrath also broke out because non-Levites like David were involved in playing musical instruments. But nowhere in any of the texts was the use of musical instruments condemned. Indeed, this passage proves the exact opposite. At the second worship celebration of 1 Chronicles 15, David corrected every error that had been made on the previous occasion, but there is no mention of an error with regard to music. On the contrary, when the ark was brought into Jerusalem, David was still “playing music” (1 Chron. 15:29) and “all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting and with a sound of the horn, with trumpets and with cymbals, making music with stringed instruments and harps” (1 Chron. 15:28). It is clear from the grammar that it was “all Israel” that was “making music.” Even after his wife rebuked him for this display of celebration, David says “I will play music before the LORD” (2 Sam. 6:21) and God vindicated what David was doing by judging his wife (2 Sam. 6:23) and making a lasting covenant with David (2 Sam. 7). So this passage proves the exact opposite of what a cappella advocates intend. It proves that non-Levites accompanied singing in worship before the Lord with “all kinds” instruments (2 Sam. 6:5).
The second passage often used to prove that David was in sin is Amos 6:5. In context the passage says:
Woe to you who put far off the day of doom, Who cause the seat of violence to come near; Who lie on beds of ivory, Stretch out on your couches, Eat lambs from the flock And calves from the midst of the stall; Who sing idly to the sound of stringed instruments, And invent for yourselves musical instruments like David; Who drink wine from bowls, And anoint yourselves with the best ointments, But are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Therefore they shall now go captive as the first of the captives, And those who recline at banquets shall be removed. The Lord GOD has sworn by Himself, The LORD God of hosts says: “I abhor the pride of Jacob, And hate his palaces; Therefore I will deliver up the city And all that is in it.”
The key offense that is highlighted is, “and invent for yourselves musical instruments like David” (v. 5). The idea is that David’s multiplication of musical instruments was not authorized by God (despite clear Biblical testimony to the contrary – 2 Chron. 29:25).39
However, such an interpretation is totally missing the point that Amos is making. Amos is not saying that having a fancy bed, lying down on a couch, eating lamb, singing, playing instruments, drinking wine, anointing oneself, or reclining at banquets was wrong. Indeed, if all these things were not legitimate things, the point Amos was making would have been lost. Judgment was about to fall and Amos couldn’t understand how the Jewish leaders could ignore that fact.
Amos was opposed to five things that these Jewish leaders were engaged in. First, he was opposed to them leading a normal life as if no judgment was coming,40 when the prophets had said that judgment was imminent (Ezek. 12:22,27). This means that playing instruments and inventing instruments was a part of normal life. Second, the Jewish leaders were preoccupied with enjoying life rather than with mourning over Israel’s sin.41 All these things were good gifts of God that were meant to be enjoyed – in their place. When God called for mourning and sackcloth, it was not a time for pleasure. Third, these leaders were living pridefully as if they were the masters of their fate and acting as if their lifestyle would continue forever.42 Even eating lamb can be a sin if it is done pridefully and independently of God. Fourth, he was warning them that their leisure would be turned into slavery.43 It is not that leisure is not allowed. God gave seven festivals in which to have leisure. Now was a time to be engaged in repentance. Finally, he was warning them that their opulent luxury would not prevent them from being delivered to the enemies.44 The point Amos clearly made was that Israel should not be acting as if everything was normal when judgment was looming over them.
This means that David’s invention of instruments was not sinful. Nor was the idea of playing on instruments. Far from proving a cappella worship, the life of David overturns it. Furthermore, the very instruments that David invented, are commanded to be used by God’s inspiration in Psalm 33:2; 43:4; 57:8; 71:22; 81:2; 92:3; 98:5; 108:2; 147:7; 149:3; 150:3. When Scripture itself clearly states that the “instruments of David” were instituted according to “the commandment of the LORD,” (2 Chron. 29:25-27), it is only strong prejudice against instruments that can maintain this kind of interpretation of Amos 6:5.
Do you have to rinse white vinegar?
Rinsing is not necessary! If you're simply using a vinegar and water solution to wipe and disinfect, you won't need to rinse. However, if there's...
This means that we have definitively proved that the first pillar of the instrument-abolitionist position is false. Instruments were not restricted to the Levites since David, maidens, and Gentiles were all commanded to play instruments in worship.
Problem two: David’s booth/tabernacle (a form of synagogue worship that foreshadowed New Covenant worship) had instrumental music without sacrifices or ceremonial law.
In 2003, Peter Leithart wrote a ground-breaking book that analyzes the Booth (אֹהֶל) of David as a worship center in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:12-23; 1 Chron. 15-16) that operated side by side with the Tabernacle (מִשְׁכַּן) of Moses that continued to function seven miles northwest of Jerusalem in Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:39-43).45 While I do not agree with all of his conclusions, I believe that he does establish the following facts that are relevant to our study:
First, the Booth/tabernacle of David was not a substitute Tabernacle for the ceremonial law. The two entities were different on many levels. As already noted, different Hebrew words are used to describe the two places. The architecture was quite different, with the Booth of David being a one roomed meeting place where the Ark of the Covenant was visible and the Tabernacle of Moses being divided up into outer, holy place, and most holy place, and the Ark of the Covenant never being visible. People went to the Tabernacle of Moses in Gibeon to perform their sacrifices, and they went to the Booth of David in Jerusalem to worship much like they would in a synagogue. The priests continued to minister at the Tabernacle of Moses in Gibeon while the synagogue Levites ministered side-by-side with the majority Gentile officers of Obed-Edom and his brethren.46 In short, the Booth of David contained the temple worship stripped of all its ceremonial law just as the New Covenant church is worship stripped of the ceremonial law. The Booth of David was equivalent to the Old Testament synagogue,47 but with the heightened presence of music.
Second, the extremely unusual features of the Booth of David mentioned in the previous paragraph were authorized by God in order to foreshadow the New Testament church. Both Amos 9 and Acts 15 use the Booth of David as a type of New Covenant worship, where Jew and Gentile together are able to worship God. Never do the prophets or the New Testament Scriptures liken the church to “mount Moriah.” Rather they liken the church to mount Zion where the Booth of David was.48 The psalm in 1 Chronicles 16 is particularly powerful in describing Jew and Gentile worshipping side-by-side in New Testament times. So though this Booth of David functioned like a large synagogue, it was different from most synagogues in that it had Gentiles who were “adopted” to be Levites (and thus prefigured New Covenant pastors) and it had Jews and Gentiles coming boldly before the throne of grace (and thus prefiguring our New Covenant privileges). In commenting on the Jew-Gentile issue in Acts 15, James says that the New Testament church is a rebuilding of the Booth of David. Whatever role the other synagogues or temple might have to the New Testament church, James is explicit about the fact that the New Testament church corresponds closely to the Booth of David. The Booth of David removed all ceremonial furniture and functions of the Tabernacle of Moses leaving only the “throne of grace” (the Ark of the Covenant) – exactly as we have in the New Covenant church (Heb. 4:16). This interpretation is confirmed by James at the Jerusalem council:
And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: “After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle [booth] of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; so that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the LORD who does all these things.
While Acts 15 obviously settled the question of whether Gentiles could enter the church without getting circumcised, it also answers the question of whether music should be played in the New Testament church. If David played music in the Booth of David, then the New Testament church should play music in worship. The next point makes explicit that musical instruments were not just a thing of the temple – they were part and parcel of the Booth of David.
There was an abundance of musical instrumentation in the Booth of David. Indeed, David invented new musical instruments (Amos 6:5; 1 Chron. 23:5) such as the ten stringed lute (Ps. 33:2; 144:9) and allowed laity to play on “all kinds of instruments” (2 Sam. 6:5). Peter Leithart points out that the law of God did not authorize these kinds of instruments for the ceremonial rituals of the Tabernacle of Moses. These new instruments cannot be explained away as “Temple ceremonial law” since these instruments were not commanded in the Pentateuch and were not being played at the Tabernacle of Moses in Gibeon. Something else is going on – something prophetic of the New Covenant: God explicitly ties the rejoicing with new instruments (1 Chronicles 16:1-6) to his prophetic call for all the peoples of the earth to worship with song (1 Chronicles 16:7-36). So what is made explicit about the connection of the Booth of David with New Covenant worship is implied in 1 Chronicles 16.49
Nor can these instruments be explained away as David’s unauthorized novelty since God explicitly says that they were instruments authorized by “the commandment of the LORD” (2 Chron. 29:25-27) for the Booth of David.50 The other exegetical issue that shows divine authorization is that these “new instruments” are commanded by God in the titles to several Psalms (cf the titles of Psalm 33:2; 43:4; 57:8; 71:22; 81:2; 92:3; 98:5; 108:2; 147:7; 149:3; 150:3). Interestingly, some of these Psalms also prophetically call upon the Gentiles to worship God in the New Covenant. Even if that had not been true, the apostle Paul says that these Psalms “were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11). Therefore, the Booth of David is all the justification that is needed for New Testament believers to use musical instruments in worship.
Problem three: the only musical instruments that were distinctively Levitical were the two silver trumpets.
There is a third problem with the first main pillar: the only musical instruments that were distinctively Levitical were the two silver trumpets of Numbers 10. Jewish scholar, Alfred Edersheim, said,
What instrumental music there was, served only to accompany and sustain the song. Accordingly, none other than Levites might act as choristers, while other distinguished Israelites were allowed to take part in the instrumental music. The blasts of the trumpets, blown by priests only, formed—at least in the second Temple—no part of the instrumental music of the service, but were intended for quite different purposes.”
The two silver trumpets of Numbers 10 were blown over the sacrifice at the time it was being sacrificed (Numb. 10:2,10). No one else could blow those two trumpets. On this much we are agreed.51 But that did not mean that other silver trumpets (hasarsarat) could not be used. Psalm 98 commands their use by even Gentiles. And even if that particular brand of trumpet could have been proved to have been exclusively Levitical, there are other kinds of trumpets commanded (see Psalm 150:3 – shofer). And we have already seen that instruments used by the Levites (2 Chron. 29:26; 1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5; 28:13, 19; 2 Chron. 29:25-27, etc.) were also used by non-Levites. For example, the non-Levitical prophets of 1 Samuel 10:5 used “a stringed instrument, a tambourine, a flute, and a harp.” Likewise, “all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets” (1 Chron. 13:8). The non-temple worship of Exodus 15 was done “to the LORD” (vv. 1,21) with timbrels (v. 21). It was not temple worship, but it was worship. Furthermore, the Messianic Psalms that predict the conversion of the world call upon the Gentiles to use instruments in worship. For example, Psalm 67 instructs all nations, all peoples and all ends of the earth to praise God and the title explains how – “on stringed instruments.” Psalm 87 speaks of every nation being a part of Zion in the Messianic age, and these New Covenant members have both “singers” and “players on instruments” (v. 7) who worship within Zion. The two Psalms we began with (Psalms 68 and 98) are both Messianic Psalms speaking of New Covenant saints playing on instruments. It is gratuitous to say that whenever the Psalms command the use of musical instruments, they are only commanding Levites to do so. The only clearly labeled Levitical instruments were the two silver trumpets.
Problem four: While some Levitical functions ceased with the death of Christ, it is simply not true that all Levitical functions do.
There is still another problem with the first main pillar of the a cappella position. Even if we are wrong on everything we have said thus far, McCracken has still not proved his point that instrumental music has passed away. While some Levitical functions (such as blood sacrifices, temple ministry, temple calendar) ceased with the death of Christ, it is simply not true that all Levitical functions do. Unless the Scripture clearly says that a Levitical function ceases, we should be careful of affirming that it does. After all, the Levites prayed, preached God’s Word, led in singing, received a tithe, applied the sign of the covenant to converts, etc. In fact, even though the bloody sacrifices and the ceremonies exclusively tied to those bloody sacrifices have passed away, the New Testament uses those laws to instruct us on how our spiritual worship should be offered up.
Consider the following: Just as Levites substituted for the “firstborn” as the spiritual leaders in the church during the Mosaic period (cf. Numb. 3:12,41,45-46; 8:18; etc.), the Old Testament prophesied that God would make Levites out of the Gentiles during the New Covenant era (Isa. 66:21; cf. also Jer. 33:18,21-22). He is using Old Covenant language to describe New Covenant leadership. This means that there must be some continuity between Levites and present day church leaders.
Furthermore, though the physical temple is abolished (along with the Jewish priesthood and blood sacrifices – cf. Hebrews), God repeatedly calls the church a temple (1 Cor. 3:17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21) in which non-bloody “spiritual sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5; cf. Eph. 5:2; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; 1 Pet. 2:5), drink offerings (Phil. 2:17) and other offerings (Rom. 15:16) are offered up through Jesus (1 Pet. 2:5).52 This assumes some points of continuity between the temple and the church of today.
I have elsewhere demonstrated that these points of continuity are the same as the points of continuity between temple and synagogue in the Old Testament. The New Testament church carries over all the functions of the synagogue and indeed is called a “synagogue” (Greek of James 2:2). If New Testament Gentiles can take over many of the functions of Levites (Isa. 66:21), then we have to determine which Levitical tasks continue and which do not. The position of “exclusive psalmody” and “no instrumentation” is basically a dispensationalist hermeneutic (“if you can’t find it in the New Testament then it’s not for the church”). We will indeed demonstrate that the use of instruments can be found in the New Testament. Until someone can demonstrate that the use of instruments is distinctively Levitical or has been abolished, we remain unconvinced.
Problem five – Where does the Bible describe musical instruments as a ceremonial type?
The last problem that I see with the first pillar of the a cappella thesis is the assumption that musical instruments are a type or symbol of something redemptive. Not everything the Levites did was a type of redemption. As previously pointed out, they did many things that a cappella churches do – they prayed, preached God’s Word, led in singing, received a tithe, applied the sign of the covenant to converts and their families, gave the benediction, etc. Just because Levites did such things does not make all of those things types. So my parting question on this point is, “Where in the Bible are musical instruments ever described as types of redemption?”
Of course, even if someone can demonstrate that musical instruments are types, his work is not finished. Many Old Testament types continue in the New Testament. Marriage was a type of the relationship between Christ and the church, yet it continues.53 Other Old Testament types that continue are the rainbow,54 baptism,55 the Sabbath,56 and the central part of the Passover meal.57 So even if you are convinced that musical instruments are a type, you will need to deal with our next point – instruments in the New Testament. I have yet to find any Scripture that affirms that instruments are a type of redemption. Once again, pillar number one is shown to be an unbiblical doctrine. As such, the mandate to sing a cappella constitutes both legalism and antinomianism (see chapter 2).
4. Dealing with a cappella’s second pillar
…speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, and with your hearts sing and play music to the Lord. – Ephesians 5:19 (Beck’s translation) And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps. – Revelation 14:2
A summary of the argument: the claim that instrumental music cannot be found in the New Testament
The second major pillar for the instrument-abolitionist position is the claim that instrumental music is foreign to “New Testament worship.” Of course, the very demand that musical instruments must be commanded in the New Testament is a faulty hermeneutic. If we were to restrict our commandments to the New Testament alone, not only would women be excluded from the Lord’s Supper, but we would have only one guideline for the degrees of consanguinity (can’t marry your mother), we would have no prohibition of bestiality, and we would be without guidance on a host of societal, ecological, and family issues.
So even though I will be giving New Testament evidence for the use of musical instruments, I would urge the reader to restudy the first three chapters. Paul praised the Bereans because they checked out all his teaching against the Old Testament (Acts 17:11). Luke said that Paul was teaching “no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come” (Acts 26:22). If everything he taught was taught from the Old Testament, it means that the subject of worship can be taught from the Old Testament as well. After all, Paul said that the Old Testament Scriptures that Timothy grew up on (2 Tim. 3:14-15) are sufficient for every doctrine and issue of righteousness (v. 16), and are so sufficient that they make the man of God “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (v. 17). This means that restricting ourselves to what the New Testament says on this subject is a non-Biblical hermeneutic.58 My most fundamental disagreement with McCracken (and other a cappella advocates) is that they have unwittingly adopted a dispensational hermeneutic. Nevertheless, I think the reader will find it interesting that the New Testament does indeed command the use of instruments in worship.
Ephesians 5:19: Does it command the use of instruments or forbid the use of instruments?
Ephesians 5:19 commands us to be:
speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord
Many a cappella advocates have tried to demonstrate that this verse forbids the use of all instruments. The first claim is that the Greek words for psalms, hymns, and songs had a specialized meaning in the New Testament that excluded instrumentation, a claim that at least some lexicons support.59 The second argument is that Ephesians 5:19 restricts all instrumentation to an inward disposition of the heart. For example, McCracken admits that the New Testament word “psallo” means, “to pluck the strings of an instrument,” but because of the phrase, “in your heart,” he renders it, “plucking the strings of your heart to the Lord.” 60 So, far from being embarrassed by this verse, instrument-abolitionists have used it to teach a cappella singing.
On the other hand, Instrumentalists have argued that this verse is a positive command to use instruments in worship. They point out that the only way to exclude instrumentation from the meaning of these terms and/or to turn the terms into a mandate for a cappella singing is through circular reasoning.61 Indeed, the Bible repeatedly uses the terms “psalms,”62 “hymns,”63 and “songs”64 to refer to singing that was indeed accompanied by instruments. Likewise, Instrumentalists insist that the phrase that is translated as “making melody” in the NKJV is a word whose primary usage outside of the New Testament would mandate a translation of “playing instrumentally.” Danker’s lexicon (under the entry for ado) renders Ephesians 5:19 as “singing and playing (instrumentally) heartily to the Lord.” Instrumentalists therefore claim that this is a verse that gives a positive command to use instruments in the worship service. They also claim that if only a cappella singing was being called for, the voice-only interpretation would produce two awkward tautologies within one verse. It would then mean, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and singing psalms in your heart to the Lord.” If Paul’s purpose was to call for the singing of Psalms, he has already adequately done so in the first phrase and wouldn’t need to duplicate that admonition in the second half (“psalms…singing psalms.”). If it is objected that Paul wanted to enforce the singing (ado) of the Psalms and not merely the recitation of them, we still have a tautology: “singing and singing Psalms.” The only way to avoid tautology is to affirm two kinds of singing: “singing and singing psalms.” Since a cappella advocates are for the most part also exclusive psalmists, this poses a problem for them because it implies singing psalms and singing something in addition to psalms. Thus, the most natural interpretation of the passage is to say that it calls for singing three types of song within the worship service as well as calling for at least some instrumental accompaniment.
It is my contention that this second interpretation fits the evidence better. Modern studies of the Greek terms strongly point in the direction of instrumentation being commanded. Let us examine each term. The text says, “speaking to yourselves in psalms [psalmos] and hymns [humnos] and spiritual songs [ode], singing [ado] and making melody [psallo] in your heart to the Lord.”
Psalms
No one (to my knowledge) disagrees with the fact that the Greek word for “psalms” (psalmos) originally referred to the action upon a stringed instrument or the sound coming from a stringed instrument.65 Later it included the idea of both the song and the musical accompaniment, but the instrumentation was the dominant idea behind the word.66 When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the term psalmos could refer to either music alone,67 a Psalm accompanied by stringed instruments,68 a Psalm accompanied by other instruments,69 or to anything in the Psalter. The Greek word translates the Hebrew words mizmor,70 zamar,71 naganah,72 and sir73, all of which had instrumental connotations. So pervasive was this connection, that K. A. Bartels argues that “It can be assumed that, at least during the OT period, the singing of the Psalms was always accompanied by musical instruments.”74 Though the last statement will be hotly contested by the a cappella advocates based on their understanding of synagogue worship,75 I know of none who would argue that any of the terms discussed here had an a cappella connotation in the Old Testament.
However, it is argued that by the time we get to the New Testament period, the words psalmos and psallo have lost any idea of instrumentation. What is the proof offered? Instrument-abolitionists cannot offer up any first century evidence external to the New Testament. Instead they have offered two assumptions: 1) that later Byzantine usage must have been already developed in the first century and 2) that church fathers who understood the Greek language would not have later opposed instruments in worship if those Greek terms had retained any instrumental connotations. Girardeau quotes Dr. Porteous to this effect:
From these quotations from the Greek fathers, the three first of whom flourished in the fourth century – men of great erudition, well skilled in the phraseology and language of Scripture, perfectly masters of the Greek tongue, which was then written and spoken with purity in the countries where they resided; men, too, who for conscience sake would not handle the Word of God deceitfully, it is evident that the Greek word ψαλλω signified in their time singing with the voice alone. Had they conceived otherwise, we may be assured that they had both sufficient firmness of mind and influence in the church to have induced their hearers to have used the harp and psaltery in the public worship of God.76
In the fifth chapter of this book we will challenge two of the assumptions that are critical to his conclusion: 1) that there were no instruments in public worship in the first four centuries and 2) that the church fathers who did oppose instruments did so out of zeal for Scripture, rather than out of zeal for Greek philosophy. Lexicons have on occasion made the same faulty assumptions and have tentatively cited evidence that psalmos is a cappella from 1) later usage of the term psalmos, 2) scholars with the same faulty assumptions, and 3) reference to the very texts being contested in the New Testament.
At this juncture it is sufficient to show that psalmos and psallo were both used long after the New Testament was written with exactly the same instrumental connotations that they had in Old Testament times. Moulton and Milligan cite second century AD Koine inscriptions where technical Greek terms are distinguished, with kitharismos referring to the action of picking the harp with a quill and psalmos referring to the action of picking the harp with the fingers.77 He also cites one second century example of it meaning a psalm or song that was “sung to a harp accompaniment.” Josephus, a contemporary of Paul, always used the term psalmos to refer to instrumental music, and consistently used humnos to refer to the Old Testament Psalms. Philo avoided using psalmos precisely because it meant an instrumental tune, and his adoption of Greek philosophy made him hostile to instrumental music.78 The church fathers Hyppolytus79 (d. 236AD), Didymus of Alexandria80 (d. 394), Gregory of Nyssa81 (d. 395), and his brother Basil82 all support our contention that the word has an instrumental meaning.
Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever that the word “psalms” mandates the a cappella meaning that some instrument-abolitionists have claimed for it. Though psalms obviously could be sung with no instrumentation, the idea of a cappella singing is not inherent in the meaning of the term. The evidence points in the opposite direction – especially the usage of the term by Josephus, Hippolytus, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil.
Hymns
The next word is humnos. The central meaning of this term involves praise to God.83 It has no inherent meaning related to instruments one way or the other. This noun occurs only here in Ephesians 5:19 and in Colossians 3:16, but it is used by extra-Biblical writers to refer to both canonical psalms as well as non-canonical songs of praise to God.84 In classical Greek this was a more general term of praise that could refer to either recited poetry or to songs. In the Old Testament it had a range of meaning, including praise, prayer, song, psalm, and even a stringed instrument.85 Though I have already mentioned that Philo may have preferred using humnos to refer to the Psalms because of an anti-instrument bias, and even though both classical and Septuagintal Greek could use the term for both a cappella and accompanied song, there is nothing about the term that would necessitate a cappella singing, as is clear from Josephus, a first century writer, who used the term humnos to refer to Psalms accompanied by music.86
The Terms “Songs” and “Sing”
What about the words ode (song) and ado (sing)? Some instrument-abolitionists have insisted that these terms have an unmistakably a cappella meaning. Thus, even if psalmos originally included the idea of accompaniment, in our era we are to “sing” (ado) the Psalms as a “song” (ode), not play them. In other words, the claim is that the terms ado and ode constitute a command to sing the Psalms a cappella even if the psalms were once (under the temple system) sung with accompaniment. Though this particular understanding of ode and ado has a long history,87 it has been discredited as contradicting the evidence in ancient, Biblical, Koine, or even later Greek. When Josephus can say that singers would “sing [ado] to the instruments which David had prepared,” 88 it is clear that he was utterly unaware that the term had any concept of a cappella singing included in its meaning; and his life overlapped the life of the apostles.
This is also true in its New Testament usage. The two terms always occur together in the New Testament. Besides Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, these two words only occur in Revelation 5:9, 14:3, and 15:2-3. In each one of those passages the song or singing is done with instruments. Interestingly, the last passage speaks of them singing with “harps given them by God.” Danny Corbitt rightly notes, “This reminds us of how those in the Old Testament praised God with ‘the Lord’s instruments’ (2 Chronicles 7:6 and 30:21).”89 It is difficult to believe that Paul intended to command a cappella singing with the terms ado and ode when those very terms were used by his contemporary, John, to describe accompanied singing! Instrument-abolitionists will dismiss the passages from Revelation as being irrelevant since they refer to heavenly worship, not church worship, but the point I am making now concerns the meaning of terms, not the relevance of heavenly worship to earthly worship (a point that we have touched on in chapter 1 and will explore further below). It is clear that these terms do not have an inherent meaning of a cappella singing, a fact that completely nullifies the instrument-abolitionist interpretation of Ephesians 5:19.
Making Melody
The last musical term is psallo, and is rendered in the New King James Version with the ambiguous phrase “making melody” (which could refer to instrumentation or simply vocal singing). Everyone agrees that the word originally had the meaning of “to play on an instrument.”90 There is also broad agreement that Philo (20 BC – AD 20), Josephus (AD 37-100), Plutarch (AD 46-140), Lucian (AD 125-180), and others used both psallo and psalmos to refer to playing with an instrument, making it clear that the classical meaning was maintained by both Jews and Gentiles in the century leading up to and after the writing of the New Testament.91. This instrumental meaning of the term is so pervasive that a cappella advocates have tried four different ways to get around the clear evidence that Paul is commanding the use of an instrument in church.
The first approach has been to distinguish between the Hellenistic cultures that both Philo and Josephus were writing to and the Biblical culture that the New Testament was seeking to work within. For example, Everett Ferguson says, “Hellenistic Jews writing for Gentile audiences kept to the classical meaning of psallo.”92 His explanation for Philo never using psallo for a cappella Psalm singing, but preferring humneo instead is quite revealing: “A plausible hypothesis would be that Philo is aware of the primarily instrumental connotation of the word to pagan readers,” and since Philo was writing to a Hellenistic audience, the use of psallo would be confusing.93
I would object with a counter argument: would not Paul have been writing to Greek Gentiles when he wrote Ephesians? Would they not have understood the term in its normal Greek usage? If he intended a cappella singing, would not his use of psallo have been equally confusing? Ferguson would counter that Paul was writing to Greek Gentiles who had been incorporated into the church and that as members of the church they would be accustomed to Paul’s “Jewish religious language,”94 but this begs the question of what the “Jewish religious language” really is. Lexicons can be found that will tentatively say that non-instrumental music may be included in the meaning, but the concept of “Jewish religious language” mandating an a cappella meaning is circular reasoning. Did the Jewish translation of the Old Testament use an a cappella meaning for the term? We have already seen that it did not. Therefore, the so-called “Jewish religious language” did not originate in the Septuagint. Did Josephus use the term to convey a cappella singing? Clearly not. Yet he was a religious Jew (a Pharisee). Did Philo understand the term psallo to have an a cappella meaning? Obviously not. Then what Jewish sources would Ferguson have us consult to find the meaning of “Jewish religious language”? He appears to mean the language of the New Testament, but that is the very point in contention. Why would it not be more natural to say that the language of the New Testament should be read the way the Jewish translators of the Septuagint understood it, or the way the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus understood it? This is more reasonable than assuming a unique definition of the term psallo that cannot be found in the Old Testament Bible (the bulk of Paul’s Bible) and cannot be found in contemporary secular or religious literature. Ferguson’s argument is circular reasoning on steroids. I see no convincing evidence that the New Testament has changed the meaning of the term psallo to a new a cappella meaning.
The second way that a cappella advocates have used to prove their point has been a bit more convincing: it is to let the other passages in the New Testament define the term in Ephesians 5:19. While this cannot be determinative (since scholars agree that various authors can use terms in different ways), it is still an approach that should not be lightly dismissed. The term psallo occurs in four New Testament verses. The first one that is often cited is James 5:13:
Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him psallo.
Girardeau argues that James must mean “let him sing psalms,” since
the noun form clearly means “psalm” in the New Testament the other two occurrences could not have the older meaning of “play instruments” since not everyone could obey the command to play instruments (not all being musical).
His last argument is based upon the fact that the command is addressed to “anyone,” and since not everyone is a harpist not everyone can fulfill the command to play music.95
The third argument of individuality is not as strong as it may at first appear. Immediate context indicates that James is making these commands in the context of the body (“anyone among you… anyone among you” – vv. 13-14) just as Ephesians 5:19 is in the context of the church. If the church was in mind, consistency does not necessitate that every member must use an instrument or that a church had to use it in every worship service, since any of the three modes of singing in Ephesians 5:19 are acceptable to God. Commenting on Ephesians 5:19, J. B. Lightfoot said,
In other words, while the leading idea of ψαλμός is a musical accompaniment and that of ὔμνος praise to God, ᾠδή is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once ψαλμός, ὔμνος, and ᾠδή.96
It would go beyond even Old Testament usage97 to mandate that each singer also be playing the instrument by which such psalms are normally accompanied. I know of no Instrument-abolitionist who believes that every Israelite had a timbrel and harp when God commanded,
Let Israel rejoice in their Maker; let the children of Zion be joyful in their King… Let them sing praises to Him with the timbrel and harp.” (Ps. 149:2-3)
Obviously such a command was given to the community as a whole, and the individuals fulfill the mandate by being in the community. Likewise, when “all the earth” is commanded to “sing with … the harp… with trumpets, and the sound of the horn” (Ps. 98:4-6) it is obvious that not each musician was playing all three instruments and singing at the same time. The individual fulfills the command by being connected with the congregation where both singing and instrumental accompaniment can be found.
We have already dealt with the first argument, noting that the noun form does not exclude instruments, and therefore, even if we translate the term as “sing psalms,” it is not thereby mandating an a cappella singing of those psalms. Indeed, with the overwhelming evidence for the first century instrumental meaning of psallo, the burden of proof is really on the instrument-abolitionist to conclude that it mandates an a cappella meaning.
Why do we call it a piano?
The word "piano" is a shortened form of pianoforte, the Italian term for the early 1700s versions of the instrument, which in turn derives from...
Even if an a cappella meaning were concluded for James, would it not be just as easy to use Ferguson’s argument against him and to say that when Jews wrote to Hellenists and Gentiles (like Paul did in Ephesians) that psallo means “play instruments” and when Jews wrote to Jews (like James did in James 5) that psallo can mean either to “play instruments” or it can mean to “sing Psalms (with or without accompaniment)”? The point of this exercise is not to disagree with the translation “let him sing psalms” but to demonstrate that there has been no evidence given that it must mean “let him sing psalms” or (if such a translation is preferred) that the singing of such psalms must be done in an a cappella fashion.
The next passage that has psallo is Romans 15:9:
and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy, as it is written: “For this reason I will confess to You among the Gentiles, and psallo to Your name.”
The primary arguments used by Instrument-abolitionists that this verse refers to a cappella singing of the psalms are 1) that confession can only be done by words, and since an instrument is not “rational,” the kind of confessing and psallo-ing must be with words, and 2) secondly, that it is not conceivable that Jesus would sing accompanied by instruments.98
As to the first argument, I fail to see how rational confession is excluded if singing is accompanied by instruments and not replaced by instruments. Note the word “and,” which implies something in addition to confession: there is confessing and psallo-ing. The “and” strongly favors the idea that the author is not merely reciting/confessing the Psalms, but confessing them through instrumentation.
As to the second argument, it is purely prejudice that would say that Jesus would not use accompaniment. With Christ’s daily ministry in the temple (Matt. 26:55; Luke 19:47) it is inconceivable that He could have missed the instrumentation in worship. Revelation certainly presents the glorified Jesus as surrounded by praises accompanied by instruments (Rev. 5:8; 14:2; 15:2-3). Thus, far from proving Girardeau’s point, Romans 15:9 shows that Jesus continues to offer up instrumental praise “among the Gentiles.” This is similar to the promise in Hebrews 2:12 where Jesus promises to sing praise “in the midst of the assembly.” How does He do that? By His union with the church that sings praise to God. So both praise (Heb. 2:12) and instrumental music accompanying that praise (Rom. 15:9) are promised to be characteristic of the Messianic age.
This interpretation of the anti-type (Jesus) is reinforced by the actions of the type (David). Given the source of the quote found in Romans 15:9, it is amazing to me that anyone could argue that this is a reference to a cappella singing. Everyone agrees that Romans 15:9 is quoting 2 Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49, and Schreiner demonstrates that 2 Samuel 22:50 is especially in mind.99 David (as a type of Christ) is the one who was confessing God among the Gentiles and psallo-ing to God’s name, and it is quite clear that David did so by means of instrumental accompaniment. Even the Hebrew word, zamar, which is translated with psallo in the Septuagint, argues strongly for instrumental accompaniment.100 So this verse does not make Girardeau’s point.
The last verse that is cited by Girardeau as proving that psallo must have an a cappella meaning in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 14:15.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will psallo with the spirit, and I will also psallo with the understanding.
The argument against instruments is that instruments are “without life” (v. 7) and therefore without rationality. The claim is that it is impossible to play instruments “with the understanding.” Thus, the command is simply to engage in the aspect of psallo that includes understanding, namely, to sing Psalms.101
That takes Paul’s argument completely out of context. The purpose of Paul’s argument in verse 7 is to say that instruments aren’t useful unless they “make a distinction of sounds” and unless it can be clearly “known what is piped or played.” In the same way, tongues aren’t useful unless the tongues are distinct words that are understood. Consider the “without life” quote in its context:
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. (1 Corinthians 14:6-9)
Since the untranslated tongues is being compared to an instrument that is poorly played, translated tongues would correspond to an instrument that is well played. Thus, Paul is in no way disparaging instruments. On the contrary, he is assuming that they should be played well. Second, Thiselton has shown that the terms “distinction,” “known,” and “uncertain” all speak of playing instrumental music with understanding and rationality.102 Thus it is quite possible to play with the spirit and to play with the understanding. Third, since these verses assume that Paul and his hearers are quite familiar with the need to play instruments with understanding, the most natural rendering of psallo in 1 Corinthians 14:15 would be its normal meaning, “to play music.” Even if one preferred the rendering, “sing psalms,” the instrument-abolitionist has not in any way proved that it has an a cappella meaning. On the contrary, the context indicates the opposite. Thus, this second way of avoiding the implications of the ordinary meaning of psallo has not been successful in overthrowing our interpretation of Ephesians 5:19.
A third way of getting around the clear meaning of the term psallo is to make certain assumptions about how Paul would have reacted against Pharisaism and the mystery cults. In their Lexicon, Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich can cite no evidence that the meaning of psallo had changed by New Testament times. Instead, they offer an assumption:
Although the NT 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 some such sense as make melody is best understood in this Eph pass.103
There are several obvious objections to this line of reasoning: First, Josephus was a Pharisee,104 yet he used the term psallo to refer to “playing on a musical instrument” in worship over and over again. Second, Josephus would have had just as much objection to mystery cults as Paul would have had, yet he had no problem describing the use of instruments with this word psallo. Third, it still begs the question of why Paul would use a term that the Greek Ephesians would immediately understand as instrumental if his goal was to communicate simply “singing Psalms”? He could have used humneo just as Philo did. After all, Paul was writing to Greeks, not to Hebrews, but Paul shows no such prejudice against the term. Fourth, it is a liberal notion to think that the Bible bases its practice and theology on avoiding what pagans do. This is akin to saying, “We shouldn’t stand for prayer, because Greek pagans did.” Fifth, this assumption is actually the reverse of what happened with the Pharisees and the church fathers. When we get to the views of the church fathers on musical instruments, we will deal with the real source of antipathy to musical instruments by Philo and some church fathers – the influence of Greek ascetic philosophy. We will demonstrate that the later church fathers avoided musical instruments not because they are unbiblical, but because they had adopted Greek asceticism hook, line, and sinker.
The fact of the matter is that no evidence has been advanced to discredit the straightforward interpretation of Ephesians 5:19 as a command to sing accompanied with instruments. Every command to sing a “psalm” is a command to sing something accompanied by an instrument, and when psallo is added to psalmos, the conclusion of instrumentation is unavoidable. Even McCracken admits that “making melody” should properly be translated as “to pluck the strings of an instrument.” Thus Beck’s translation renders the two commands as, “sing and play music to the Lord.” The Amplified Bible translates it as “offering praise with voices and instruments.” Other translations bring out the difference between the voice and the instrument by translating it as “sing and make music” (NIV, NET, HCSB, NLT) or “singing and playing to the Lord” (NAB). There is clearly more than the voice involved in Ephesians 5:19.
Even John Calvin agrees with this exegesis. Commenting on Ephesians 5:19 Calvin says,
…under these three terms [songs, hymns, spiritual songs] he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way – that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of; a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles.” (emphasis mine).
Calvin clearly sees the proper meaning of the term. (On Calvin’s possible changes in view, see more below.)
Instrument-abolitionists use one more argument to get around this conclusion. With McCracken, many of them say that the phrase “in the heart” refers to playing an instrument inaudibly:
Also, we are to “make music in [our] hearts” (Eph. 5:19). The Greek word for “make music” is psallo, which means originally “to pluck the strings of an instrument.” This gives a beautiful picture of what true and acceptable praise of God really is. Since the word psallo cannot be separated from the word “heart,” it literally means “plucking the strings of your heart to the Lord.” When the music of the heart is expressed through lips that confess the Lord’s name, there is no need for supporting instruments.105
While clever, this interpretation proves too much: if playing instruments from the heart means that the musical instrument is inaudible, logic forces us to say that singing from the heart makes singing inaudible as well. After all, the text says literally “singing and plucking the strings of an instrument from the heart.” The grammar makes clear that the singing must be in or from the heart just as much as the plucking of the instrument.106 William Hendriksen says,
The idea of some that in the two parts of this one verse the apostle has reference to two kinds of singing: a. audible (“speaking”) and b. inaudible (“in the stillness of the heart”), must be dismissed. If that had been his intention he would have inserted the conjunction and or and also between the two parts. The two are clearly parallel. The second explains and completes the first.107
Nor is this a straw man argument. Many of those who were hostile to instrumentation ended up being forced by logic to bar all singing from the church.108 Interestingly, when dealing with the Old Testament, these song-abolitionists used exactly the same argument as the instrument-abolitionists – that singing had an exclusively Levitical function and passed away with the ceremonial law.109 When instrument-abolitionists appealed to Ephesians 5:19 for New Testament warrant for singing, song-abolitionists like Isaac Marlow pressed the logic by saying that this text either teaches singing and instrumentation or it teaches silence of both, but one cannot have it both ways. It was a forceful argument against the a cappella proponents.
The simplest understanding is that Paul was doing nothing other than what the Old Testament Scriptures commanded the saints to do when they sang and played their instruments.110 The Old Testament said that they should do so with the whole heart (Ps. 138:1), with a steadfast heart (Ps. 57:7; 108:1), with joy of heart (Isa. 65:14) and with all your heart (Zeph. 3:14). God rejected the songs and stringed instruments of the church of the Old Testament when the heart was not right (Amos 5:23-24). It doesn’t matter that the singers have “a pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument” if “their hearts pursue their own gain” and “they hear your words but do not do them” (Ezek. 33:31-33). All our worship must be done from the heart. That does not mean that our worship is not expressed (as in Quakerism). It means that our worship must be sincere.
Therefore, far from doing away with the use of musical instruments, the New Testament clearly commands us to “play music to the Lord”111 and to sing songs accompanied by a musical instrument (the Greek meaning of the word “psalm” used in Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16 and James 5:13).
Other New Testament evidence
In my response to Girardeau on Ephesians 5:19, I have already given the evidence for instrumentation from 1 Corinthians 14, Romans 15, and James 5. However, the book of Revelation also illustrates the use of instruments in worship (Rev. 5:8-9; 14:2-3; 15:2-3). Some might object that the worship in Revelation is “before the throne of God,” and that this heavenly worship cannot regulate our worship. However, it needs to be remembered that every time the church on earth worships it has “come boldly to the throne of grace” (Heb. 4:16) and it has “come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:22-24). If our worship is real worship, it is united (by means of the Spirit of Christ) to the worship in heaven.
If instruments are appropriate in the heavenly Zion to which we come each Sunday, and we are commanded to join in what they do, this too argues that we should not just sing, but sing accompanied with instruments. The heavenly is the pattern for the earthly worship. This was true of Old Covenant worship (Heb. 8:1-6) as well as of New Covenant worship (Heb. 12:18-29). Even the passages on instrumental worship in Revelation demonstrate this. For example, the worship before God’s throne in Revelation 5 includes the prayers of saints on earth (v. 8) and the singing of saints on earth (v. 13) since all who come before the throne of mercy are united in worship (Rev. 5:8-13). The same can be seen in Revelation 8 where the prayers of corporate worship on earth ascend (vv. 3-4) and are mingled with the heavenly work of angels (vv. 1-3,5-6) and the heavenly prayers of Jesus (vv. 3-4). The heavenly worship with instruments in 15:1-3 is a call for “all nations” to “come and worship before You” (vv. 3-4). The worship of Revelation is the pattern for our worship on earth. Indeed, it is one and the same worship service. There should be no surprise that the instruments of earth (Eph. 5:19) and the instruments of heaven (Revelation) continue into the New Testament period since we have already seen in chapter 3 that musical instruments were never restricted to the Levites. Indeed, that chapter demonstrates how the most consistent prototype of New Covenant worship was the Booth of David (Acts 15:15-17 with Amos 9:11-12), a center of worship that clearly had instrumental music. Nor does the New Testament ever explicitly say that instruments are ceremonial or that they cease. This means that the second pillar falls to the ground.
5. Dealing with a cappella’s third pillar
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. – Colossians 2:8 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. – 2 Thessalonians 2:15
A summary of the argument: the claim that instrumental music was not used by the early church and that the early church interpreted the Bible to teach a cessationist perspective on instruments
The third pillar used for building an Instrument-abolitionist position is an appeal to a claimed “universal” absence of instrumental music in the synagogues and among church fathers. Joseph Bingham represents the opinion of many when he says,
Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so… In the Western parts, the instrument, was not so much as known till the eighth century; for the first organ that was ever seen in France was one sent as a present to King Pepin by Constantinus Copronymus, the Greek emperor…But, now, it was only, used in princes courts, and not yet brought into churches; nor was it ever received into the Greek churches, there being no mention of an organ in all their liturgies ancient or modern.112
Quotes like these could be multiplied many times over. When questioned whether they have abandoned the principle of sola Scriptura, these authors insist that they are only appealing to church fathers in an ad hominem way to show that our interpretation is the novel one.113 In effect they are saying, “so many people couldn’t be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.” It is checking the catholicity of our interpretations by appealing to the history of interpretation, and as such has a legitimate role.
Girardeau believes that the overwhelming weight of church history should alleviate the charge of begging the question with respect to appealing to Instrument-abolitionists in order to defend Instrument-abolitionism. He says,
If it be urged that this is begging the question, and proof is demanded, the appeal is taken, first, to the preceding argument [i.e., that lexicons and other authorities agree with him]; and, secondly, to the practice of the post-apostolic church. If the apostles had allowed the employment of instrumental music in the church, it is morally certain, from the very constitution of human nature, that it would have continued to be used subsequently to their time.114
We will see that it was unbiblical (Greek) ethical thinking that caused some portions of the church to reject instruments in the fourth centuries and beyond. But even apart from the issues of asceticism, the evidence in church history is grossly overstated by most instrument abolitionists. It is because the myth persists that all church fathers were opposed to musical instruments115 that I am providing contrary evidence in this chapter.
McCracken represents many when he claims,
No evidence of instrumental music in the churches exists until the 7th Century. In the year 666 A.D. one of the popes of the Roman Catholic church, Pope Vitalian, brought into his worship Latin singing to the accompaniment of the organ. This is the first time instruments were formally used in worship since the time of the Jewish ceremonial ritual. The Roman church adopted this practice, and it continued until the time of the Reformers. Striving to return to the purity of worship and obedience to the law of God, many of the Reformers cast out the use of instruments in their worship services.116
The false picture often painted is that of an early church that maintained purity of worship (with no instrumentation), and as Romanism grew, corruption grew, and with it came church instrumental music. McCracken’s reference to AD 666 gives the offensive impression that the entrance of instrumental music into the church was ironically characterized by the mark (666) of the Beast (Rome).
When critics of the a cappella position assert that there was no criticism of instruments in worship during the first three centuries, the a cappella response is to claim that this lack of criticism is proof that no one tried to introduce instruments into worship during those first three centuries. For example, Foley asserts that the music “was so exclusively vocal in its early stages that the occasion to criticize the use of instruments in the church never arose.”117 As we will see, however, all branches of the church had instrumental music, and it was only the ascetics who opposed it.
Preliminary contradiction of the a cappella thesis
There has always been plenty of evidence that this thesis has been flawed.118 My own original study of the electronic databases of the church fathers convinced me in 2002 that musical instruments were indeed present in worship across a broad geographic spectrum of the church. I will present some of my own findings on this subject later. I want to present the concessions that have recently been made by those who believe no instruments were present in the early church.
James McKinnon’s119 initial foray into this subject was in his 1965 doctoral dissertation, The Church Fathers and Musical Instruments.120 Based on the conclusions of previous scholarship, he still had a working assumption that there were no instruments in the church in the first few centuries, but he was puzzled by what he found. He said,
Now a close reading of all the patristic criticism of instruments leads to the remarkable conclusion that there is not a single quotation which condemns the use of instruments in church.121
He believed this was because no instruments were present in the church, and therefore no criticism of instruments within the church was necessary. This was what many scholars had assumed, and it seemed like an unremarkable conclusion to say,
If it had ever occurred to any Christian communities of the third or fourth centuries to add instruments to their liturgical singing, indignation over the action would certainly be prominent in patristic literature.122
Keep this quote in mind as I present evidence that musical instruments were indeed present in many congregations. The fact that they were present during a time when there was no criticism of instruments within the church forces a different conclusion than McKinnon arrived at. I believe the evidence points in the direction that instrumentation was used without controversy.
Instrument-abolitionist, Everett Ferguson123 came to the same conclusion as McKinnon in his own research. In 1972 he published the book A Cappela Music in the Public Worship of the Church. In that book he admits that early church criticism of instrumental music has been grossly overstated in his Instrument-abolitionist circles. Like McKinnon, he pointed out that early rhetoric against instruments was against instruments at banquets and parties and contexts that led to lewdness. He said,
There is no polemic against instruments in the church. That is not under consideration…124
This concession and other refreshingly honest admissions are certainly a welcome change from the constantly repeated exaggerations that I have read in the Instrument-abolitionist literature.
In 1987 James McKinnon wrote a book outlining some of his newest conclusions.125 He concluded that early church criticism of instruments was related to the fact that non-church concerts were almost always connected with either pagan cultic worship or with sexual immorality.
…no one will dispute the close association of much pagan musical practice with pagan cults. One need look no further than the omnipresent theatrical music of the day and recall the cultic origins of the theatre… the motivation of moralism is at least as strong as that of antipathy toward idolatry. The polemic makes reference to a limited number of contexts: most notably the theatre, marriage celebrations and banquets. Typically singled out are items of moral concern like the lewd aspect of theatrical musicians, the coarseness of marriage songs and the dubious profession of female musicians employed at banquets. Obviously it is not so much morality in general that is at stake here, but sexual morality in particular, a subject concerning which the church fathers display the most acute sensitivity.126
In other words, the criticisms often cited were reactionary against the idolatry and immorality in the culture around them. He then asks,
[W]hat relationship is there between the polemic against instruments and the a cappella performance of sacred music? Music historians have tended to assume that there is a direct connection, that is, that ecclesiastical authorities consciously strove to maintain their music free from the incursion of musical instruments. There is little evidence of this in the sources however.127
While still maintaining that “ecclesiastical psalmody [was] obviously free of instrumental involvement” and yet finding an exclusive “condemnation of instruments in the contexts” of idolatry and immorality, he goes on in the next sentence to say,
It is puzzling to the modern mind that the church fathers failed to forge an ideological link between the two – leaving this apparently to the a cappella partisans of the nineteenth century. It is true that a few exceptional passages exist where there is a hint of such a connection – where the two are juxtaposed at least on the level of phenomenon if not of doctrine. The most striking is one in which John Chrysostom writes admiringly of a monastic community that rises before daybreak for prayer and psalmody: They sing the prophetic hymns with great harmony and well ordered melody. Neither cithara, nor syrinx, nor any other musical instrument emits such sound as can be heard in the deep silence and solitude of those holy men as they sing.128
The very fact that Chrysostom admires this monastery for its lack of instruments argues that instruments were present elsewhere. Otherwise, what would be admirable about this unique group of men in Chrysostom’s mind? McKinnon goes on to say,
One would have to deny the larger context to see this as an example of incipient a cappella doctrine.129
Indeed, there are other puzzling things that he uncovered. McKinnon shows how the church fathers saw no contradiction in condemning musical instruments in the theatre and other immoral contexts and teaching the use of musical instruments “as one of the encyclical or liberal arts” courses, saying that “the church fathers accepted it [musical education] while rejecting pagan musical practice.”130 Why pass on the skill of training churchmen in musical instruments if musical instruments were universally condemned?
McKinnon shows that the knowledge of musical instruments by some church fathers was so extensive that,
However far one wishes to take such thinking, it seems fair to say that western music would not have been quite the same had the church fathers adopted a different policy toward the ars musica.131
Indeed, my own reading of the fathers shows that they understood the intricacies of musical instruments quite well. People might assume that they understood the instruments because of personal use outside the church, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. McKinnon demonstrates that their knowledge is “so far removed from everyday music that there is no real contradiction in the fact that the church fathers accepted it [musical instruction of church leaders] while rejecting pagan musical practice.”132
When this newer research is coupled with the examples of instruments in worship that I have uncovered, a quite different picture emerges – a picture of a church at ease with instruments in worship until Greek asceticism began to infect certain sections of the church (especially in the East).
When the focus goes beyond Europe and into the practices of the world-wide church of the first seven centuries, the evidence in favor of instrumentation becomes even stronger. David Shirt says,
As this thesis has sought to indicate, examination of Christian practices limited to the Mediterranean world, reveals only part of the whole picture and ignores much of the most vivid and colourful evidence supporting the use of vocal and instrumental music, and dance, in Christian worship throughout the centuries of concern to this study. The array of drums and sistra of Ethiopian Christian tradition, together with the dancing priests of that country (among the first to officially adopt Christianity) offers swathes of evidence depicting the musical life of its liturgy. None of this is mentioned by McKinnon or Foley. That Irish love of the harp, evidenced, for example, in the action of (St) Kieran when raising from the dead, eight drowned harpers, and the slightly later evidence of Bede, that English bishops regarded a harpist in their retinue as highly desirable, clearly places that instrument above the level of blanket condemnation so frequently meted out by many of the Fathers. A wealth of evidence on the use of pipes and multi-toned bells, by Christian missionaries in Scotland, thanks to the work of John Purser, in this connection, leaves no room for doubt as to the use of musical instruments in the Christian worship of Scotland and further north. Whether in the north-westerly progress of Christianity through the cultures of England, Ireland, and Scotland, or south-easterly through India and China, no assessment is made by McKinnon or Foley concerning the role of musical instruments in the Christian worship of these places.133
It is my hope that this chapter will put to rest the false notion that there was a total absence of musical instruments in the first eight centuries. Even the shrillest opponent of instruments in his own churches (Clement of Alexandria) admitted to the bishops of other churches that “if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.”134 Hippolytus (AD 170-235) defined the psalms that they sang as hymns “which are simply played to an instrument.”135 The bishop who wrote what is now called “Pseudo-Ignatius” greeted elders, readers, and musicians of the church, and the word used for musicians means “harp players.” 136 Hilary of Poitiers, Ephraem the Syrian, and other well-known church fathers spoke explicitly about the instrumentation that was currently being used in their worship services. The following list of quotes, while not exhaustive,137 reveals either 1) the presence of instruments in the writer’s own church and/or the churches of others or 2) a positive view towards musical instruments that would be out of accord with the philosophy of asceticism.
Ignatius has a passage that speaks positively of a cithara (rendered “harp” below). This passage also uses an analogy of praises to Jesus accompanied by instruments (“so that, joining the symphony… taking your keynote from God… you may … sing a song”) to describe the relationship of a bishop to the presbytery of elders – they must work together harmoniously. For this analogy to even work, it assumes that it is appropriate to worship Christ accompanied by musical instruments. The idea is that just as symphony and chorus should work harmoniously together, a bishop and his presbytery should work harmoniously together. Ignatius wrote:
Hence it is proper for you to act in agreement with the mind of the bishop; and this you do. Certain it is that your presbytery, which is a credit to its name, is a credit to God; for it harmonizes with the bishop as completely as the strings with a harp. This is why in the symphony of your concord and love the praises of Jesus Christ are sung. But you, the rank and file, should also form a choir, so that, joining the symphony by your concord, and by your unity taking your key note from God, you may with one voice through Jesus Christ sing a song to the Father. Thus He will both listen to you and by reason of your good life recognize in you the melodies of His Son. It profits you, therefore, to continue i
Piano Guidance
Photo: Sergey Makashin
Promotion
Promotion
Promotion
Promotion
Promotion