Using Instruments in Worship

[timfost]

I was not planning on writing any more on this thread since most of what can be said has been said. But in leaving the discussion for a while and watching the last handful of posts, I'll try from a new angle.

What was a psalm in the OT? EP No Instruments (NI) argue as if psalms have always been the book of Psalms, when in fact they were religious songs with instrumental accompaniment. The book of Psalms is a collection of psalms, not an exclusive collection of the only pieces that were ever called "psalms." Even if we argue the usage of "psalms, hymns and spiritual psalms" as categories of the book of Psalms (from the LXX), we also see these terms as referring to other songs of the OT and NT. The EP(NI) must assume that psalms only refers to the book of Psalms.

A similar assumption is necessary for instruments. Do any EP(NI)s believe that David only thought of having instruments used in temple worship when God instructed them to do so? Even if we grant that instruments had a ceremonial aspect to them in relation to temple worship, can it be proven that instruments were never part of non-temple, private worship?

But this uncovers another hole in the EP(NI)'s argument. In the focus on temple worship, we often fail to realize what private worship would have looked like in the OT. Did people worship God with psalms before the book of Psalms was compiled? Job 35:8 says:

"But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker,
Who gives songs [זָמִיר, Hebrew for Psalms] in the night..."

If Elihu spoke of these songs with instrumental accompaniment prior to a) the canonical Psalms and b) prior to temple worship, we must conclude that instruments cannot be only ceremonial in nature but were part of (private?) worship antecedent to their use in corporate temple worship. In this light, it is safe to say that the idea of accompanying praise with instruments was not unique to the temple but in all probability part of private worship long before.

Having established that instruments are not only ceremonial in nature, the burden of proof lies on the EP(NI) to a) prove that instruments are only ceremonial in nature, b) prove that their use (again as a circumstance) has been abolished both in their ceremonial use and in their use in worship apart from the ceremonies. Further, the burden of proof lies on the EP(NI) to establish that the use of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs can only refer to inspired scripture. If the EP(NI) insists in a distinction between what is acceptable in public and private worship, it needs to be proven that any of the NT passages about praise refer to public worship at all (I would suggest that they all refer to private worship-- I would also suggest that it cannot be proven that they refer to public worship).

Further, as I've said before, though the etymology of the word "psalms" does not prove the inclusion of instruments in praise, it also must be disproven since the word through history always included instruments, not only as a ceremonial part of temple worship, but in its private usage as a circumstance.

EP(NI) love to throw around the "burden of proof" argument, but when their own standard is exercised against their assumptions, the standard seems to change or not apply. In contrast, we can prove that a) psalms included instrumental accompaniment, b) psalms do not only refer to the book of Psalms and c) psalms with instrumental accompaniment were used apart from temple worship.

NT worship has become less exclusive, not more. Women receive the sign of the covenant now. The priesthood has been extended to all believers (including being prophets and kings!). If the praise of OT saints were not limited to the canonical Psalms, what basis do we have to restrict NT saints to only the Psalms without the non-ceremonial use of instruments? Your arguments are backwards!

Often those of us who sing uninspired music and use instruments get frustrated with the reasoning of the EP(NI)-- I can at least speak for myself. Why? Consider the course of this conversation. Recent posts discussed how the use of instruments likened to the Pharisee's inventions. It has even been suggested to be worse or less reverent than the Pharisees! Let's be clear. Arguing for the use of instruments as a circumstance of worship should moot the argument since the Pharisees bound the commandments of men to the people. We are not arguing that the use of instruments are commanded. Please listen to our argument and reason with us according to this premise.

I do know that this thread particularly has to do with instruments, but since it is the EP(NI) who primarily endorse this doctrine, I've felt it necessary to speak to both issues to the extent that I have.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Were the instruments ceremonial, along with snuffers , pans, incense, vestments, candles and all the carnal appurtenances that adorned the Temple? Did not Christ abrogate all that, and fulfill all that in Himself, the Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and every typical embellishment, and ushered in the simplicity of worship in spirit and in truth?

Spurgeon would agree with this; Martyn Lloyd-Jones allowed an organ in Westminster Chapel.

So Jeff, in this particular situation you would say an Englishman is correct, the Welshman is wrong?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

We are not arguing that the use of instruments are commanded. Please listen to our argument and reason with us according to this premise. The fact that it keeps coming around to this kind of reasoning is less than honest and not becoming of men of truth.

Tim, To cast aspersions on the honestly on one side is unjust. Folks post in reaction to a number of things on a thread and there has been plenty of confusing stuff on the pro instrument side that I do believe keeps pulling the focus away from the circumstantial argument. This has been clear for a while; hence my couple of posts trying to steer all back to the argument based upon circumstance. This is not a lack of honesty or of comeliness on the one side.

 

[BG]

Tim, I will not respond again in this thread so you don't have any fear of getting into a long conversation with me but I am curious as to how you would answer this question:

What Scriptures or section of the confession would you point someone to in order to defend your position on instruments being circumstances of worship? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in what people did out side of corporate worship in the OT or NT.

Thanks for your response in advance.

 

[timfost]

Tim, To cast aspersions on the honestly on one side is unjust. Folks post in reaction to a number of things on a thread and there has been plenty of confusing stuff on the pro instrument side that I do believe keeps pulling the focus away from the circumstantial argument. This has been clear for a while; hence my couple of posts trying to steer all back to the argument based upon circumstance. This is not a lack of honesty or of comeliness on the one side.

Thanks Chris, I take your point.

I'll edit.

 

[timfost]

What Scriptures or section of the confession would you point someone to in order to defend your position on instruments being circumstances of worship? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in what people did out side of corporate worship in the OT or NT.

Thanks for your response in advance.

I thought I gave a scripture defense. I view instruments like microphones. Besides the scriptural argument I made, do we need a scriptural passage in support of microphones?

I believe there are obvious differences between corporate and private worship, though what is appropriate for one is often appropriate for the other. We can derive the appropriateness of singing in public worship from what scripture tells us of private worship.

It was actually an EP who explained that whether Col. 3:16 spoke of public or private worship was irrelevant.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Let's take a breather from this topic for a few days.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Reopening. Please stick 1. to the subject of musical instruments per the OP, 2. discussion for and against based upon a justification via circumstance within the framework of the Reformed confessions of this board.

 

[earl40]

Not knowing much about singing how are instruments used as circumstance for metrical singing? In my very limited understanding I may even be able to play an instrument to assist in singing Psalms metrically. If so may I use a Kazoo?

 

[Romans922]

Reopening. Please stick 1. to the subject of musical instruments per the OP, 2. discussion for and against based upon a justification via circumstance within the framework of the Reformed confessions of this board.

What does Gillespie say on what a circumstance can be?

 

[iainduguid]

Not knowing much about singing how are instruments used as circumstance for metrical singing? In my very limited understanding I may even be able to play an instrument to assist in singing Psalms metrically. If so may I use a Kazoo?

If instruments are a circumstance, then in principle all instruments are permitted. But normal rules of wisdom would still apply. Almost everyone would agree that tunes are circumstantial; that doesn't mean it would necessarily be wise to sing Psalm 1 to the tune "The House of the Rising Sun". You could equally well have asked, "If we can use a pitch pipe to aid unaccompanied singing of the psalms, may we use a kazoo for the similar purpose?" The answer is of course yes, but why would we?

Note: this has nothing to do with the fundamental question of whether instruments are or are not a circumstance.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

So how can someone make a biblical argument that instruments are a circumstance?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

What does Gillespie say on what a circumstance can be?

I believe most of what Gillespie has to say on circumstances in the worship of God which may be determined by church authority are cited in the introduction I provided to: Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D. D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D., “Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore,” The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005): 116–150 (online in full here). I've already cited Girardeau (who cites Gillespie or perhaps he cites G by way of Thornwell, I forget), as to how Presbyterians had before his time understood this w.r.t. musical instruments in worship. I may have also alluded to the fact that as with any circumstance to be determined, such are governmend by the Scriptural rules governing the use of things supposedly indifferent in nature. See these rules adduced by Gillespie (the rule of piety, of charity and of purity), in English Popish Ceremonies, part four, chapters 2ff.

One of the key reformational doctrines1 determinate of the health if not the being of a “Presbyterian” Church is the aptly named Regulative Principle of Worship.2 This principle which was clearly championed from the beginning of the Scottish Reformation, and central to English Puritanism,3 was refined and classically presented in the Westminster Standards, from whence it has been an integral doctrine of Presbyterianism ever since.​

The Westminster Assembly determined: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.” (Confession of Faith, 21.1). The Princeton professor, Dr. Samuel Miller, gives a succinct statement of the principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.” 4 A briefer statement still which sums up the Presbyterian principle of worship, is that in the worship of God, “Not to Command is to Forbid,” 5 or “Whatever is not commanded is forbidden.” 6​

As this brief definition can lead to misunderstanding, a necessarily corollary to this principle states that there are some circumstances “concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.” (Confession of Faith, 1.6). Defining these “circumstances,” is part and parcel with the discussion of what authority the church has in ordering the worship of God. As for the church’s power in this regard, George Gillespie gives three conditions:7​

I direct my course straight to the dissecting of the true limits, within which the church’s power of enacting laws about things pertaining to the worship of God is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleap nor transgress. Three conditions I find necessarily requisite in such a thing as the church has power to prescribe by her laws: 1st It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part of it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and decency left to the definition of the church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehends no more but mere circumstances.… 2nd That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture because individua are infinita…. 3rd If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she has power given her to prescribe, her ordinances must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of tender consciences.”​

Also, in his letter to “All in the Reformed Churches,” Gillespie defined circumstances this way: “...there is nothing which any way pertains to the worship of God left to the determination of human laws, beside the mere circumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor yet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite.” (EPC, xli). James Henley Thornwell gives a more detailed definition:8​

Circumstances are those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all, or cannot be done with decency and decorum. Public worship, for example, requires public assemblies, and in public assemblies people must appear in some costume and assume some posture…. Public assemblies, moreover, cannot be held without fixing the time and place of meeting: these are circumstances which the church is at liberty to regulate…. We must distinguish between those circumstances which attend actions as actions—that is, without which the actions cannot be—and those circumstances which, though not essential, are added as appendages. These last do not fall within the jurisdiction of the church. She has no right to appoint them. They are circumstances in the sense that they do not belong to the substance of the act. They are not circumstances in the sense that they so surround it that they cannot be separated from it. A liturgy is a circumstance of this kind…. In public worship, indeed in all commanded external actions, there are two elements—a fixed and a variable. The fixed element, involving the essence of the thing, is beyond the discretion of the church. The variable, involving only the circumstances of the action, its separable accidents, may be changed, modified or altered, according to the exigencies of the case.​

Gillespie’s third condition raises another principle which relates to the church’s power regarding worship, which is the doctrine of Christian Liberty or Liberty of Conscience. The Westminster divines state at Confession of Faith 20.2: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship.”9

The language of the Confession at these several points is reminiscent of both the writings of Gillespie, and of his Westminster colleague, Samuel Rutherford. In one of Rutherford’s works circulating in the Assembly during the early part of the discussion on Christian Liberty, and cited at the same time during debate on the subject of Excommunication, he writes (Rutherford, 109):10​

In actions or Religious means of Worship, and actions Morall, whatever is beside the Word of God, is against the Word of God; I say in Religious means, for there be means of Worship, or Circumstances Physicall, not Morall, not Religious, as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber, the Bell of this or this Mettall, the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation.​

Our Formalists will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship, that which is beside the Word of God, and so is negatively Lawfull, though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word, nor Commanded or warranted by practice; which I grant is a witty way of Romes devising, to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies.​

Gillespie wrote the following a decade before the Assembly, which not only contains similar thoughts as the Confessional statements, but relates as well to the common usage, popularized later by men such as James Bannerman and William Cunningham, respecting the power of the civil magistrate circa sacra [about religion] as opposed to in sacris [in religion] (EPC, 288, 314, 316, 318):11​

The church is forbidden to add anything to the commandments of God which he has given unto us, concerning his worship and service (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6); therefore she may not lawfully prescribe anything in the works of divine worship, if it be not a mere circumstance belonging to that kind of things which were not determinable by Scripture.… These praecognita [things foreseen] being now made good, come we to speak more particularly of the power of princes to make laws and ordinances about things which concern the worship of God.… But in all the Scripture princes have neither a commendable example, nor any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in religion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant ceremonies of men’s devising.… Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in the worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantial, and such as have the very same use and respect in civil which they have in sacred actions, we hold that whensoever it happens to be the duty and part of a prince to institute and enjoin any order or policy in these circumstances of God’s worship, then he may only enjoin such an order as may stand with the observing and following of the rules of the word, whereunto we are tied in the use and practice of things which are in their general nature indifferent.​

These lengthy citations and definitions are given because the regulative principle of worship is often misunderstood or mischaracterized when they are ignored. For instance when the doctrine regarding circumstances is ignored, one may see questions in reaction to the regulative principle such as, “If you believe in this regulative principle then why do you use pews in public worship, since they are not mentioned in Scripture?” As William Cunningham writes, just before alluding to Confession of Faith 1.6, “Those who dislike this principle, from whatever reason, usually try to run us into difficulties by putting a very stringent construction upon it, and thereby giving it an appearance of absurdity.…” 12 Also, without any reference to historical theology, or to the theological milieu in which the language of the Westminster Standards were drafted, the meaning of the divines may be recast and the traditional/historical meaning divorced from their foundational statements by some postmodern deconstruction of their words. This leads to statements like, ‘I hold to the regulative principle of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but not to the Puritan understanding of that principle.’​

-------------------

1. “I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.” (John Calvin, “On the Necessity of Reforming the Church,” Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet. Edited and translated by Henry Beveridge [Edinburgh: 1844; Rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983] 1.128-129). “All wirschipping, honoring, or service inventit by the braine of man in the religioun of God, without his own express commandment, is Idolatrie.” (John Knox, “A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry,” The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing [Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1854; Rpt NY: AMS Press, 1966] 3.34).


2. While it may have been used earlier, the term Regulative Principle of Worship apparently was coined from or at least popularized by usage in the 1946 report of the OPC, “Report of the Committee on Song in Worship Presented to the Thirteenth General Assembly, on the Teaching of Our Standards Respecting the Songs That May Be Sung in the Public Worship of God,” specifically section ‘A’ by John Murray (Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Minutes of the General Assembly [1946] 101-107). Research by Sherman Isbell supports Murray authorship. See Endnote A.


3. The regulative principle of worship was the established doctrine of Scottish Presbyterianism, and of the English Puritans. See Endnote B.


4. Presbyterianism the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ, “The Worship of the Presbyterian Church” (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 64-65.


5. Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication (London, 1646) 96.


6. John B. Adger, “A Denial of Divine Right for Organs in Public Worship,” Southern Presbyterian Review, 20.1 (January 1869) 85.


7. George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, ed. Christopher Coldwell (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1993) 281-284. Hereafter EPC. “This large volume is the most elaborate defense of the classic Puritan-Scottish Presbyterian view of the regulative principle, recently reprinted. Gillespie was an influential member of the Westminster Assembly.” John M. Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1996) 157. Hereafter, Spirit and Truth.


8. Cited from John L. Girardeau, D.D. LL.D., “The Discretionary Power of the Church,” Sermons, ed. by Rev. George A. Blackburn (Columbia, SC: The State Company, 1907. Rpt. in Life Work and Sermons of John L. Girardeau, Sprinkle Publications, nd) 400-401. See also, “Church Boards and Presbyterianism,” The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell (Rpt. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 246-247. On the nature of circumstances, see also: The Works of John Owen, v. 15, “Discourse Concerning Liturgies,” ed. William H. Goold (Rpt. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966).


9. Regarding the long incorrect text, “contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship,” Dr. S. W. Carruthers notes: This double error is the most important in the whole Confession. It has obscured a distinction of great significance … The divines’ argument is this: men are free in all things directly contrary to God’s word; but, in addition, if the question is one of faith or worship, they are free in matters not stated in the word. The distinction between matters civil and religious, and the great doctrine concerning things indifferent in the ecclesiastical world, are completely obscured by the change of a single letter and an alteration of punctuation.” S. W. Carruthers, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Being an account of the Preparation and Printing of its Seven Leading Editions, to which is appended a critical text of the Confession with notes thereon (Manchester: R. Aikman & Son, [1937]) 127-128.


10. See the Minutes of the Assembly, 196-197. Alexander F. Mitchell and John Struthers, eds. Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874).


11. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh : T&T Clark, 1868. Rpt. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960; and 1974) 154-155. William Cunningham, “Church Power,” Discussions on Church Principles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863) 230.


12. William Cunningham, “The Reformers and the Regulative Principle,” in The Reformation of the Church: A collection of Reformed and Puritan documents on Church issues (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965; Rpt. 1987) 38-39. This is an extract from Cunningham’s The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1979 Rpt) 31-46.

​

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I am a musician and have been thinking about how I use my gifting in the church.

For those of you who think it's okay to use instruments in worship, what is the best reasoning you have? I have been looking at some stances, and sadly, they haven't been convincing at all.

Thanks!

I used my musical gifts in various churches over the course of 30+ years. Then as my understanding of what was going on changed (and in my view, grew), I came to see that there was no biblical warrant for using musical gifts any more than any other kind of natural talent-type gifts in the public worship of God. Which leads to the question, if there's no biblical warrant for it, then can playing a musical instrument simply be thought of as a circumstance- no need for a warrant for it because it's something about which Scripture is "neutral" (like types of seats or carpet vs. wood floor, etc); something we have freedom to choose to use because it's useful, or even pretty.

I came down on the "no" side because I saw from the Old Testament use of musical instruments in public worship that they were carefully prescribed, and were actual elements of the worship. As elements and not just circumstances of worship, it would have been a flagrant sin against God not to have used them, and not to have used them exactly as prescribed. You see this when you read through 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles; the full story behind their prescription and usage isn't revealed until 2 Chronicles 29:25, though we should have understood from the Pentateuch that all such things are prophetically commanded and prescribed.

The commanded elements of worship that carried over into the NT are specifically listed in Scripture (reading of Scripture, preaching, singing of Psalms, prayer, baptism, Lord's Supper- did I leave anything out?). Only the commanded elements of worship have ever been part of the ordained activities of the church, OT and NT, in public worship. To re-introduce the OT musical elements into NT worship as a circumstance is without warrant; we might as well reintroduce the incense if we're going to reintroduce musical instruments.

An interesting thing to note: Keliy is the Hebrew word most often translated as "instrument" in the Old Testament. Strong's defines keliy as "an article, a vessel, an implement, a utensil, a tool." The word first appears in the Bible in describing the furnishings of the Tabernacle--the ark, the mercy seat, the cherubim, the table, and the candlestick. God commanded Moses to make and use these keliy exactly according to the pattern He showed him on the mountain (Exodus 25:9).

Later, God gave a further pattern to David which included the use of musical keliy ("instruments") in the Temple worship of God. It's no accident that the musical instruments are also described as keliy. We know that David, like Moses, was careful to furnish the worship of God exactly according to this pattern; we're told in 2 Chronicles 29:25-30 that all was done "according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets."

The prescribed musical instruments were commanded for use then. They are no longer commanded, just as incense is no longer commanded; that they have been reintroduced into the church is, to me, a fearful thing.

 

[BG]

Not knowing much about singing how are instruments used as circumstance for metrical singing? In my very limited understanding I may even be able to play an instrument to assist in singing Psalms metrically. If so may I use a Kazoo?

Sure. Once the barn door is open eventually all the animals come out. Once you make mans opinion the rule you will be ruled by mans opinion.

 

[richardnz]

Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?

 

[Logan]

Just pure speculation, but perhaps one very practical reason was to mask the noise of the bellowing animals to be sacrificed.

Another reason could be to symbolize the mediation between God and the people (the Levites played the instruments), whereas now we are each part of the royal priesthood and have direct access, where we each sing directly without the mediation of instruments.

 

[Cymro]

The instruments were used particularly at the offering up of the morning and evening sacrifice, a great cacophony of noise, depicting praise attending the sacrificial meaning.

 

[Romans922]

Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?

There was no singing in the tabernacle worship before the Temple, nor instruments played. There was no song in worship at all. That is until the Temple was built, the Lord through David instituted musical instruments to play along with songs (Psalms) to be sung (1 Ch. 16, 23, 25, 28). They sang/played in morning and evening (1 Ch. 23), which is at what time? The same time as the sacrifices being offered. So Logan is correct above. When the sacrifices were completed the music/singing stopped. The singing/instruments covered the sounds of the sacrifices. All of which being part of the ceremonial law foreshadowed Christ.

So as the incense pointed to the prayers of the saints perfected by the propitiation of Christ, and the lampstand pointed to the work of the Spirit and the light of Christ upon, in and through His people, so even the musical instruments point us to grace in the heart. You have the sacrifices being offered, blood splatter, priests are covered in blood, the sight and sounds of all of that, its gruesome (pointing to the reality of our sin) and it is covered by the music being played at the same time. Christ was sacrificed violently but because of grace in the heart we look on that sacrifice with gladness.

Grace in the heart - Colossians 3:16 and the instrumentation that we do today in worship is the "making melody" in our hearts (or "plucking the harp strings of our heart") of Eph. 5:19. Or what about Heb. 13:15. You see the connection there being made between the sacrifice of praise (which in OT is bloody and used with instruments), and he says let’s offer that up in the NT, we do it with our lips as we sing that wells up from the grace in our heart.

 

[iainduguid]

Just pure speculation, but perhaps one very practical reason was to mask the noise of the bellowing animals to be sacrificed.

Another reason could be to symbolize the mediation between God and the people (the Levites played the instruments), whereas now we are each part of the royal priesthood and have direct access, where we each sing directly without the mediation of instruments.

It will hardly do to say that the instruments were there to mask out the noise of the animals, since equal quantities of animals were sacrificed in the tabernacle, which had no instruments. This absence of instruments in the tabernacle also refutes the argument that instruments belong to the "immature" phase of the church; the most "immature" phase didn't have them, so why introduce them and then remove them? If something in the OT is to be identified as ceremonial, rather than moral or civil law, then there has to be something specific in the New Covenant to which it points forward, otherwise we are simply allegorizing the text. Girardeau understands this and attempts to argue that the instruments are typical of joy. I find that unconvincing, since instruments can convey a wide range of emotions, and it's not obvious why instruments should point forward typologically to joy (in contrast, for example, the the rather obvious way in which the Bible makes the connection between the rising incense and the prayers of the saints). There is a lot of detailed and complex work to do to see how the worship of the OT saints acts (and does not act) as a guide for our worship.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?

This is from something I wrote a while back:

The musical instruments used by the prophets in the Old Testament had a prescribed, prophetic use for that dispensation: you especially see it in some texts, such as in 1 Chronicles 15:16:

"And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of music, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding (shama`) by lifting up the voice (qowl) with joy."

The word qowl, often translated "voice" in the KJV and other translations, does not necessarily mean the human voice, though here it does. Strong's concordance shows it to also be translated as "noise,' "sound," "thunderings,' and "proclamation."

The Levitical priesthood appointed to song were, by use of their human voices and with instruments of music, to lift up a voice that produced this "sounding," this shama`. You can see how the idea of proclamation could apply here.

In 2 Chronicles 5:13:

"It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound (qowl) to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice (qowl) with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the LORD..."

The human voices together with voices of the trumpets, cymbals, and instruments of music "were as one;" lifted up together, they made one voice "to be heard."

And in 2 Chronicles 7:6:

"And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the LORD, which David the king had made to praise the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood."

The musical instruments made by David were unique in that dispensation, for they had a specific use; David praised God by their ministry; these musical instruments were commanded by God through David, Gad the seer, and Nathan the prophet (2 Chronicles 29:25) to serve God's prophetic purpose for that time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JimmyH]

Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?

What first comes to my mind is Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms. Handel's The Messiah, with the Hallelujah Chorus. Why were these people gifted with the ability to create such music ?

 

[TylerRay]

What first comes to my mind is Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms. Handel's The Messiah, with the Hallelujah Chorus. Why were these people gifted with the ability to create such music ?

Why are others gifted with skills in sculpting, cooking, or painting?

 

[Parakaleo]

Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?

I can't find it right now, but our beloved Matthew Winzer has theorized that the musical instruments of the temple were typical of the voices of the Gentiles adding their praise to God in the New Covenant. It's a compelling thought.

 

[Romans922]

I can't find it right now, but our beloved Matthew Winzer has theorized that the musical instruments of the temple were typical of the voices of the Gentiles adding their praise to God in the New Covenant. It's a compelling thought.

While I'm sure Rev. Winzer did a much better job of articulating this, I made that argument above. When we think of how the NT handles the music of the OC, we see clearly this is true (Col. 3, Eph. 5, and Hebrews 13:15). Looking at the original language helps here too.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

All I find is this brief post.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/page-2#post-1129556

I can't find it right now, but our beloved Matthew Winzer has theorized that the musical instruments of the temple were typical of the voices of the Gentiles adding their praise to God in the New Covenant. It's a compelling thought.

While I'm sure Rev. Winzer did a much better job of articulating this, I made that argument above. When we think of how the NT handles the music of the OC, we see clearly this is true (Col. 3, Eph. 5, and Hebrews 13:15). Looking at the original language helps here too.

 

[iainduguid]

All I find is this brief post.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/page-2#post-1129556

I'm afraid I don't find that speculation compelling at all. Why should instruments = Gentiles? You'll have to actually build a Biblical case, not just assert it. Psalm 98 certainly says no such thing. After all, Gentiles also were included from time to time under the old covenant. And why should instruments be added under the Davidic order on this view, when they weren't there under the Mosaic?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

What first comes to my mind is Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms. Handel's The Messiah, with the Hallelujah Chorus. Why were these people gifted with the ability to create such music ?

lt seems to me that many in this world, Christian and non-Christian, are gifted with talents and skills for the benefit and enjoyment of the rest of us!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Afterthought]

I don't have time to make the biblical case, since it requries a systematic understanding of the nature of OT worship and the changes into the NT. I believe it was offered as a "compelling thought" rather than an argument anyway. To leave some more pieces in this way of thinking, the psalms need to be understood as prophetic literature. David is viewed as prophet in the OT and the NT. The NT often makes use of their prophetic nature for the instruction of the church. If one views the psalms with an eye to prophecy, one will notice the psalms have a universal call to praise the Lord. This call grows as the books within the psalms move forward to the end point of psalm 150. As with all prophecy, there are NT realities described in terms of OT institutions (such as in Isaiah; note that the usage of the psalms in the NT show that they speak from the perspective of the NT, "today"), but the point of the prophecy is to describe the NT realities.

When this is understood, one will notice that psalm 98 calls the Gentiles to praise with harps, trumpets, etc. One will notice psalm 150 calls everything that has breath to praise the Lord with a variety of instruments. How are the Gentiles supposed to do this? These instruments were appointed by David for Levites and not for the common person to take up and use in the worship assembly. How will they join this Levitical choir and instrumentation? And these instruments, being attached to the temple, have long since disappeared. This suggests that the instruments here are speaking of the praise of the Gentiles, which we know continues. Yes, there were some Gentiles under the OT praising the Lord, etc., but this must be looked at redemptive-historically, since psalms such as 98 are looking toward that time when the Gentiles are brought into Israel to praise the Lord.

Other lines of evidence that lead to this. 1 Chronicles 16 (already mentioned) has the Davidic instruments set up in connection with a psalm that calls to the Gentiles. Even some pro-instrument authors (as in, instruments as an element; although I'm not sure whether that is conscious or not) recognize the connection between the orcestration of the instruments and the calling of the Gentiles to praise the Lord. Almost every psalm (potentially all of them; I have not finished studying this part yet; there are some on-the-surface counter-examples, but I need to think through the literary units in the Book of Pslams and message of those particualr psalms) that mentions the use of Davidic instruments has some connection to the calling of the Gentiles, e.g., psalm 108 mentions David praising the Lord among the nations upon the heels of praising the Lord with the psaltery and harp. Psalm 33 has a call for the earth to fear the lord, after telling the righteous to praise the Lord with an harp. Furthermore, in Revelation where all OT imagery returns, we see harps return in connection with the praise of the saints. As incense symbolized their prayers, harps symbolize their praise; confirming the association of OT Davidic instruments with praise under the NT and so the manner in which the Gentiles could be said to praise the Lord with an harp in psalm 98 (indeed, in Revelation 5 we note again a reference to redemption from all nations). Romans 15 connects the praise of Christ among the nations to various OT psalms, some including mentions of praise with Davidic instruments (and has the Gentiles praising with one voice with the rest of God's people, even as the instruments were said to do in Chronicles). Hebrews 13 shows that the sacrifice of praise is to be made with the fruit of lips, rather than with Davidic instruments, further suggesting their association with praise.

Questions as to why these instruments were not used before seem to me irrelevant to the question as to what they represented once they were instituted. But although I am not sure exactly what's up with the trumpets, it is clear that they represented something terrifying in the Mosaic institution but became associated with joy in the Davidic institution; perhaps a representation of how the law is sweetened under the gospel (for though the Mosaic ritual had sacrifice, etc., the gospel is more clearly seen under the Davidic ritual given the addition of a service of song with songs that call the Gentiles to praise)? Also, it is clear the Davidic institution is an embellishment of the previous one: the trumpets remain and more instruments are added as the Levites who had one task are now needing another task. It should also be noted that there is a progressive nature to revelation, so I do not see why everything that the Davidic instruments represented ought to have been present in the Mosaic worship ritual. If one feels one must answer the question: it would seem the Lord was pleased in the progress of revelation to await the Davidic institution, especially given the connection between David and Christ in the NT, since Christ is the key to the calling of the Gentiles (Romans 15). Given how much the calling of the Gentiles occurs in jubilant psalms, it also seems fitting that this part of the progress of revelation (i.e., including Gentile praise in the stated worship; the mystery of the Gentiles was revealed earlier, of course) would occur with the institution of a service of song to praise the Lord.

There are still some minor difficulties to sort out (to my own mind; I'm still thinking about this/studying this), but they do not seem to me to be insuperable. It is hard to ignore the evidence of the connection of the Davidic instruments with the calling of the Gentiles, however other details fit into this evidence.


in my opinion (seriously, just opining/wondering), those who are pro-instrument and view instruments as an element of worship or as something circumstantial to the OT worship will likely not see this as a compelling thought because of a different systematic understanding of the OT worship rituals, etc. But those who are anti-instrument in worship will likely find this a compelling thought (although no careful argument has been made) because the process used to arrive at the view will have already started incorporating that systematic understanding needed to see it.


To clarify the acapella position, it is freely acknowledged that instruments were used in connection with prophecy by individuals or groups, not just with sacrificial worship; but I think few would argue that prophecy continues; perhaps this is why it is sometimes seen by otheres to be overlooked by acapella advocates. Also, it is not necessary to figure out what exactly the instruments represented to know they were part of the ceremonial worship system, as with any other ceremonial worship practice. It is clear from the OT that they were especially incorporated into its worship and associated with sacrifice. It is clear they came with specific instructions for their use that cannot be carried out today. It is clear from the NT that worshipping God by "elements of the world," by "things that are made," or by "carnal ordinances" are what constitutes ceremonial worship. Instruments are material objects and things that are made and were used to worship God. The NT also classifying instruments as "lifeless things" puts beyond doubt that the instruments were part of those carnal ordinances, the NT being characterized by living stones and calling for living voices (and only worshipping God by two material ordinances: baptism and the Lord's supper). Hebrews also points out we have not come to the sound of a trump, showing the ceremonial usage of the instruments that we no longer are to have (the trumpets were in place to symbolize the sound of the trump on Sinai; the other instruments were embellished upon this; since NT reality is something other than Sinai, this shows the instruments belonged to a former dispensation). And so forth (e.g., the arguments from Hebrews 13 and Ephesians/Colossians given by Rev. Barnes above).

(Of course, in the OT, the worship ordinances were simply all there together. We cannot determine what was or was not ceremonial without instruction from the NT as to what constitutes ceremonial worship. Having consulted the NT, we can then also see indications in the OT of the ceremonial nature of some ordinances, e.g., how praise is preferred to sacrifice shows its non-ceremonial nature.)


But this is somewhat irrelevant for those arguing instruments to be circumstances, since I do not know many who argue that instruments must be used today, as they would have to do if they argued from the OT sacrificial use. I have my own thoughts about instruments as a circumstance, but I don't know if I will post them (depends on time and collecting my thoughts together). I do agree with the quotations by Chris Coldwell concerning circumstances/instruments.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

While I'm sure Rev. Winzer did a much better job of articulating this, I made that argument above. When we think of how the NT handles the music of the OC, we see clearly this is true (Col. 3, Eph. 5, and Hebrews 13:15). Looking at the original language helps here too.

All I find is this brief post.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/page-2#post-1129556

That post by MW is not arguing what is being claimed he argued.

This is probably the more prudent quote:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/#post-1128765