The Narrow Path Ministries

Recently on the Narrow Path Steve was discusssing instrumental music in the church. He mentioned that some (advocates of only a cappella music in the church) have contended that the word psalmos had lost the meaning of singing accompanied by a musical instrument at the time of the New Testament. Steve's view was that singing the Psalms necessitated instrumental accompanyment.

In his work "A Cappella Music", p. 35, Everett Ferguson states the following:

Elsewhere in Rabbinic literature instrumental music is forbidden on the Sabbath. In fact, "one may not ring a bell or clapper for a child on the Sabbath" (Tosephata Shabbat XIII, cited in Alfred Sendry, Bibliography of Jewish Music). One factor here was that tuning an instrument would violate the prohibition of work. For instance, it was ruled that one might tie the string of an instrument in the temple but not outside of the Temple on the Sabbath. Hence it would seem that one consideration in the discussion of what was essential in Temple music was to justify the place of instruments in the Temple worship. Only if they were integral to the sacrifice could their use override the Sabbath law. In the absence of sacrifice there was nothing to overide the Sabbath law. Therefore, synagogue music was vocal. I venture to suggest that the discussion of instrumental music among the Rabbis was to justify its overriding the temple practice; but since their own music in the synagogue was vocal, they wanted vocal music to have been central and so insisted that the essential music of the temple had been vocal.

Ferguson goes on to state, p. 36:

There remains no evidence that instrumental music was used in the synagogue service; indeed this holds true until comparatively recent times. The real reason for this absence is probably that advanced by McKinnon (in The Church Fathers and Instrumental Music and summarized in The Meaning of the Patristic Polemic against Musical Instruments) namely that the instrument was simply irrelevant to the type of worship developed in the synagogue. It was non-sacrificial worship and a rational service to which, as an extension either of prayer or of reading the scriptures, had been adding the chanting of Psalms.

And considering:

Luke 4:16 (New King James Version)

16. So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.

This would seem to be strong evidence that Jesus practiced singing (or rather chanting) the Psalms unaccompanied by instruments.

A cappella singing has a long history in the church. In a book I am reading, "A Gathered People", the authors note that Calvin forbade instruments in the assembly, and Zwingli topped Calvin by forbidding any singing at all!

Homer,

Are you in sympathy with the advocates of a cappella singing?

It does seem like a quirky position these days, but I've read that it may be the all-time majority position when you add up the Early Church (until the 10th or 12th century), the Eastern Church (until recent times), the Swiss Reformers and their descendants (until about 150 years ago), including the Puritans.

These days a cappella hymn singers are put in the same category as the Flat Earth Society.

Hi Sam,

You asked:

Are you in sympathy with the advocates of a cappella singing?

Depends on what you mean by "in sympathy". We have attended an instrumental church for over 24 years, but I have been not much impressed with the singing in most churches, large and small (including our own). In some, all you can hear is the worship team and their instruments - can't even hear yourself sing, let alone anyone else. It is my impression that instruments do not improve the singing, particularly after visiting the local Mennonite which is "a cappella". They sang beautifully; my wife and I were greatly impressed. And they are not a large church. One man led the singing and he just blended in with the congregation, although he was an excelllent singer. They were absolutely flawless, but they cheated: they used songbooks.

Doctrinally, I am only interested in the truth in this matter. At this time, I think the best you can say biblically is that instrumental music is neither advocated nor prohibitted in the New Testament.

As you probably know, there have been many bitter divisions over the issue. One side believes that all that is not expressly commanded or necessarily implied in scripture should be forbidden in the assembly. This was the Reformed and Anabaptist position.

The following quote is from the book I mentioned, "A Gathered People":

At the heart of this was the second commandment: to worship God in any other way than as God has directed is idolatry. Human beings are, according to Calvin, "congenital idolaters, creatures who desperately wanted a God who conformed to their images". The human mind manufactures idols and consequently can not be trusted to imagine the kind of worship that God desires.

And this applied to the regenerate mind, which was still flawed and not entirely sanctified. See 1 Corinthians for examples aplenty.

Luther, however, took the approach that all that was not forbidden was permitted in worship. Worship forms are not forbiden as long as scripture is not violated. Thus the use of musical instuments, icons, drama, etc. etc. is permissable.

I guess the thing that makes me somewhat unsure of which regulative principle is correct is the attitude of God toward worship in the Old Testament, going back to the sacrifices of Cain and Able, which predated the Law. And we know how God reacted if people under the Law did as they pleased.

Leviticus 10:1-2 (New King James Version)
1. Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

It is a question worth pondering.

I have the same complaint as Homer does about the loud instrumental performances in meetings that are supposed to encourage corporate singing, but where there is no sense in anyone singing other than the amplified performers. As long as I don't intend to sing along, I can sometimes enjoy what the band is playing (depending on their stage demeanor and lyrical content).

It is fairly foreign to me to think of "worship" as something primarily associated with official gatherings. In light of passages like Matthew 9:13; Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 13:16 and 1 Corinthians 10:31, I have always thought that every act of every day was to be offered up as worship to God ("an acceptable sacrifice").

What is done in a formal meeting plays a very small role in my worship/life. If I listen to, play, or sing along with instrumental music in my home or my car, it is all the same as doing the same in a "steeple house." I know of no biblical principles that would render such things more appropriate in one place than in another.

Of course, in a public meeting (or any public place) I may not do everything that I may do in the privacy of my home, since a public venue involves me in the duty of showing consideration to others present.

I know of no biblical rules for conduct in corporate gatherings except 1) let everything be done decently and in order; 2) let all things be done for edification; and 3) wait for one another when eating. Apart from those few guidelines, I don't see much to differentiate the duties or allowances to be observed in gathered worship from those associated with ordinary (24/7) worship.

Steve,

Thanks for your reply, brother. You have raised some interesting points. You wrote:

It is fairly foreign to me to think of "worship" as something primarily associated with official gatherings. In light of passages like Matthew 9:13; Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 13:16 and 1 Corinthians 10:31, I have always thought that every act of every day was to be offered up as worship to God ("an acceptable sacrifice").

To which I agree. Helping widows and orphans is as much worship as anything we do.

And you wrote:

What is done in a formal meeting plays a very small role in my worship/life. If I listen to, play, or sing along with instrumental music in my home or my car, it is all the same as doing the same in a "steeple house." I know of no biblical principles that would render such things more appropriate in one place than in another.

I agree that the "steeple house" is irrelevant, however, it seems to me there is a significant difference in being alone and being gathered together in Jesus name, in the assembly or "in church". That difference being the presence of the Lord.

It would appear that God's presence occurs in at least three ways. First, there is His omnipresence. He is present in all times and all places in some sense. Secondly, He dwells in believers through His Spirit. And Thirdly, He is present in a special way among His gathered people. Jesus gave a strong hint of this in Matthew 18:20:

Matthew 18:20 (New King James Version)
20. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

It must be admitted that the context is church discipline, the passage has been misused, but at least it is a strong hint. Then consider:

1 Corinthians 3:9-16 (New King James Version)

9. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13. each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 16. Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Paul's reference to the temple here is to the church, or assembly. And God dwelt in the temple in the Old Testament in a special way. Jesus referred to the temple as "my Father's house".

In the Old Testament God's presence was experienced in the assembly of His people:

Psalm 95:1-3 (New King James Version)

1. Oh come, let us sing to the LORD!
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
2. Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.
3. For the LORD is the great God,
And the great King above all gods

Psalm 96:8-9 (New King James Version)

8. Give to the LORD the glory due His name;
Bring an offering, and come into His courts.
9. Oh, worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness!
Tremble before Him, all the earth

Psalm 98:5-6 (New King James Version)

5. Sing to the LORD with the harp,
With the harp and the sound of a psalm,
6. With trumpets and the sound of a horn;
Shout joyfully before the LORD, the King.

Psalm 100:2 (New King James Version)

2. Serve the LORD with gladness;
Come before His presence with singing.

Leviticus 9 (New King James Version)

1. It came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel. 2. And he said to Aaron, “Take for yourself a young bull as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD. 3. And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying, ‘Take a kid of the goats as a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering, 4. also a bull and a ram as peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD, and a grain offering mixed with oil; for today the LORD will appear to you.’”5. So they brought what Moses commanded before the tabernacle of meeting. And all the congregation drew near and stood before the LORD. 6. Then Moses said, “This is the thing which the LORD commanded you to do, and the glory of the LORD will appear to you.” 7. And Moses said to Aaron, “Go to the altar, offer your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people. Offer the offering of the people, and make atonement for them, as the LORD commanded.” 8. Aaron therefore went to the altar and killed the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself. 9. Then the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him. And he dipped his finger in the blood, put it on the horns of the altar, and poured the blood at the base of the altar. 10. But the fat, the kidneys, and the fatty lobe from the liver of the sin offering he burned on the altar, as the LORD had commanded Moses. 11. The flesh and the hide he burned with fire outside the camp. 12. And he killed the burnt offering; and Aaron’s sons presented to him the blood, which he sprinkled all around on the altar. 13. Then they presented the burnt offering to him, with its pieces and head, and he burned them on the altar. 14. And he washed the entrails and the legs, and burned them with the burnt offering on the altar. 15. Then he brought the people’s offering, and took the goat, which was the sin offering for the people, and killed it and offered it for sin, like the first one. 16. And he brought the burnt offering and offered it according to the prescribed manner. 17. Then he brought the grain offering, took a handful of it, and burned it on the altar, besides the burnt sacrifice of the morning. 18. He also killed the bull and the ram as sacrifices of peace offerings, which were for the people. And Aaron’s sons presented to him the blood, which he sprinkled all around on the altar, 19. and the fat from the bull and the ram—the fatty tail, what covers the entrails and the kidneys, and the fatty lobe attached to the liver; 20. and they put the fat on the breasts. Then he burned the fat on the altar; 21. but the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved as a wave offering before the LORD, as Moses had commanded. 22. Then Aaron lifted his hand toward the people, blessed them, and came down from offering the sin offering, the burnt offering, and peace offerings. 23. And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of meeting, and came out and blessed the people. Then the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people, 24. and fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar. When all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.

Now I admit that this scriptures cited (there are no doubt many others) may not be seen as proof of God's special presence when His people assemble, but it would seem to me to be much more difficult to prove otherwise. And who would argue that Israel enjoyed a greater priviledge than the church?

In the passage in 1 Corinthians regarding head coverings there is at least a hint that angels are observing in some manner. And why is Paul concerned if not for the presence of God in some sense?

And you also wrote:

Of course, in a public meeting (or any public place) I may not do everything that I may do in the privacy of my home, since a public venue involves me in the duty of showing consideration to others present.

And what if the "others present" includes The Lord? Would we act any differently if we really believed He was present in some special sense? If church is only for our edification, as some have claimed, is God merely a spectator, as many have become, as church is practiced today?

And if all of life is worship before the Lord, what is the purpose of the assembly? If God does not meet with His people in some special way then church would seem to be no more than a gathering of individuals for mutual benefit.

You may have guessed, in reading "Pagan Christianity" and "A Gathered People" I have become even more concerned regarding how church is done.

Comments from anyone appreciated!

Homer,

We have attended an instrumental church for over 24 years, but I have been not much impressed with the singing in most churches, large and small (including our own).

I have mixed feelings about this remark. I have attended a cappella churches where the congregational singing was very impressive. The formula for fine unaccompanied congrgational singing is a large room with hard surfaces (to increase the reverb time) and a relatively large number of confident singers. (It also helps if they are young with strong singing voices.) It turns out that it is not necessary for any individual in the congregation to be a "good" singer. In fact, people with outstanding singing voices do not help congregational singing. All you have to do is sing in key. Vibrato (a necessity for good solo singing) is bad for congreational singing. Some guy with an operatic voice turns out to be a real distraction and not at all helpful.

Having said all this, I am troubled by any evaluation of worship that uses aesthetic criteria. How "good" it sounds should be irrelavent. We are not trying to make something pretty to present to God. The attempt to do so seems to me to be idolatry. The purpose of singing is to recite a text and let the word of Christ come to life within us. In the best congregational singing, the words of the psalm/hymn/song are front and center. The tune serves to make the words memorable.

It is my impression that instruments do not improve the singing.

I am in whole-hearted agreement. The best way to improve singing is to sing!

One man led the singing and he just blended in with the congregation, although he was an excelllent singer.

He was doing it right. A good songleader sets the pitch and the tempo then blends in.

They were absolutely flawless, but they cheated: they used songbooks.

I love songbooks! I've got about four dozen and am always looking for more. I've found a treasure trove of hymnals on-line. They are great.

Doctrinally, I am only interested in the truth in this matter. At this time, I think the best you can say biblically is that instrumental music is neither advocated nor prohibitted in the New Testament.

This is true, but you have to recognize that there is an uncountable set of activities that are neither advocated nor prohibited in the New Testament. For example, smoking a peace pipe and sitting in a sweat lodge. Neither of these seem appropriate for Christian worship, but neither are condemned. There has to be some criteria for what we do.

One side believes that all that is not expressly commanded or necessarily implied in scripture should be forbidden in the assembly. This was the Reformed and Anabaptist position.

If one does not take this position, then acceptable Christian worship becomes a matter of human wisdom. Human wisdom hardly ever leads down a good path. Even taking this position, there seems to be a lot we can still agrue about.

Luther, however, took the approach that all that was not forbidden was permitted in worship.

Apparently Luther trusted his own wisdom. Strike up the worship band!

Quote:

One side believes that all that is not expressly commanded or necessarily implied in scripture should be forbidden in the assembly. This was the Reformed and Anabaptist position

.


If one does not take this position, then acceptable Christian worship becomes a matter of human wisdom.

There would seem to be a third option: The leading of the Holy Spirit in the congregation.

Steve,

There would seem to be a third option: The leading of the Holy Spirit in the congregation.

What do you do when two people are claiming the Holy Spirit is leading, and they are led in opposite directions? Do you have a certified Prophet of God who can speak authoritatively?

Short of that, I have to take someone's word that it is the Holy Spirit and not human wisdom speaking.

I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit would lead someone in the church to do something in the public worship that other Spirit-filled believers would find controversial.

The wisdom of the Spirit ("from above") should be easily differentiated from the wisdom of man ("that does not descend from above"). James describes the former as, "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." Man's wisdom, by contrast, is "earthly, sensual and demonic," and is characterized by "bitter envy and self-seeking" (James 3:13-17). There could hardly be a greater contrast between the two.

If someone is insisting on introducing some controversial behavior into the church over the protests of other spiritual Christians, then this very insistence is easily discerned as the "wisdom that does not descend from above." It is not peaceable, gentle and willing to yield.

On the other hand, if a group of believers are trying to restrict activities in the church which are neither contrary to scripture, nor to the Spirit of Christ, and which a significant number of spiritually-minded folks would like to see introduced, then this stubbornness itself would appear to be a specimen of the wisdom "that does not descend from above." It is not peaceable, gentle and willing to yield.

If something is specifically taught by Christ or the apostles, and there are still people in the church opposed to it, then there is no possibility of considering those people to be spiritual in their thinking, nor any obligation to take their opinions into serious consideration in deciding the course for the church.

Steve,

I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit would lead someone in the church to do something in the public worship that other Spirit-filled believers would find controversial.

In every generation someone proposes something new for public worship. They almost always claim the leading of the Holy Spirit. They almost always are meet with opposition by others equally claiming the leading of the Holy Spirit. This situation seems to be rather commonplace.

If someone is insisting on introducing some controversial behavior into the church over the protests of other spiritual Christians, then this very insistence is easily discerned as the "wisdom that does not descend from above." It is not peaceable, gentle and willing to yield.

Again this seems to be the rule rather than the exception. How many times are those in opposition to some innovation shown the door?

On the other hand, if a group of believers are trying to restrict activities in the church which are neither contrary to scripture, nor to the Spirit of Christ, and which a significant number of spiritually-minded folks would like to see introduced, then this stubbornness itself would appear to be a specimen of the wisdom "that does not descend from above." It is not peaceable, gentle and willing to yield.

There are at least a million and one activities that are not contrary to scripture. Are they all appropriate for the church? To assert with confidence that something is not contrary to the Spirit of Christ requires exhaustive knowledge of the Mind of Christ. Again, we are going to need a certified Prophet for this. If we rely on the wisdom of a significant number of spiritually-minded people, we have resorted to majority rule.

Refusing to yield is in itself no indication of following the Spirit or not following the Spirit. It seems Paul refused to yield to a lot of people.

Thak you for your comments, but I still do not see any reliable way to determine if something, apart from something with strong Biblical warrant, is from God or man.