The New Testament scriptures do not command
the use of a mechanical instrument in the worship of God. This fact is
generally conceded by "instrumentalists" and "non-instrumentalists"
alike. Therefore those who wish to use the mechanical instrument must
find some other means of justifying their musical preference. Some seek
to discover in the old covenant what they cannot find in the new. Dwaine
Dunning stated in an article that, those who advocate them may go to the
Old Testament Scriptures, such as Psalm 92, "It is a good thing
to give thanks to God ... upon an instrument."
He anticipated the non-instrumentalists'
reply that the mechanical instrument of music could not be used because,
as part of the old covenant, it was taken out of the way, by adding,
It is hard to believe that this argument is
considered at all valid among people who believe that "the new covenant
is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed." God certainly
declared himself under the old dispensation as highly favorable to
instrumental music in His praise, and never did He rescind His approval.
Is it proper exegesis to take His "silence" in the New Testament in such
a manner as to outweigh His prior approval?1
It is the purpose of this paper to
demonstrate that the mechanical instrument is not to be used in worship
to God, not simply because, "the old testament was nailed to the cross
and the instrument right along with it," but because the very nature and
purpose of the new covenant demand such not to be used.
Let us first contrast the nature of the old
covenant with the new covenant. In the fourth chapter of John, a
Samaritan woman, seeking to know "the place where men ought to worship,"
asked Jesus whether it was in Mt. Gerizim or in Jerusalem. Jesus gave
the surprising reply that soon worship would be in neither of these
places, "but the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall
worship the Father in spirit and truth" (John 4:23). 2 There are
several contrasts worthy of notice. Worship will soon not be identified
with a physical place such as Jerusalem, but will be in spirit and
truth. Secondly, Jesus said that the Jews were right, "salvation is from
the Jews," however, a change in the system would soon take place.
Finally, the law itself is contrasted with Christ as in John 17:17:
"the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus
Christ."
Some have suggested that the phrase "spirit
and truth" refers to the sincerity of worship and its accordance with
God's revealed truth. This, however, fails to reveal the true impact of
the statement. Even under the old covenant, sincerity was demanded.
God's law was to be upon the heart, and obedience was to be motivated by
love for God (Deut. 6:4-9). Jesus condemned the Pharisees for
hypocrisy in worship-mere lip service without the sincerity of the heart
is vain (Matt. 15:6-7). Truth, also, was a necessity of the-old
covenant. Otherwise, how could Jesus have answered the woman's question,
"Where ought men to worship?" The law could not be added to nor
diminished from; the result of such would make void the law (Deut.
4:2; Mk. 7:5-13).
What then is the meaning of this contrast?
To comprehend this, we must first understand and appreciate the nature
and purpose of the old covenant. The writer of Hebrews states that the
"first covenant had ordinances of divine service," but he terms these
ordinances carnal, that is, material, worldly, sensual (9:1,10).
It consisted of things to see, as "the tabernacle and all the vessels of
the ministry" (9:21); things to do, as "the priests go in
continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services"
(9:6); things to smell, as the "golden censer" (9:4); and even
things to hear' as "with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals" (I
Chr. 25: 1). Instruments of music were an integral part of the old
covenant, having been used in the dedication of the temple of Solomon
(2 Chr. 5:11-14), in cleansing of the temple by Hezekiah "for the
commandment was of Jehovah" (2 Chr. 25:29) 3, and generally in
all worship to Jehovah (Psalm 150). Some of the instruments used
were trumpet, psaltery, harp, timbral, stringed instrument, pipe, and
cymbals.
However, the Hebrew writer maintains that
the old covenant was "weak and unprofitable" (7:18), and that it
was "imposed until a time of reformation" (9:10). This does not mean
that God failed in His first attempt at legislation, but simply
indicated that the purpose of the old covenant caused it to be
inherently "weak and unprofitable." There are, in actuality, two
purposes of the old covenant that are pertinent to this discussion.
The old covenant was never meant to justify
man before God, but was given to demonstrate that man needed to be
justified, (Rom. 7:7, 12-14; Gal. 3:21-22; Heb. 10:4, 11). Paul
said, "It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come"
(Gal. 3:19). Through the old covenant, man was caused to
recognize the need for a Messiah. In this sense, the old covenant
brought the Jews to Christ (Gal. 3:23-24). When the seed came,
the need for the old covenant no longer existed; its time had lapsed
(Gal. 3:25; Col. 2:14; Heb. 7:18-19).
Secondly, the old covenant revolved in the
realm of the sensual for a reason-it was to be the divine demonstration
of coming attractions. The Hebrews writer calls it a "shadow of the good
things to come, not the very image of the things" (10:1). The
law, therefore, was "weak and unprofitable" because it was only a
shadow, not the reality. According to the chart given many of the old
covenant types found their anti-type, or reality, in the new covenant. 4
(See chart at bottom of preceding page)
Note: Not included in this article (LWR)
Truly, "the new covenant is in the old
concealed, the old is in the new revealed." Once the nature and purpose
of the old covenant are firmly fixed in our minds, we can readily
understand what Jesus meant by the expression, "in spirit and truth."
When Jesus speaks of "in truth," he is
referring, not to true as opposed to false, but shadow as opposed to
reality. "True worshippers" worship in the truth of the new covenant,
not in the shadow of the old. Under both covenants, worship is based
upon man's relationship to God. The old covenant relationship of the
Jews to God was intensely physical-they were His chosen people through
whom the seed was to come. God's dealings with them were on a worldly
plane. When obedient, they were materially blessed; when disobedient,
they were materially cursed. It is understandable that worship would be
compatible with this relationship. The outward show of the temple,
priesthood, mechanical instruments of music, and daily ministries
reinforced it. The new covenant, however, is not based upon such a
sensual, ritualistic system; its worship should quite naturally be
expected to possess a different nature also.
Man is created in the image of God (Gen.
1:26); as God is a spirit (Jno. 4:24), so is He the Father of
our spirits (Heb.12:9). Under the new covenant, the emphasis is
upon the Christian's relationship to God as the spiritual seed of
Abraham, not his physical seed. Those who are obedient are spiritually
blessed, those disobedient are spiritually cursed. Worship, therefore,
must be compatible or coordinate with the spiritual nature of the
covenant. Under this covenant, there is the twofold aspect of the
temple: first, each Christian is a temple (2 Cor. 6:16) and an
officiating priest, "accomplishing the services;" also, each Christian
is a unit that is integrated with others "into a holy temple in the
Lord" (Eph. 2:19-22). Indeed, we worship "in spirit" (John
4:24; Rom. 1:9, 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6). The Christian is to present his
body "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your
spiritual service" or logike latreia (Rom. 12:1, cf. I Pet. 2:5).
The adjective logike was current in the
philosophical literature for the distinctive nature of man, the
reasoning power (logos), which distinguished him from animals, and his
spiritual nature in contrast to his sensual nature ... worship
characterized in this way can neither proceed from nor appeal to the
lower nature of man, but is not thereby simply "intellectual" worship. 5
Logike must describe all aspects of worship
under the new covenant.
Is instrumental music as much a part of the
new covenant as it was a part of the old covenant? To this question, we
must answer "yes" along with Dwaine Dunning, "God certainly declared
himself under the old dispensation as highly favorable to instrumental
music in His praise, and never did He rescind His approval." However,
with this answer, we are faced with the crux of the whole matter. The
instrument of music, as a part of worship, must be coordinate with the
nature of the covenant. The old covenant was sensual, and the
instruments employed were mechanical. The new covenant is spiritual, and
the instruments used must correspond with this nature.
Music, as described in Ephesians 5:19
and Colossians 3:16, served two purposes. The first was for
edification. Paul said, "speak one to another" and "teach and admonish
one another." The instrument thus specified is the vocal cords.
Edification for Paul in I Cor. 14
meant intelligible, verbal instruction, in contrast to speaking in
unintelligible (to those present) tongues. 6
"I will sing with the spirit, and I will
sing with the understanding also" (v. 15). If a tongue cannot
edify because it has no appeal to the understanding (and "ye will be
speaking into the air," v. 9), how can a mechanical instrument be
used for edification? It cannot teach nor admonish. It does not cause
one to understand. Like the unknown tongue, it "speaks into the air."
Secondly, music is to be used in worship to God. The instrument
specified for worship is the heart-"sing and make melody with your heart
to the Lord." Music is no longer representative, as when the Levites
played for the assembly (2 Chr. 29:25). It is now an individual
act. Every Christian can make melody to God. Just as the temple and the
priesthood, the mechanical instrument typified the new covenant.
Can the mechanical instrument then be
consistent with the spiritual nature of worship? Some have erroneously
assumed that what stimulates the feelings, that what is aesthetically
satisfying" constitutes worship to God. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Worship is maintained on a rational, spiritual level, and
feeling should come as a result of knowing we have pleased God in
acceptable worship. Mechanical music, on the contrary, cannot offer
spiritual worship. A mechanical instrument cannot worship God.
Those who advocate using an instrument
assert that it is merely an aid, to help the assembly worship God. There
are several problems with this view in light of what has been shown. The
use of a mechanical instrument denies the individual act of making
melody to God, by placing the worship service back to the representative
system of the old covenant. If an instrument is needed to "help the
assembly," the implication is that the heart is not sufficient to offer
acceptable worship to God. A mechanical instrument is sensual by nature.
It activates the feelings by appreciation of the sound of the
instrument, rather than by the recognition that acceptable worship has
been offered. In this sense, the instrument diverts the attention from
the heart, and thus depreciates the worship. 7 Finally, for something
to be an aid, it must first be compatible with the nature of the thing
it aids. The sensual nature of the mechanical instrument and the
spiritual nature of the new covenant worship are directly antagonistic,
in antithesis to one another. Such an instrument therefore, cannot be an
aid.
We are asked, "Is it proper exegesis to take
His 'silence' in the New Testament in such a manner as to outweigh His
prior approval?" Many years ago, the prophet Ezekiel complained that
some. men "have made no distinction between the holy and the common ...
between the unclean and clean" (22:26). The writer of Hebrews
states that the tabernacle was cleansed, or sanctified, by sprinkling of
blood (9:18-22), as was the temple dedicated by sacrifice of
animals (2 Chr. 7:4-7). God set all things that were to be used
for worship within the bounds of the sanctified temple area, including
the instruments of music (2 Chr. 29:25). The sin of Nadab and
Abihu was that they violated God's silence by offering that which was
not sanctified. The law specified that the fire to be used for the
censer had to be taken from the altar (Lev. 16:12), yet they
disobeyed by offering "strange fire" (Lev. 10: 1). The temple of
the new covenant has also been sanctified by blood (Heb. 10: 10),
including the instrument of worship-the heart (Heb. 10:22, cf. 8:10).
The mechanical instrument has been left outside the temple gates, and
within the silence of the NT scripture. Shall we call holy, what God has
left profane? 8
In new covenant worship, therefore, the
mechanical instrument would be an anachronism, that is, something
historically out of place. In Shakespeare's Tragedy of Julius Caesar
(II.1), the conspirators were interrupted by a clock that strikes three
times. Now, although striking clocks were plentiful in seventeenth
century England, there were, in fact, none in Rome during the time of
Caesar. Anyone that would seek to play a mechanical instrument in
worship to God today would be, like Shakespeare's clock, at the wrong
place and at the wrong time.
An attempt has been made to show that the
mechanical instrument has no place in the worship of the new covenant.
This has not pretended to be an exhaustive treatise, but a summary of
some arguments that have proved persuasive in our own mind. Since the
instrumental music question is of such grave import and not to be
lightly discarded, if we have overlooked any important detail, the
reader will please bear the responsibility of guiding us to the right
path.
Footnotes
1. "New Thoughts on an Old Problem,
Christian Standard, Feb. 12,1966.
2. For an excellent analysis of this
passage, see James D. Bales, Instrumental Music and New Testament
Worship, pp. 15-30.
3. Some discredit this passage due to an
alleged corruption in the text, but see Hugo McCord's article, "Old
Testament Instrumentation", Firm Foundation, Apr. 26, 1966.
4. Adapted from Book-Miller Debate, p. 26.
5. Everett Ferguson, A Capella Music, pp.
88-90.
6. Ferguson, pp. 90-91.
7. See R. L. Whiteside's comments,
Reflections, pp. 368-369.
8. For a similar argument, see Foy E.
Wallace, Jr., Bulwarks of the Faith, II.226-228.
Bibliography
Bales, James D., Instrumental Music and New
Testament Worship, Searcy: 1973.
Book-Miller Debate. Gainesville: Phillips
Publications, 1955
Dunning, Dwaine, "New Thoughts on an Old
Problem", Christian Standard. February 12, 1966.
Ferguson, Everett, A Capella Music in the
Public Worship of the Church, Abilene: Biblical Research Press, 1972.
McCord, Hugh, "Old Testament
Instrumentation?" Firm Foundation, April 26, 1966.
Wallace, Foy E. Jr., Bulwarks of the Faith,
Part 2, Oklahoma City: Wallace Publications, 1951.
Whiteside, Robertson L., Reflections,
Denton: (privately published),'1965.
Truth Magazine - July 25, 1974
Other Articles
A
Close Look at Matthew 18:15-17
A Convenient Doctrine
Cutting Wood and Restoring
N. T. Christianity
About Christians Feeling
Unworthy and Undone
Holding a Church Hostage
What Can God do?
Undercover Agents for Christ
Reformation or Transformation?
Be Careful With the Blame
Game
Is Unrestricted Loyalty a Virtue?
A New Dogma
How to Raise a Heartache
The Right Baptism
Standing Alone
- Caffin,
B.C. (1950), II Peter – Pulpit Commentary, H.D.M. Spence
and Joseph Exell, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
|
For Past Auburn Beacons go to:
www.aubeacon.com/Bulletins.htm
|
Anyone can join the mailing list for the Auburn Beacon! Send
your request to:
larryrouse@aubeacon.com |
