October 2005
Addressed below are:
(A) notes on
the Greek word psallo,
(B) notes on the use of the OT to justify
instrumental music, and
(C) other notes.
(A) Regarding the NT use of psallo,
five major points follow (with sub-points) --
1. Words can and do change in meaning over
time.
a. One example in English, just in my lifetime:
If someone came across a letter I wrote 50 years ago, in which I wrote, “I
went to a gay party last night,” he would probably conclude that I had
partied with a bunch of homosexuals. However, if he bothered to check out
the meaning of gay in the time frame in which I wrote it, he would
learn it had no reference to homosexuality.
b. The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is an
outstanding translation. But there is the possibility of misunderstanding
certain passages due to the use of words which have changed completely
in meaning since 1611 when the KJV was done. An example is Psalm 88:13,
which reads, “But unto thee have I cried O Lord; and in the morning
shall my prayer prevent thee.” I might wonder how the
psalmist’s prayer was stopping God, until I learned that in 1611 prevent
meant come before. Less than 300 years later the ASV (the next major
translation) did not use prevent in the same way the KJV did because
it was no longer a valid usage.
2. The Greek word psallo changed in meaning over
time.
a. Psallo in its basic original usage had no
inherent musical meaning. It was used to refer to plucking a
carpenter’s string (to mark a line) or a bow string (to shoot an arrow).
b. Its 1st musical application was to instrumental music
only, such as plucking the harp or lyre. If the New Testament (NT) was
written during this time, psallo would have excluded vocal music
unless another Greek word for sing (ado) was used in conjunction
with it.
c. Over time psallo ceased to refer to
instrumental music only, and came to refer to singing with instrumental
accompaniment. If the NT had been written during this period, the command
to sing would have required instrumental accompaniment. Acappella music
would not even be optional.
d. Again, over time psallo came to refer to vocal
music only. This was the meaning when the NT was written. In the same way
that I can understand that a document using the word gay 50 years
ago isn’t talking about homosexuality; and a document using the word
prevent 400 years ago isn’t talking about keeping something from
happening; I can understand that psallo didn’t mean the same
thing when the NT was written that it had meant just 200 or 300 years
earlier.
e. There’s much evidence that psallo didn’t have
any instrumental meaning in the 1st Century in “common” (or Koine) Greek
literature, not just the NT. The work of a Greek scholar named E. A.
Sophocles is particularly noteworthy. Not only was he an accepted Greek
language scholar (a professor of Greek language at Harvard University for
38 years), but he was Grecian -- Greek was his first language. He authored
the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Bryzantine Periods (from B.C. 146 to
A.D. 1100). In developing this lexicon (dictionary of an ancient
language), Sophocles examined 594 Greek authors (255 secular, 339
ecclesiastical). After his extensive survey, he found no association of
instrumental accompaniment with psallo in the common Greek of the
period of time he covers. He defines psallo “to chant, sing
religious hymns.”
Interestingly, while Sophocles was still living, a
zealous advocate of instrumental music by the name of “Reverend” G. P.
Slade wrote to him seeking support for the classical Greek use of psallo.
He received nothing to lessen the force of Sophocles work. The
lexicographer wrote back stating, “Dear Sir: My lexicon is intended
for those who wish to read the authors of the Roman and Byzantine periods
of the language.” This, of course, would include the apostle Paul.
3. Even in the same time period, a word can mean
something different depending on the form of a
given language that is being
used. For example, having worked a lot in South America and
Mexico, I
quickly learned the necessity of being able to ask for the location of the
bath-room in
Spanish (Donde esta el bano?). However, I also learned (the
hard way) in Spain, where a different
form of Spanish (pure Castillian) is
used, that bano did not refer to a toilet.
a. One purpose of Sophocles’ lexicon was to isolate the
common Greek of the Roman and Byzantine periods from the form of the
language in earlier times. The “classical” Greek is usually identified with
a period ending about 320 B.C. The Greek poets, of whom Homer (about 9th
Century B.C.) was the most notable, and philosophers such as Socrates (5th
Century B.C.) and Plato (427-347 B.C.) wrote in classical Greek. Possibly
because of this, classical Greek was still used in the writings of
“scholars” long after it was not used by the common people. In the 1st
Century A.D., writers such as Plutarch (A.D. 46-125) and Josephus (A.D. 1st
Century) wrote in “classical” Greek. Also, of course, the transition from
one form of Greek to another was gradual, which may explain the gap of over
150 years between the era of “classical” Greek and the Koine Greek era.
Nonetheless, by about 200 years before the NT began to be written, Koine,
or “common” Greek had become the form of Greek used by the common people.
b. The NT was not written in classical Greek. It
was written in Koine (or “common”) Greek. It clearly was not
intended to be the language of scholars, but rather to communicate with the
common man and woman.
c. The question is not how psallo might have
been used in classical Greek in the 1st Century. The question is what the
word meant in Koine Greek in that time frame.
d. One article on the topic mentions 30 different
recognized Greek lexicographers who have addressed the meaning of psallo.
To the best of my knowledge, all or almost all of them are associated
with churches which use mechanical instruments of music. Any bias would
therefore favor that. One might expect all or almost all to contend for the
earlier meaning of psallo during the classical era of the language.
However, about half indicate that psallo does not suggest
instrumental accompaniment in the NT. A very small minority contend that
instrumental accompaniment is required; the remainder indicate that
the use of instrumental accompaniment is optional. Here are some that
define the term as basically meaning “to sing” –
·
A. T. Robertson, one of the most
highly regarded Greek scholars, explains the significance of psallo
thus -- “... originally meant to play on strings, then to sing with an
accompaniment, and here (referring to I Cor. 14:15) apparently to sing
without regard to an instrument.” He explains that the meaning of the word
changed through time.
·
Joseph H. Thayer, was arguably
the foremost Greek lexicographer of his time. He was Professor of New
Testament Criticism and Interpretation at the Divinity School of Harvard
University, and participated in the translation of the American Standard
Version of 1901 (which was published in the year of Thayer’s death).
Thayer, in his 1885 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
after commenting upon the word’s use in classical Greek, and in the
Septuagint, notes that “in the NT (psallo signifies) to sing a hymn,
to celebrate the praises of God in song.”
·
In his Word Studies in the
New Testament, Marvin Vincent in commenting on Jas. 5:13, says of psallo
-- “The word means, primarily ‘to pluck, or twitch.’ Hence of the sharp
‘twang’ on a bow-string or harp-string, and so ‘to play upon a stringed
instru-ment.’ The verb, however, is used in the NT of singing praise
generally. Then, in commenting on the noun psalmos in Col. 3:16,
Vincent states, “A psalm was originally a song accompanied by a stringed
instrument ... The idea of accompaniment passed away in usage,
and the psalm, in NT phraseology, is an Old Testament psalm, or a
composition having that character.”
·
W. E. Vine is another of the
foremost Greek lexicographers. In his Expository Dictionary of New
Testament Words, he addresses psallo under “melody,” noting the
classical sense, the Septuagint usage, and then says, “... in the NT, to
sing a hymn, sing praise.” In another book, First Corinthians, Vine
explains the matter more fully. He writes, “The word psallo
originally meant to play a stringed instrument with the fingers, or to sing
with the accompaniment of a harp. Later, however, and in the NT, it came to
signify simply to praise without the accompaniment of an instrument.”
e. There are similar quotations from other Greek
scholars. Again, it’s important to note that these men were associated with
denominations that use mechanical instruments of music in their worship.
They don’t have any reason to misrepresent the facts. Evidently, they each
felt the objectivity that scholarship should demand outweighed their
personal preference.
f. Of course, there are Greek lexicographers who say
that psallo either requires or allows instrumental music. I am not
aware of any, however, who take this position that also address the change
in meaning over time, or the difference between “classical” Greek and “common”
Greek,. I’m no mind reader, but I can’t help wondering if those who choose
to ignore the historical evidence, are being swayed by their own
theological prejudice.
g. There are internet articles that contend for the use
of instruments of music in worship. They typically quote someone who agrees
with them for authority, while making no mention of the many highly
regarded lexicographers who refuse to ignore the actual meaning of psallo
in the koine Greek in the 1st Century when the NT was written, in spite of
their personal worship practice. In contrast, I’ve acknowledged that
several lexicographers define psallo to permit instrumental
accompaniment, and a few define it in such a way as to make instrumental
accompaniment mandatory.
4. Ultimately, however, I’m not a Greek language
scholar. I can’t do my own Greek lexicog-raphy analysis. I’m sort of like
the guy on a jury who listens to “expert” witnesses for both sides, and has
to decide whose testimony is valid. When “expert” Greek language scholars of
the 19th and 20th Centuries disagree, I start asking how did the common
people of the 1st and subsequent centuries understand psallo. There
I find amazing agreement. Note –
a. The
English word Acapella for unaccompanied singing is from the Latin a
capella which literally
means “as in the church.” This fact provides
great insight into the practice of the early Christians. It is
supported by
virtually all church music historians.
b. In his
concordance, James Strong gives the meaning of psallo as it was prior
to 300 BC without
mention of the historical change in meaning. However,
Strong joined with a John McClintock in
producing their Cyclopedia of
Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature. On page 759 is
found this statement: “The Greeks as well as the Jews were wont to
use instruments as accompaniments
in their sacred songs. The converts to
Christianity accordingly must have been familiar with this mode of
singing;
yet it is generally believed that the primitive Christians failed to adopt
the use of instrumental
music in their religious worship. The word psallein,
which the apostle uses in Eph. 5:19, has been taken
by some critics to
indicate that they sang with such accompaniments ... But if this is the
correct inference,
it is strange indeed that neither Ambrose ... nor ...
Basil ... nor Chrysostom ... in the noble encomiums
which they severally
pronounce upon music, make any mention of instrumental music. Basil, indeed
expressly condemns it ... The general introduction of instrumental music
can certainly not be assigned to a
date earlier than the 5th or 6th
centuries ...”
c. The 3 men named above are men in the
4th Century who wrote of church music. Edward Dickinson in
his Music in
the History of the Western Church (p. 54,55), quotes Chrysostom thus:
“David formerly
sang in psalms, also we sing today with him; he had
a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with
living strings.
Our tongues are the strings of the lyre, with a different tone, indeed with
a more accordant
piety.” Clement of Alexandria is also quoted. This man was
an early Greek Christian, born less than 100
years after the
death of the apostle John. Clement certainly understood psallo in
“common” Greek. He
wrote, “Only one instrument do we use, viz. the word of
peace wherewith we honor God, no longer the
old psaltery, trumpet, drum,
and flute.” These quotes are a part of Dickinson’s addressing the question
of
whether instruments were used by the early Christians. He writes, “We
know that instruments performed
an important function in the Hebrew temple
service and in the ceremonies of the Greeks. At this point
(start of
church), however, a break was made with all previous practice ...”
d. Frederic L. Ritter, History of Music from the
Christian Era to the Present Time, p. 28 -- “We
have no real knowledge
of the exact character of the music...of the first Christian congregations.
It was,
however, purely vocal. Instrumental music was excluded ...”
e. From Emil Nauman, The History of Music, Vol.
1, p. 177 -- “There can be no doubt that
originally the music of the divine
service was everywhere entirely of a vocal nature.”
f. Several similar quotes are available from church
music historians. Again, all or almost all are
members of Protestant
denominations that use mechanical instruments of music. They have no
reason
to misrepresent the facts. Further, to the best of my knowledge, there is
no music historian
who disagrees with them.
5. The use of instrumental music in Christian worship
has no higher authority than the Catholic Church.
a. The Roman Catholic Church does not worry about the
meaning of the Greek words baptizo and psallo. They believe
they have the authority to overrule the NT. So they readily admit that they
made the change to add sprinkling and pouring to immersion as modes of
baptism. Likewise, they also readily admit that they added instrumental
music and singing with instrumental accompaniment to acapella singing for
worship to God. The following quote is interesting –
·
“Although Josephus tells of the
wonderful effects produced in the temple by the use of instruments of
music, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute
lifeless instruments or to use them to accompany the human voice.” (The
Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 651).
c. While
the split in the Catholic Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the
Greek Orthodox Church had political overtones, language also came into
play. Greek speaking people rejected the use of sprinkling and pouring
because they knew what baptizo meant in their everyday language.
Likewise, the Greek Orthodox Church rejected the use of instrumental music
because they knew what psallo meant in their everyday language.
d. At the close of the 20th Century the
Greek Orthodox Church in Europe still rejected instrumental music. In America, some
of their congregations introduced mechanical instruments of music in the
mid 20th Century. About eight years ago, a friend of mine, Glenn McCoy, had
a conversation about this change with an official of the Greek Orthodox
Church, San Francisco Diocese. This official indicated that the
introduction of the instrument into some of their congregations had not
occurred because of a change in their understanding of psallo in the
NT, but rather it was due to the influence of “the Western Church” -- his
term for the Catholic Church.
(B) Regarding use of the OT to justify instrumental
music in worship --
1. One argument that is used is that since David added
the use of instrumental music, and it was not a part of the Law of Moses,
its use was not a part of what was nailed to the cross.
a. In the NT when “the law” is used without
qualification, it usually does refer to the law of Moses. But it sometimes
is used to refer to all of the first 5 books of the Bible (example Acts
24:14). It is also used to refer to the Psalms (John 10:34, quoting from
Psa. 82:6) and to the prophets (I Cor. 14:21, quoting from Isaiah
28:11-12).
b. Jesus said, “Think not that I come to destroy the
law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill.” Moreover, Jesus then moves into contrasting what had been in
effect with what He was commanding, This contrast included the hatred of
enemies expressed in a number of Psalms with His requirement that we
love even our enemies (Matt. 5:43-44). In this context Jesus actually made
God’s requirements tougher (Matt. 5:21-44) which should make the need for
God’s grace even more apparent.
c.Heb. 1:1 isn’t limited to the law
of Moses, in contrasting prior times to the Christian age.
d. The
OT, of course, also gives a number of general principles that were/are true
in every dispensation. This includes, “the just shall live by faith”
(Habak. 2:4), which has been a requirement of God since the first family of
mankind (Hebrews 10:38; 11:4). General truths are found throughout
the OT, and comprise almost the entire book of Proverbs. Most of the Psalms
are enhanced by the NT (Psa. 23 for example is enhanced by NT revelation
that Jesus is the good shepherd).
e.
The OT
clearly has crucial information for those of us living in the Christian age
on the nature of God and the history of His dealings with mankind. But it’s
in the NT where I find the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), a law of faith (Rom.
3:27), “the truth” which we are to obey (Rom. 2:8) and which is the
standard against which we’ll be judged (Rom. 2:2).
f.
However,
we don’t pick and choose elements of the old system that were done away
with and those which were not. Pure and simple, the new has replaced the
old. The two greatest commandments of the law of Moses, love God, and love
neighbor as self, are the two greatest commandments under the law of
Christ. Nine of the “10 Commandments” in the law of Moses are also a
requirement for us. However, I know that it’s wrong to covet not because
Moses said so, but because Christ and the inspired NT writers say so.
g. It’s curious that some would contend that which was
there by the authority of God was done away with but not that which was
there by David’s authority. I think that they are failing to recognize that
there were some things which God permitted in the OT which were not a part
of His will.
For example --
(1) He permitted the Israelites
to have a king contrary to His will (I Sam. 8:7-9).
(2) He permitted divorce with
less limitations than the NT (Matt. 19:4-9).
(3) He permitted polygamy,
although contrary to the creation model which Jesus cited (Matt. 19:4-5).
David had many wives. The law of Moses does not mention polygamy. Let’s
compare statements made about David and music to comparable statements
about David and polygamy (with no sarcasm intended).
David & Music
|
David & Polygamy
|
David played the harp.
|
David had many wives.
|
but that was not part of the Law
|
but that was not part of the Law
|
instruments couldn’t have died with the Law
|
polygamy couldn’t have died with the Law
|
I’m opposed to polygamy not because of its OT coverage,
but because I can find nothing in the NT that allows it. The same is true
of instrumental music in worship.
2. Some contend, “instrumental music is okay because God
commanded it per 2 Chronicles 29:25.” Of course, they fail to note
that the preceding four verses deal with animal sacrifices also commanded
by God. How those, the animal sacrifices, was a part of what Jesus nailed
to the cross but instrumental music was not is not explained. Why not be
honest? If animal sacrifices appealed to us as much as instrumental music,
there would be many contending for that also on the basis that God
commanded it. (Further, as Adam Clarke points out, various ancient texts
cast doubt on the accuracy of the last part of verse 25 -- but it doesn’t
really matter whether the instruments were a part of a now obsolete
covenant -- it’s obsolete - Heb. 8:13.)
3. Others say, “1 Chron. 16:42 says “instruments of
God.” While the KJV (and NKJV) do render the Hebrew phrase this way the
other major translations do not. Note --
·
American Standard Version --
“instruments for the songs of God”
·
New American Standard Bible --
“instruments for the songs of God”
·
Revised Standard Version --
“instruments for sacred song”
·
New International Version --
“instruments for sacred song”
The idea behind using the KJV rendering may be to say
that God devised the instruments. But multiple scriptures point out that
David was the source (I Chron. 23:5; 2 Chron. 29:26; Amos
6:5). It’s really not possible to get the ordaining of instrumental music
in worship out of David’s hands and into God’s.
4. Some argue that “singing was ordained by
David.” It’s worth rereading the passage they cite (2 Chron 23:18). It
seems to be saying that (even though the temple was built after David’s
death) David had left orders regarding the singing that was to be done in
it. It can hardly be true that David initiated singing (as he did the
instruments) given the various OT references to song and singing by the
Israelites prior to the time of David -- examples: Ex. 15;1-, Num.
21:17, Deut. 31:19-22, Judg. 5:3. This argument is really a smokescreen,
however, as the question is what is authorized in the NT.
(C) Other Notes --
1. Some argue that NT authority is not needed for
instrumental music since the NT doesn’t specifically authorize
congregational singing in worship. One person wrote, “Where does the Bible
directly say to use instruments of music in worship? I’m not exactly sure
of the spot, but I do know it’s right beneath the verse that says to
worship and sing as a congregation. (((sarcasm)))”
a. Two of the five times psallo is found in the NT are
in I Cor 14:15. Note the context:
Þ
The context of an assembly for
worship actually begins in I Cor. 11:22 addressing their abuse of the
Lord’s Supper (“When you come together in one place ...”).
Þ
Verse 33 is still in an assembly
setting (“... when you come together to eat [the Lord’s Supper] ...”).
Þ
Paul then takes up their abuse
of miraculous gifts in the assembly, first discussing the role of those
gifts (chap. 12), then stressing the importance of love and the abiding
nature of faith, hope and love in contrast with the temporary miraculous
gifts. Chap. 14 then addresses their abuses in the assembly, mostly
involving their abuse of tongue speaking, and competing for attention.
Þ
Note 14:12 -- “... edification
of the church (or assembly) ...”
Þ
Note 14:16 -- the basis for our
making a prayer worded by someone else our own by saying (aloud or
silently) “Amen.”
Þ
Note 14:19 -- “yet in the church
(or assembly) ... that I might teach others also...”
Þ
Note 14:23 -- “... the whole
church ... together in one place ...”
Þ
Note 14:26 -- “... Whenever you
come together ...”
Þ
Note 14:27 -- number of tongue
speakers used in an assembly is limited and they can’t speak at the same
time.
Þ
And 14:29 -- the assembly
specifically contrasted with a private situation.
Þ
And 14:34 -- “Let your women
keep silent in the churches (or assemblies) ...” The leading roles set
forth in verse 26 for worship assemblies is restricted to men.
Þ
And 14:40 -- the assembly is to
be orderly.
Quite frankly, and no sarcasm is intended, I don’t see
how congregational worship and singing can be removed from I Cor. 14.
>>> In passing I wonder why those contending for instrumental
music in worship don’t point to I Cor. 14:7-8. Maybe it’s because the
instruments are called lifeless.
b. The “one another” in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 requires
multiple persons to be together. While not limited to congregational
singing, it certainly includes it. While on these verses, the instrument to
be plucked is identified in Eph. 5:19 as the heart. And Col. 3: 16 says
we’re to “teach and admonish” in song. Not even an electric guitar can do
that.
c. Lastly, on this point, Heb. 2:12 includes this
statement, “In the midst of the congregation I will sing praises to You.”
We all do that when we participate in congregational singing.
6. Some have even used the parable of the “prodigal son”
in an attempt to justify instrumental
music in worship.
a. Parables were told to teach a particular lesson --
look at the context. In Lk. 15, the Pharisees were condemning Jesus for
eating with sinners. Jesus responded with three parables -- lost sheep,
lost coin, and lost son, and the rejoicing that accompanies the finding of
each. In the case of each parable, a party follows -- not a worship
service.
b. Moreover it refers to instrumental music for dancing,
not accompanied singing. Strangely, most who use this parable to argue for
instruments in worship don’t also contend for or defend dancing in worship.
But, the point is valid, IF this parable approved instrumental music
it would also approve dancing in worship, and somehow or other we’ve got to
fit the robe, the ring, and the fatted calf into worship (please pardon the
sarcasm).
7. Rev. is commonly used to try and justify instrumental
music in worship.
a. This
reminds me some of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (JW’s) attempt to use Rev. to
prove that only 144,000 persons will go to heaven. Of course, Rev. has this
number made up of 12,000 each from 12 tribes of Israel. The JW’s say that
part is figurative, but somehow 12 figurative numbers add up to one literal
number.
b. Likewise,
to pick one element (harps) from the scene in Rev. 5:8, and say that’s
literal, but others (beasts and golden bowls of incense) are symbolic,
makes as much sense as the JW’s treatment of the 144,000. It’s hard for me
to understand how anyone can say that Rev. 5:8 has a physical harp in a
purely spiritual realm played by spirit beings, unless desperation has
overtaken their attempts to justify instrumental music in the NT.
c. Rev.
14:2-3 is also quoted. This passage no more says there will be harpists in
heaven than that there will be rushing waters and thunder there. John says
he heard a sound like that. You might also note that nothing is said about
the 144,000 redeemed from the earth playing harps.
8. Some argue that the instrument is just an aid like a
pitch pipe. That, however, is like saying because Noah may have used some
primitive saw and hammer (aids) in building the ark, he was free to use
cedar and oak in addition to gopher wood in its construction. -OR- Since a
cup is used for the fruit of the vine and a plate for the bread (obvious
aids in the Lord’s Supper), it would be OK to add Pepsi and pizza. It’s
clear that David intended for the sound of the instruments to be a part of
the worship. Those who try to justify instrumental music by the OT and then
claim it is only an aid, can’t have it both ways. It either is or it isn’t.
9. I’ve referred to instrumental music, because that is
the common term for music from playing mechanical instruments. However,
vocal music is also instrumental music -- it’s just using the instrument
created by God rather than one invented by man. There’s an amazing
difference. God’s instrument can simultaneously make music while speaking
in song (Eph. 5:19), teaching and admonishing (Col. 3:16), singing with
Spirit and understanding (1 Cor. 14:15), and making melody in heart (Eph.
5:19). Man’s inventions cannot do any of that. If God intended for us to
add instruments created by man to that which He created, why didn’t the
first Christians, who were devout Jews instructed by the apostles, do so???
|
