ERRORS RESULTING
FROM POOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
Let us deal with instrumental music today. We are commanded to sing praises
to God and encouragement and teaching to each other in our worship. There are
virtually no passages where the command to sing is questionable in this discussion.
The one most people who support instrumental music in worship turn to is Ephesians
5:19 which says, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” The word
used to support instrumental music in this text is psallo - which means to pluck,
twitch or twang. The argument offered is that this must mean play a stringed
instrument. Psallo is translated in the verse to the words making melody. Therefore
we recognize we are to pluck, twitch or twang our hearts to the Lord. The only
instrument here is that of the heart.
There are other passages where this word psallo is used. None of those passages
are translated to play a musical instrument other than the voice and heart in
worship to God. In Romans 15:9 it is rendered, "sing praise." In 1
Corinthians 14:15 it is rendered "sing" twice. In James 5:13 it is
rendered "sing."
The argument for psallo as singing is understood this way. Psallo is an action
verb. It means to pluck or twang but does not in itself tell you what is to
be plucked or twanged. Compare it to baptize which means to immerse but does
not in itself tell you what to be immersed in. We learn it is water from Scripture
- John 3:3-5; Acts 8:38. By the same token, Ephesians 5:19 tells us the item
to be plucked is the heart. "Making melody (psallo) in your heart."
In all the other passages the translators have rendered it sing. This tells
us the word can mean simply to sing.
It is said David used the instrument in worship - Psalm 150. David lived under
the Old Covenant and:
Offered animal sacrifices - Psalm 66:13-15
Purged with hyssop - Psalm 51:7
Used incense - Psalm 66:15
Danced in worship - Psalm 149:3; 150:4
It is said to be just an aid to improve singing. If quality is God's goal for
us we should study music - not add to His command. And let us be clear: adding
to His command is exactly what placing a mechanical instrument of music in the
worship is. Two passages come to mind, 2 John 9: “Anyone who goes too
far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one
who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” Revelation
22:18: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written
in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy
city, which are written in this book.”
There are two kinds of music - instrumental and vocal. Instrumental music is
to vocal as biscuits are to unleavened bread.
It is said there are instruments in heaven. First and foremost Revelation is
figurative (signified by His angel) - Revelation 1:1. Would a spiritual being
have a material harp - Revelation 5:8? There are also white, red, black and
pale horses - Revelation 6:2-8. There are 12 gates of pearl - Revelation 21:21.
The street is of pure gold - Revelation 21:21. There is a lamb - Revelation
5:6; 7:17. Are we to take all of these things literally?
Another defense for mechanical music in worship is, it is not forbidden and
it is enjoyable. Well, neither is pizza in the Lord's Supper or dancing in worship
but do we assume authority for those because some view them as not specifically
forbidden and enjoyable.
Consider Matt. 15:9, is it not a precept of men?
A final note about instrumental music in worship. There has been objection to
it at every attempt to introduce it into the worship. This was a major difference
between the Roman and Greek church. Even as late as the Council of Trent (1545-1563)
there was a motion made against it, though it did not carry the vote. The very
fact we refer to the many times in history it was either introduced or attempted
indicates it was not something that was historically a part of the church. Secular
history does not show it at the end of the first century. It began to be a problem
years after the death of the Apostles. Now if it had been part of the church
during the time of the Apostles, it would not have to be introduced every so
many years and would not see such resistance.
By Jim Stauffer
Return to the General Articles page
Home / Bible studies / Bible Survey / Special Studies / General Articles / Non-Bible Articles / Sermons / Sermon Outlines / Links / Questions and Answers / What Saith The Scriptures /Daily Devotional / Correspondence Courses / What is the Church of Christ / Book: Christian Growth / Website Policy / E-mail / About Me /