Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments « Backwoods Presbyterian

 

[panta dokimazete]

Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments « Backwoods Presbyterian

Not to be argumentative, but if worship and praise that included instruments was exclusive to the foundation of the Temple or specifically abrogated in the NT, then the rationale might hold water.

In my opinion, working to rationalize away instruments in worship is an attempt to "reign in" the excesses of Man in the expression of worship. It is actually "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", since our prime authority on worship praxis, particularly musical worship, is the Psalms... and they certainly do not ban instruments.

We'd do better understanding how we should follow the Lord's commands then regulate as opposed to ban. Otherwise, we run the risk of condemning what the Lord commands.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well certainly if you do not buy the premise that all elements of the Temple Worship ceased with Christ's atoning Death and Resurrection and Ascension (and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 do not forget) and instruments were an "element" then the discussion is moot.

Here is a quote from John Calvin to think about:

"Musical Instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law...Music was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in ancient times...Now that Christ has appeared and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation." (from pg. 9 of the John Price book that I highlight on my blog post)

Of course as Calvin says if you use instruments why do you not also use incense and the other things "commanded" by the Psalms?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Price's book is good - isn't it!

What I particularly liked about it was how the Early Church Fathers answered panta dokimazete's point above:

That the musical instruments of David represented the joy that is now experienced in the heart of the Christian man celebrating Christ. Worship is not mechanical in nature, but is now done "in Spirit and in Truth."

What does it say about us when we allow musical instruments to sound off the Praise that should be coming from our own hearts and mouths.

In Jesus,

-Rob

 

[panta dokimazete]

As you know - I greatly appreciate the exegetical genius of John Calvin, however, he is mistaken - in this particular instance.

In commenting on Psalm 81:3, John Calvin observed:

The Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves.

In a similar vein, Calvin remarks upon Psalm 33:2.

I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.

from here

Couple of items:

It doesn't seem as if he can decide whether it was strictly a ceremonial institute or an aid for singing (keeping the worshipers in tune or training them to sing in tune, as it were).

As far as the correlation to the other elements - the apostle enjoined us to use the Psalms as our guide and the Psalms don't refer to incense or lamps for use in worship. It seems to me the Lord preserved the worship He expects. John was just caught up in his disgust with all things that could be perceived as Romish.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As you know - I greatly appreciate the exegetical genius of John Calvin, however, he is mistaken - in this particular instance.

In commenting on Psalm 81:3, John Calvin observed:

The Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves.

In a similar vein, Calvin remarks upon Psalm 33:2.

I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.

from here

Couple of items:

It doesn't seem as if he can decide whether it was strictly a ceremonial institute or an aid for singing (keeping the worshipers in tune or training them to sing in tune, as it were).

As far as the correlation to the other elements - the apostle enjoined us to use the Psalms as our guide and the Psalms don't refer to incense or lamps for use in worship. It seems to me the Lord preserved the worship He expects. John was just caught up in his disgust with all things that could be perceived as Romish.

Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship.

Why would the Psalms need to reiterate what was already in progress at the Temple? Take a look at these verses.

As far as incense take a look at Psalm 66:15.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

By the way Thomas Aquinas gives a great definition for the RPW

Now we should employ nothing in the divine worship, save what is delivered to us on the authority of Scripture.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship.

Further, in the Old Law God was praised with musical instruments and human song, according to Psalm 32:2-3: "Give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to Him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings. Sing to Him a new canticle." But the Church does not make use of musical instruments such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises, for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews. Therefore in like manner neither should song be used in the divine praises.

The premise seems very weak.

Why would the Psalms need to reiterate what was already in progress at the Temple? Take a look at these verses.

Not sure what your point is?

As far as incense take a look at Psalm 66:15.

15 I shall offer to You burnt offerings of fat beasts,
With the smoke of rams;
I shall make an offering of bulls with male goats. Selah.

?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship.

Further, in the Old Law God was praised with musical instruments and human song, according to Psalm 32:2-3: "Give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to Him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings. Sing to Him a new canticle." But the Church does not make use of musical instruments such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises, for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews. Therefore in like manner neither should song be used in the divine praises.

The premise seems very weak.


Not sure what your point is?

As far as incense take a look at Psalm 66:15.

15 I shall offer to You burnt offerings of fat beasts,
With the smoke of rams;
I shall make an offering of bulls with male goats. Selah.

?

1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.

2) If the Psalms are proscriptive for NT worship (as you claim) why do you not follow what they teach completely?

 

[panta dokimazete]

2) If the Psalms are proscriptive for NT worship (as you claim) why do you not follow what they teach completely?

I would follow everything they teach that is not abrogated by the NT. What are you intimating?

BTW: I think the term is prescriptive (I know because I used the wrong spelling once and got called on it )

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Do you dance in worship? How about play trumpets and lyre's?

I do not see any explicit commands for piano's or organs in the Psalms.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Me, particularly? I move rhythmically when I praise, pat my feet, sway, clap, so, yes, in the strictest terms, I do dance. Very decently and in order. And when I was worshipping in Uganda, where the brethren are a bit more expressive, I was, too.

Where do the Psalms command to use those instrument types exclusively? There are generic terms that make the specific instrument used circumstantial.

Also, since you used the KJV, earlier:

Psalm 150:4
Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

 

[panta dokimazete]

1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.

He didn't say "of the Jews" - he said in fear of imitating the Jews. That is, to draw a distinction between Christian and Jewish practice, just as the early church fathers banned instruments in worship in fear of imitating the Greeks. As far as I could see, he didn't give any scriptural support for his fear.

 

[mybigGod]

Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship.





The premise seems very weak.


Not sure what your point is?



15 I shall offer to You burnt offerings of fat beasts,
With the smoke of rams;
I shall make an offering of bulls with male goats. Selah.

?

1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.

2) If the Psalms are proscriptive for NT worship (as you claim) why do you not follow what they teach completely?

Yes but dont we offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God? Which is a matter of conviction to conversion to deliverance. Since we are to go to God and tell Him what we want to do, since that is our response to His demands in the covenant, but since they did not remind themselves daily as we preach to ourselves so that we are being obedient in this form of delivering us from ever thinking that this is all He wants. Because even in the old testament they did not depend upon the means as being able to make them acceptable to God. Since in other Psalms it was more than just the sacrifice that David understood. They had a gospel understanding by the Holy Spirit in some ways that was more real by their longing than we take for granted today looking back. This was a conviction that David was going to be single hearted by His longing to understanding of the future Redeemer. So that in this way he saw the means as just the means.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.

He didn't say "of the Jews" - he said in fear of imitating the Jews. That is, to draw a distinction between Christian and Jewish practice, just as the early church fathers banned instruments in worship in fear of imitating the Greeks. As far as I could see, he didn't give any scriptural support for his fear.

The early fathers did not ban instruments in fear of "imitating the Greeks".

Justin Martyr says:

"The use of singing with instruments was not received in the Christian churches as it was among the Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song."

Also:

"Musical organs pertain to the Jewish ceremonies and agree no more to us than circumcision."

 

[panta dokimazete]

The early fathers did not ban instruments in fear of "imitating the Greeks".

Are you sure?

..."musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)

"The Biblical precept to "sing" the psalms, not merely recite, them, was obeyed literally, as is testified by many statements in the writings of the saints. Pope Leo I, who lived about 450, expressly related that "the Psalms of David arc piously sung everywhere in the Church." Only singing however, and no playing of instruments, was permitted in the early Christian Church. In this respect the Jewish tradition was not continued. In the earlier Jewish temple service many instruments mentioned in-the Bible had been used. But instrumental music had been thoroughly discredited in the meantime by the lascivious Greek and Roman virtuoso music of the later ages, and it appeared unfit for the divine service. The aulos was held in especial abhorrence, whereas some indulgence was granted to the lyre and cithara, permitted by some saints at least for private worship, though not in church services. It is interesting to note that the later Jewish temple service has conformed to the early Christian practice and, contrary to Biblical tradition, has banned all instruments. Orthodox Jewish synagogues now object even to the use of the organ. (Hugo Leichtentritt, Music, History and Ideas, Howard University Press: Cambridge, 1958, p 34)

PRATT "The, First Christian Songs. - Singing in public and private worship was a matter of course for the early Christians. For Jewish converts this was a continuance of synagogue customs, but since the Church grew mostly among non-Jews, the technical forms employed were more Greek than Hebrew. The use of instruments was long resisted, because of their association with pagan sensuality." (Waldo Selden Pratt, The History of Music, 1935, p. 64)

"Neither he [Paul] nor any other apostle, nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred years, used instruments. This too, in the face of the fact that the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity and that the Greeks and heathen nations all used them in their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems there cannot be doubt but that the use of instrumental music in connection with the worship of God, whether used as a part of the worship or as an attraction accompaniment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated prohibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the commandments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and unholy, counts the blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son." (David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers by David Lipscomb p. 226-227, and Gospel Advocate, 1899, p. 376-377)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I do not see how the first or second quotes fits into an exegetical argument? You are trying to make instruments into an idol meat issue, a "weak brother" issue with these quotes. The first is Augustine making a statement concerning the active practice in 4th century Alexandria. No one is making the primary argument that we should not use instruments "just because they did back then". As the quotes from Justin Martyr show there was an exegetical framework buttressing the practice. The mere fact that it separated the Christians from the pagans is just icing on the proverbial cake. The second is the statement of a musicologist, not a theologian or a Christian for that matter. No mention is made as to why they did not use instruments other than the heathens did so and the Christians did not. We can tell from the third and fourth quotes why this was, especially as the third and fourth quotes work in the favor of those of us that see the RPW as denying the use of musical instruments in worship.

It worked quite nicely that, as your last quote says quite correctly:

"Neither he [Paul] nor any other apostle, nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred years, used instruments. This too, in the face of the fact that the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity and that the Greeks and heathen nations all used them in their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems there cannot be doubt but that the use of instrumental music in connection with the worship of God, whether used as a part of the worship or as an attraction accompaniment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated prohibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the commandments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and unholy, counts the blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son." (David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers by David Lipscomb p. 226-227, and Gospel Advocate, 1899, p. 376-377)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Also look at Lev. 18:3 and Deut 12:30.

 

[panta dokimazete]

So...it is plain to see that I rebutted your error with sources from "your side" of the argument - that does not mean I accept the rationale, simply that the facts disagree with your assertion.

 

[bookslover]

Well certainly if you do not buy the premise that all elements of the Temple Worship ceased with Christ's atoning Death and Resurrection and Ascension (and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 do not forget) and instruments were an "element" then the discussion is moot.

Here is a quote from John Calvin to think about:

"Musical Instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law...Music was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in ancient times...Now that Christ has appeared and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation." (from pg. 9 of the John Price book that I highlight on my blog post)

Of course as Calvin says if you use instruments why do you not also use incense and the other things "commanded" by the Psalms?

I notice that, in the quote itself, as presented, Calvin offers no scriptural support for his position. He just asserts that, since the church has reached "full age" (whatever that may mean; I would say that the church won't reach "full age" until the eschaton), musical instruments in worship are not necessary.

He offers no biblical proof for this assertion because he can't. Nowhere in the New Testament is the use of musical instruments in worship forbidden. I believe Calvin's opinion is an overreaction to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The facts remain:

1. We are commanded to use the Psalms as a guide to proper worship.
2. The Psalms command the use of instruments.
3. Instruments were a circumstantial part of worship pre-Temple.
4. Instruments are nowhere abrogated by the NT.

 

[bookslover]

By the way Thomas Aquinas gives a great definition for the RPW

Now we should employ nothing in the divine worship, save what is delivered to us on the authority of Scripture.

Good. Since musical instruments were used in the Old Testament, and since they are not banned in the New Testament, then musical instruments are allowed in worship.

 

[bookslover]

As part of this topic, why do Calvin and some of the early church fathers posit this gulf between Old and New Testament worship praxis? Yes, on this side of the cross, we have a fuller revelation, and the prophecies concerning Christ's first advent have been fulfilled, but what does that difference have to do with the use of musical instruments in worship? There's no logical or theological connection between the two. Instruments, in and of themselves, have no redemptive-historical significance vis-a-vis worship praxis. Again, the New Testament does not prohibit their use in public worship.

I'm sure many of us have read Michael Bushell's fine book on this subject. It is well-written and interesting to read. But, read carefully, you'll notice that most of his argument is taken from church history, not Scripture. Fortunately, as Reformed Protestants, we take our cues from Scripture alone, not church history. It's a good book, but he fails to make his case - because he does not have the Scriptures on his side.

 

[MW]

Psalm 43:4, "Then will I go unto the altar of God, unto God my exceeding joy: yea, upon the harp will I praise thee, O God my God."

Hebrews 13:10, 15, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle... By him [Jesus] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

Under the Gospel the believer is to sing praise to God in the full revelation of the mediatorial character and work of Jesus Christ, not by mechanical instruments.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Psalm 43:4, "Then will I go unto the altar of God, unto God my exceeding joy: yea, upon the harp will I praise thee, O God my God."

Hebrews 13:10, 15, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle... By him [Jesus] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

Under the Gospel the believer is to sing praise to God in the full revelation of the mediatorial character and work of Jesus Christ, not by mechanical instruments.

You are concatenating the discontinuation of animal sacrifices and associated ritual with the sacrifice of praise that we do continue in prayer, song, practice and proclamation. I'd say v15 tied to the Psalm quoted would actually guide one toward the allowable use of instruments as a supporting circumstance of praise, not the contrary, since praise must be vocalized.

Psalm 51:15
O Lord, open my lips,That my mouth may declare Your praise.

Psalm 71:22
I will also praise You with a harp,Even Your truth, O my God;To You I will sing praises with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.

Psalm 149:3
Let them praise His name with dancing;Let them sing praises to Him with timbrel and lyre.

 

[MW]

JD, Your thesis is based upon a misunderstanding as to what part the musical instruments played in OT worship. You are arguing for instrumental accompaniment, but the Psalms mandate instrumental worship, i.e., that the instruments be played in worship to God as an orchestration of the sacrifical service. These musical instruments typically illustrate "the joy" set before the Lord Jesus Christ as He endured the cross and despised the shame. Rather than stir up our affections by means of such mechanical instruments, the apostle teaches that we are to make melody in our hearts, which is exegeted by himself to mean that we should sing with grace in our hearts to the Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ has fulfilled all types and ceremonies associated with the sacrifical worship as prescribed by the Psalms. The book of Hebrews should easily convince you of this.

 

[panta dokimazete]

With all due respect, where does Scripture mandate the use of instruments unaccompanied by praise? In every instance of OT worship I know of, instruments are used as accompaniment to praise\worship, not as sufficient in and of itself.

Also - the apostle says "singing and making melody with your heart" (NASB) and "singing and making melody in your heart" (KJV) - so unless you propose that this commands both singing and making melody as internalized actions, then I believe it is more accurate to exegete "making melody" as an externalized and distinct reference to instrumental accompaniment.

Psalm 98
4Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth;
Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises.
5Sing praises to the LORD with the lyre,
With the lyre and the sound of melody.
6With trumpets and the sound of the horn
Shout joyfully before the King, the LORD.

 

[MW]

With all due respect, where does Scripture mandate the use of instruments unaccompanied by praise? In every instance of OT worship I know of, instruments are used as accompaniment to praiseworship, not as sufficient in and of itself.

No doubt the singing was also an essential element of the sacrificial service, but this does not detract from the point that musical instrumentation was not implemented to accompany praise but to orchestrate the sacrifice.

2 Chron. 29:25-29, "And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped."

There is no possibility of separating the musical instrumentation as if it were merely appointed to accompany the singing of praise. The orchestration was a Levitical rite which was commanded as a specific part of the sacrifice.

Also - the apostle says "singing and making melody with your heart" (NASB) and "singing and making melody in your heart" (KJV) - so unless you propose that this commands both singing and making melody as internalized actions, then I believe it is more accurate to exegete "making melody" as an externalized and distinct reference to instrumental accompaniment.

The words should be understood in connection with Col. 3:16, where the apostle serves as the best commentator on his own words by changing the clause to "singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The "making melody" of Eph. 5:19 clearly equates to "with grace in your hearts."

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

So...it is plain to see that I rebutted your error with sources from "your side" of the argument - that does not mean I accept the rationale, simply that the facts disagree with your assertion.

What? The "facts" you presented support the NT Church's disuse of Jewish Temple worship and all things associated with worship.

I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well certainly if you do not buy the premise that all elements of the Temple
Worship ceased with Christ's atoning Death and Resurrection and Ascension (and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 do not forget) and instruments were an "element" then the discussion is moot.

Here is a quote from John Calvin to think about:

"Musical Instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law...Music was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in ancient times...Now that Christ has appeared and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation." (from pg. 9 of the John Price book that I highlight on my blog post)

Of course as Calvin says if you use instruments why do you not also use incense and the other things "commanded" by the Psalms?

I notice that, in the quote itself, as presented, Calvin offers no scriptural support for his position. He just asserts that, since the church has reached "full age" (whatever that may mean; I would say that the church won't reach "full age" until the eschaton), musical instruments in worship are not necessary.

He offers no biblical proof for this assertion because he can't. Nowhere in the New Testament is the use of musical instruments in worship forbidden. I believe Calvin's opinion is an overreaction to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church.

Well that is just because I did not include the proofs, it does not mean automatically that Calvin pulled this argument out of thin air. It cannot be dismissed that even the Lutherans (who do not hold to the RPW) did not use instruments in worship until the 17th century. As well as the fact that the Eastern Orthodox (who do not hold to the RPW) to this day do not use instruments for precisely the same reasons. In fact they use(d) the NPW to deny the use of instruments in worship.

Here is Calvin (with proofs):

From his Commentary on Psalm 33:2

2. Praise Jehovah upon the harp. It is evident that the Psalmist here expresses the vehement and ardent affection which the faithful ought to have in praising God, when he enjoins musical instruments to be employed for this purpose. He would have nothing omitted by believers which tends to animate the minds and feelings of men in singing God’s praises. The name of God, no doubt, can, properly speaking, be celebrated only by the articulate voice; but it is not without reason that David adds to this those aids by which believers were wont to stimulate themselves the more to this exercise; especially considering that he was speaking to God’s ancient people. There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints only in a known tongue, (1 Corinthians 14:16.) The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what St Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound? Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.

John Calvin commentary on Psalm 71:22,

22. I will also, O my God! praise thee. He again breaks forth into thanksgiving; for he was aware that the design of God, in so liberally succoring his servants, is, that his goodness may be celebrated. In speaking of employing the psaltery and the harp in this exercise, he alludes to the generally prevailing custom of that time. To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law, and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving. We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spirit, when Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we must praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue. By the word truth, the Psalmist means that the hope which he reposed in God was rewarded, when God preserved him in the midst of dangers. The promises of God, and his truth in performing them, are inseparably joined together. Unless we depend upon the word of God, all the benefits which he confers upon us will be unsavory or tasteless to us; nor will we ever be stirred up either to prayer or thanksgiving, if we are not previously illuminated by the Divine word. So much the more revolting, then, is the folly of that diabolical man, Servetus, who teaches that the rule of praying is perverted, if faith is fixed upon the promises; as if we could have any access into the presence of God, until he first invited us by his own voice to come to him.

John Calvin on Psalm 81:1-3,

1 Sing joyfully to God our strength. This psalm, it is probable, was appointed to be sung on the festival days on which the Jews kept their solemn assemblies. In the exordium, there is set forth the order of worship which God had enjoined. They were not to stand deaf and dumb at the tabernacle; for the service of God does not consist in indolence, nor in cold and empty ceremonies; but they were, by such exercises as are here prescribed, to cherish among themselves the unity of faith; to make an open profession of their piety; to stir up themselves to continual progress therein; to endeavor to join, with one accord, in praising God; and, in short, to continue steadfast in the sacred covenant by which God had adopted them to himself.

Such having been the use of festival days under the law, we may conclude, that whenever true believers assemble together at the present day, the end which they ought to have in view is to employ themselves in the exercises of religion — to call to their remembrance the benefits which they have received from God — to make progress in the knowledge of his word — and to testify the oneness of their faith. Men only mock God by presenting to him vain and unprofitable ceremonies, unless the doctrine of faith go before, stirring them up to call upon God; and unless, also, the remembrance of his benefits furnish matter of praise. Yea, rather it is a profanation of his name, when people quench the light of divine truth, and satisfy themselves with performing mere outward service. Accordingly, the faithful are here not only enjoined to come together to the tabernacle, but are also taught the end for which they are to assemble there, which is, that the free and gracious covenant which God has made with them may be brought anew to their remembrance, for increasing their faith and piety, that thus the benefits which they have received from him may be celebrated, and their hearts thereby moved to thanksgiving. With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were as yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves. [/B]Under the new moon, by the figure synecdoche, is comprehended all the other high feasts. Sacrifices were daily offered; but the days on which the faithful met together at the tabernacle, according to the express appointment of the law, are called, by way of eminence, the days of sacrifice.