# 1599 Geneva on Instruments in Worship



## D. Paul (May 27, 2009)

Briefly, in regards to Instruments in Public Worship, the 1599 Geneva Bible states this:

*Psa 92:3* Upon an *1*instrument of ten strings, and upon the viol, with the song upon the harp. 

(*1*) These instruments were then permitted, but at Christ's coming abolished.

Personally, I am not yet clear on the issue of instruments in Worship, but as I am reading through the Geneva and encounter these type statements, they are persuasive. I simply observe that this notation is made _upon this particular passage_ w/o any other reference as support. *HOWEVER...*


The electronic version (e-Sword) has an editors note (which I just found as I cut/pasted the verse. My original intent was only as above):

(_*c*_) These instruments were then permitted in the Church as also they are now. (Ed.) 

 to say the least


----------



## he beholds (May 27, 2009)

ContrMundum said that the e-sword Geneva Bible has been re-edited by a Baptist.
Maybe that's the discrepancy. 
Here's the link where he said that. (see post #36)


----------



## jfschultz (May 27, 2009)

D. Paul said:


> Briefly, in regards to Instruments in Public Worship, the 1599 Geneva Bible states this:
> 
> *Psa 92:3* Upon an *1*instrument of ten strings, and upon the viol, with the song upon the harp.
> 
> ...



The key here is the "(Ed.)" at the end of the note in the electronic version. There are a number of such instances of this in the "electronic" version. This indicates that those who transcribed the original into the electronic version altered the text to match their theology. The instances I have noticed are where paedo-baptistic notes are changed to reflect a credo-pabtistic theology.

Whatever was the original source of this transcribed version, it has appeared in a number of places on the internet and in Bible programs. (For example this is used in both Olive Tree's Bible Reader on various platforms and Mantis Bible on the iPhone.)


----------



## ADKing (May 27, 2009)

I have the 1599 facsimile edition (published by LL Brown). It has the first reading stating the abolition of instruments after Christ's coming.


----------



## D. Paul (May 27, 2009)

Thanks for the clarification on the discrepancy. Now, back to the reason for my post.

No doubt this is discussed in great detail on the PB, but I'll just state my Q as it came to me when I read the passage and note:

Q: _*For what purpose*_ did the advent of Christ "abolish" instrumental worship? Point me to threads or texts if necessary. This particular passage and note just seemed...well, unexpectedly and oddly out of place.

I am currently reading J.L. Girardeau on the matter, who makes the case from both OT and NT. I recognize that I open  and *there is no need for yet another thread on the subject*. Let's just contain this to my one Q.


----------



## Prufrock (May 27, 2009)

Donald,

The reason this was/is believed in Reformed theology is that we believe the instruments were regulated by and belonged specifically to the prescribed temple worship of the Mosaic/Davidic economy; thus, when that administration of the Covenant of Grace passed with the death and resurrection of Christ, so did its unique prescriptions (e.g., sacrifices, instruments, etc.)

Others disagree with this, and claim instruments are not an _element_ in our worship today, but merely a circumstance; therefore, they are neutral and free to be used or not used insofar as they help the element of singing.


This is the end of the thread, however. The OP has been answered -- The Geneva folk believed instrumental use ceased with the abolition of the old covenant; and a brief historical explanation of the two sides has been given. This has been a heated issue in the past, and there is good reason the topic is currently moderated. For now, there are _plenty_ of threads dealing with the issue to read through -- just do an advanced search for "a capella," and brew a pot of coffee.


----------

