Musical Instruments: Denial of Christ's Final Sacrifice

[Romans922]

There are numerous occasions in the Old Testament where Levitical instrumentation and song did not specifically accompany sacrifice (e.g. 2 Chron 20; Neh 12).

Brother, I would venture to say that not every detail is given when sacrifices are offered every single time. Do we have a description of the priests washing themselves everytime? No.
The rest of your questions I believe I've answered with Phil. This is not a full defense for those who do not hold to a capella. It is a summary of the position for the edification of those who hold the view. I made my intention known. I'm not going to argue the finer points and details. If that is your desire, I've already suggested going to read Mr. Giradeau on the subject.

 

[iainduguid]

Brother, I would venture to say that not every detail is given when sacrifices are offered every single time. Do we have a description of the priests washing themselves everytime? No.
The rest of your questions I believe I've answered with Phil. This is not a full defense for those who do not hold to a capella. It is a summary of the position for the edification of those who hold the view. I made my intention known. I'm not going to argue the finer points and details. If that is your desire, I've already suggested going to read Mr. Giradeau on the subject.

Since sacrifices could only legitimately be offered in the temple, not elsewhere, once it was built, this argument does not work in 2 Chron 20 or Neh 12. We can confidently say sacrifices were not offered on these occasions. Moreover, it proves too much. If you can insert sacrifices where they are not mentioned (because your thesis demands it), there is no reason why others can't assume the presence of instruments elsewhere. Therefore, this is hardly a watertight exegetical argument sufficient to accuse other believers of "denying the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice".

 

[Romans922]

Since sacrifices could only legitimately be offered in the temple, not elsewhere, once it was built, this argument does not work in 2 Chron 20 or Neh 12. We can confidently say sacrifices were not offered on these occasions. Moreover, it proves too much. If you can insert sacrifices where they are not mentioned (because your thesis demands it), there is no reason why others can't assume the presence of instruments elsewhere. Therefore, this is hardly a watertight exegetical argument sufficient to accuse other believers of "denying the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice".

Brother, it was never meant to be a watertight exegetical argument for a cappella. Bringing up 2 Ch. 29 was meant as just a side comment to point out the foreshadowing of what was to come under Christ. If you don't agree it is foreshadowing, that's fine. Ignore that paragraph. It wasn't ever to be the main point or argument of my post. Like I said, the OP is not a full exegetical argument. It's just a summary of the position.

 

[Romans922]

If anyone wants more reading on this subject, feel free to head on over to this website: https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/worship/musical-instruments/

 

[Phil D.]

As numerous posts now indicate, at the very least the OP failed to effectively communicate something claimed to be of great importance, indeed going to the very heart of true Christianity, that is supposedly very obvious. So, Greenbaggins' description "tone deaf" is demonstrably apt. If it was merely intended as red meat for the "faithful", that presents its own problems in a discussion venue like the PB. Claimed responses and answers to direct and reasonable questions have primarily been in the form of obfuscation and bob-and-weave avoidance. Most regrettable.

 

[Romans922]

Going to that site, I noticed some quotes, here's one:

Robert Candlish, of the Free Church of Scotland as quoted in James Gibson’s, The Public Worship of God, 1869, p. 107

“I believe that it is a question which touches some of the highest and deepest points of Christian theology.
Is the temple destroyed? Is the temple worship wholly superseded? Have we, or have we not, priests and sacrifices among us now? Is the temple or the synagogue the model on which the Church of the New Testament is formed? Does the Old Testament itself point to anything but ‘the fruit of the lips’ [Heb. 13:15] as the peace-offering or thank-offering of gospel times? Is there a trace in the New Testament of any other mode of praise?

For my part I am persuaded that if the organ be admitted, there is no barrier, in principle, against the sacerdotal system in all its fullness — against the substitution again, in our whole religion, of the formal for the spiritual, the symbolic for the real.”

 

[JH]

Going to that site, I noticed some quotes, here's one:

Robert Candlish, of the Free Church of Scotland as quoted in James Gibson’s, The Public Worship of God, 1869, p. 107

“I believe that it is a question which touches some of the highest and deepest points of Christian theology.
Is the temple destroyed? Is the temple worship wholly superseded? Have we, or have we not, priests and sacrifices among us now? Is the temple or the synagogue the model on which the Church of the New Testament is formed? Does the Old Testament itself point to anything but ‘the fruit of the lips’ [Heb. 13:15] as the peace-offering or thank-offering of gospel times? Is there a trace in the New Testament of any other mode of praise?

For my part I am persuaded that if the organ be admitted, there is no barrier, in principle, against the sacerdotal system in all its fullness — against the substitution again, in our whole religion, of the formal for the spiritual, the symbolic for the real.”

You had that quote in your OP

 

[Romans922]

You had that quote in your OP

Oh, it must be particularly good then...

 

[iainduguid]

Going to that site, I noticed some quotes, here's one:

Robert Candlish, of the Free Church of Scotland as quoted in James Gibson’s, The Public Worship of God, 1869, p. 107

“I believe that it is a question which touches some of the highest and deepest points of Christian theology.
Is the temple destroyed? Is the temple worship wholly superseded? Have we, or have we not, priests and sacrifices among us now? Is the temple or the synagogue the model on which the Church of the New Testament is formed? Does the Old Testament itself point to anything but ‘the fruit of the lips’ [Heb. 13:15] as the peace-offering or thank-offering of gospel times? Is there a trace in the New Testament of any other mode of praise?

For my part I am persuaded that if the organ be admitted, there is no barrier, in principle, against the sacerdotal system in all its fullness — against the substitution again, in our whole religion, of the formal for the spiritual, the symbolic for the real.”

Candlish is expressing a familiar idea of his time, which makes sense in a context in which the connection between organs and the mass was very real. But notice, there is no argument here, only Candlish's personal opinion.

By all means, people should study these resources, and especially George Gillespie's mammoth book on the subject, which is a classic. But they should also be aware that others have exegetical rather than emotional arguments in favor of the continued use of instruments, and are certainly not denying the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ when they exercise that continued freedom, as we believe we shall also in heaven.

 

[Andres]

But they should also be aware that others have exegetical rather than emotional arguments in favor of the continued use of instruments

I would be curious to read exegetical arguments in favor of the continued use of instruments. Could you kindly share them or point me to a source for them? I ask because I can't recall ever actually hearing an argument for instruments, as in a capella proponents are actually wrong for not using instruments.

 

[Taylor]

I would be curious to read exegetical arguments in favor of the continued use of instruments. Could you kindly share them or point me to a source for them? I ask because I can't recall ever actually hearing an argument for instruments, as in a capella proponents are actually wrong for not using instruments.

This is an overly specific request, to the point where it actually forbids all possible answers, since the argument for instruments does not necessarily entail/include—and is in actual practice never present with—the additional argument that those who do not use instruments are wrong. As far as I know, everyone who argues for instruments in worship is arguing for the permissiveness of the use of instruments, not the exclusive use of instruments.

 

[Jake]

In 812, Charlemagne received a gift of an organ from Constantinople, which impressed the Frankish Emperor so much that he had it installed in the cathedral at Aachen. As far as I have read, this is the first known instance of an organ put to use in a church.

Organs of the period were quite unlike how we think of them today. In ancient times, primitive organs were used in stadiums (rather like a hockey organ today). After Charlemagne’s innovation, organs were used by monks to help the singers carry a tune. Over time, of course, the technology improved and tastes changed. Organs were expensive, however, and not everyone could afford to construct one, so to say they were “extremely common” would be inaccurate, I think.

Many writers say it was Pope Vitalian who introduced them sometime in the period of 660-670 (I have found the dates 660, 666, and 670). Is there reason to doubt this?

 

[Jake]

I think uninspired hymns became common around that time, but instruments remained rare. Think Gregorian chants. Even as late as Thomas Aquinas, he called them Jewish and inappropriate for Christian worship.

I borrowed John Price's book which has a good history of this from the library -- Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study

I don't have it in front of me, but what I recall is that organs were gradually introduced into the church in the 600s to the 1400s. By the time of the Reformation all of the important churches had organs. There was still some push back against instruments by those like Aquinas, as they were first introduced in prominent churches and were considered ostentatious.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

This is an overly specific request, to the point where it actually forbids all possible answers, since the argument for instruments does not necessarily entail/include—and is in actual practice never present with—the additional argument that those who do not use instruments are wrong. As far as I know, everyone who argues for instruments in worship is arguing for the permissiveness of the use of instruments, not the exclusive use of instruments.

While that's the generally given response, it assumes the Normative Principle (specifically the part I highlighted bold). It's probably fair to take for granted that Andres was looking for an argument consistent with the Regulative Principle - particularly as, that way his request is not overly specific but makes perfect sense.

Granted it is possible to hold the Regulative Principle and argue that the use of instruments is a circumstance (bit of a stretch, but I'm sure I've seen it attempted), but in any case that would also need to be proved out.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

This is an overly specific request, to the point where it actually forbids all possible answers, since the argument for instruments does not necessarily entail/include—and is in actual practice never present with—the additional argument that those who do not use instruments are wrong. As far as I know, everyone who argues for instruments in worship is arguing for the permissiveness of the use of instruments, not the exclusive use of instruments.

Quite right, Taylor. I've never encountered an argument in all my work that mandates instruments. I have read arguments setting forth not only the permissibility of instruments but also their preferability (generally along the lines of the help that they render in accompanying congregational singing). These all stop short of anything approaching a mandate and the conviction that the absence of instruments is unbiblical.

Those who believe in what we've come to call the RPW--that elements in worship need a positive scriptural warrant (directly or inferentially)--and who also believe that instruments in worship are permissible, customarily regard instruments as a circumstance of worship. Those who reject instruments, of course, reject the notion that they are a circumstance of worship.

In an arguably related matter, I suppose that the arguments about EP v. psalms and hymns might get closer in some quarters to "you should sing hymns (with the explicit name of the Savior, reflecting his accomplished work)." As editor of the TPH, I've certainly called for the recovery of psalm singing as central in worship, as well as defending the singing of the best hymns. I've never argued that one must sing hymns, however, even though I believe good ones may have a proper place in worship.

We obviously differ on this Board on these matters, including how to understand and implement the RPW.

This enterprise (talking about instruments, EP, and the like) can be done with both passion and charity, though sometimes it isn't. I think it's best when we set forth our views with healthy measures of conviction and humility. Sadly, we lack in the charity and humility departments, I know that I do, candidly, so I must always seek the Lord's aid to engage in these conversations edifyingly.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Andres]

This is an overly specific request, to the point where it actually forbids all possible answers, since the argument for instruments does not necessarily entail/include—and is in actual practice never present with—the additional argument that those who do not use instruments are wrong. As far as I know, everyone who argues for instruments in worship is arguing for the permissiveness of the use of instruments, not the exclusive use of instruments.

While that's the generally given response, it assumes the Normative Principle (specifically the part I highlighted bold). It's probably fair to take for granted that Andres was looking for an argument consistent with the Regulative Principle - particularly as, that way his request is not overly specific but makes perfect sense.

Granted it is possible to hold the Regulative Principle and argue that the use of instruments is a circumstance (bit of a stretch, but I'm sure I've seen it attempted), but in any case that would also need to be proved out.

Yes, Neil, sums up my thoughts well. Presbyterians are expected to argue from the RPW not the NPW. I would assert the majority of those who worship using instrumental accompaniment, be it a guitar and drums or a piano, be it a Pentecostal or a Presbyterian, they do so not out of any conviction, but rather out of tradition. I also don't think people care to study this topic or give it much consideration because practically speaking, we simply enjoy instruments.

 

[Taylor]

While that's the generally given response, it assumes the Normative Principle (specifically the part I highlighted bold). It's probably fair to take for granted that Andres was looking for an argument consistent with the Regulative Principle - particularly as, that way his request is not overly specific but makes perfect sense.

Yes, Neil, sums up my thoughts well.

That’s fair. Thanks for helping me understand the request better.

I would assert the majority of those who worship using instrumental accompaniment, be it a guitar and drums or a piano, be it a Pentecostal or a Presbyterian, they do so not out of any conviction, but rather out of tradition. I also don't think people care to study this topic or give it much consideration because practically speaking, we simply enjoy instruments.

I’m sure this is certainly the case in many instances throughout the world. However, in the interest of charity, we need to avoid making such assumptions about anyone here unless and until they say as much for themselves.

 

[Andres]

That’s fair. Thanks for helping me understand the request better.



I’m sure this is certainly the case in many instances throughout the world. However, in the interest of charity, we need to avoid making such assumptions about anyone here unless and until they say as much for themselves.

It has been my experience, not 90%, not 95%, but 100%. I am sure there are those who use instruments by conviction, I just have yet to encounter them. If you would kindly share your own experience, it would be quite helpful to understanding someone's position who does not fall into the tradition camp (and I could drop my percent down to 99 )

 

[Taylor]

It has been my experience, not 90%, not 95%, but 100%.

I understand that, yet you have not experienced 100% of things. It is not logical to infer from one's experience—even if uniform, as you say yours is—that said experience must be the case everywhere and always, because one's personal experience cannot possibly be universal or comprehensive.

As for my church, I can assure you we do not use a musical instrument (in our case a piano) out of mere tradition, or just because we like instruments in worship. We have reasons which I personally believe are biblically sound. If you would like an official statement, please feel free to contact my session.

 

[C4MERON]

While in danger of parading my ignorance, and yet, ‘asking for a friend’…,
what of Psalm 150 and its seeming command of instrumentation?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This enterprise (talking about instruments, EP, and the like) can be done with both passion and charity, though sometimes it isn't. I think it's best when we set forth our views with healthy measures of conviction and humility. Sadly, we lack in the charity and humility departments, I know that I do, candidly, so I must always seek the Lord's aid to engage in these conversations edifyingly.

Peace,
Alan

Thank You Dr. Strange. I am in my Forty First year of knowing Christ and I am still messed up. My convictions have grown sharper but my voice has been chipped on. The tongue is a most powerful source. I have grown to respect it honestly I have failed at using it.

 

[alexanderjames]

Not directly tied to musical instruments but an important point. Exclusive Psalmody was the normal approach to singing up until the 4th Century. The Christians between the initiation of the New Covenant up until the 4th Century sang only the Psalms and included a few extra songs found in the Gospels and in Revelation. It wasn't until the 4th Century that man-made music was introduced and it was first credited by Arius (Heretic).

May I please ask for the sources to support this?
I was under the impression from reading Eusebius that spiritual songs were sung in addition to the Psalter prior to the fourth century.

 

[Zach]

I think that because we have clear indications that instruments were used in worship and that the Psalms themselves speak of using instruments to praise the Lord the burden of proof actually rests upon those who would forbid it to prove exegetically that it is part of the ceremonial law that has been fulfilled and passed away.

Needless to say, I'm not convinced by the exegesis. Others are. But that's why we probably ought to deal more charitably with one another than, say, "The use of musical instruments in the public worship of the Church is a denial of Christ's final sacrifice."

 

[Andres]

While in danger of parading my ignorance, and yet, ‘asking for a friend’…,
what of Psalm 150 and its seeming command of instrumentation?

That was answered in the OP.

 

[Andres]

I think that because we have clear indications that instruments were used in worship and that the Psalms themselves speak of using instruments to praise the Lord the burden of proof actually rests upon those who would forbid it to prove exegetically that it is part of the ceremonial law that has been fulfilled and passed away.

 

[C4MERON]

So yeah I see, from the OP, that it is taken that use of musical instrumentation is tied to Jewish ceremonial worship and that, with Christ being the fulfilment and substance, we have no need of these..But at risk of an ignorance parade on my part again brother(s), and genuinely asking with a heart to understand, how do we sing these verses then? Do we sing them with a heart of ‘this is the way things were once done in praise to the Lord’..?

 

[Andres]

So yeah I see, from the OP, that it is taken that use of musical instrumentation is tied to Jewish ceremonial worship and that, with Christ being the fulfilment and substance, we have no need of these..But at risk of an ignorance parade on my part again brother(s), and genuinely asking with a heart to understand, how do we sing these verses then? Do we sing them with a heart of ‘this is the way things were once done in praise to the Lord’..?

Same way you'd sing Psalm 66:15 - "I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats." And you would sing passages like these and Your affections would immediately be drawn to Christ, just like WLC 34 mentions.

Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

 

[iainduguid]

That’s fair. Thanks for helping me understand the request better.



I’m sure this is certainly the case in many instances throughout the world. However, in the interest of charity, we need to avoid making such assumptions about anyone here unless and until they say as much for themselves.

Andrew,
I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns. It's likely true that many who include instruments do not have a thought through defense of their position, just as many bring their children for baptism without necessarily having a proper understanding of why they should. Good defenses of the use of musical instruments are thin on the ground, for good reason. No one on that side of the argument thinks their opponents are "denying the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice", so they do not feel the urgent burden to challenge the other side that is understandably felt by the "musical instruments are unbiblical" side. Building a proper argument, as for baptism, is not a one verse or one passage task; it involves a proper understanding of the relationship of church and temple (which is the primary OT background for the church, not the synagogue), and an ability to interpret the law properly, dividing rightly between moral, civil, and ceremonial worship. We are not anabaptists, who consider it a sufficient argument against something that "That's OT worship", although too often Reformed arguments sound very like that - mainly because most of the things wrong with Rome are rooted in OT categories (priests, sacrifices, sacred buildings, etc). The bare assertion that because something is linked with temple and sacrifice, it therefore has no more significance for us as Christians today is simply false. Otherwise, we lose singing itself, which was not part of the synagogue service and become Sydney Anglicans, gathering for edification only, not exaltation. Nor does something have to be reiterated in the NT in order to guide our behavior for us today.

I contend that musical instruments are not ceremonial law (otherwise they would have to point forward to Christ in some recognizable fashion). They are not moral law, or they would always have been part of worship - and the tabernacle has neither instruments nor singing. They are part of the civil law - which means that their general equity continues to guide our behavior today. Obviously, that argument would need to be substantially fleshed out, something I don't have the time or inclination to do here, knowing I will be immediately inundated with 15 responses for people who disagree. It's perfectly fair for people to respond, but equally, it's not my calling to spend a lot of time interacting in internet comboxes, which are not ideal for complex theological discussions. Normally, I abstain from these discussions on the basis of a sense that the returns don't justify the use of my time, which would be much better served working on my magnum opus on the Biblical Theology of Worship (seriously, I've been working on this off and on for 25 years, and hope to publish it someday, but it requires a comprehensive knowledge of everything - OT, NT, CH, ST and PT - so it is a daunting task). But I have several other volumes to complete before I can seriously develop this material further.

One further mistake that often clouds these discussions is the assumption that if the OT law on instruments is still valid today, then instruments - the same instruments that David commanded - would be mandated. This first of all misunderstands the RPW, since there are several elements of worship (lawful oaths, sacraments) that are sometimes present and not always so. In the same way, instruments could be affirmed without being required. Second, it is defused by the argument that instruments are civil law; the details expire, but the general equity continues. So the law requiring a parapet around the roof of a person's house has relevance for modern building codes but doesn't have to be literally still a requirement.

 

[83r17h]

The use of musical instruments in the public worship of the Church

Pastor Barnes (and others who agree), I have not read Girardeau's work fully (perhaps he addresses this), but he specifically notes in the beginning that he is addressing public worship, not private or family worship. From your perspective, would you consider instruments to be prohibited only for public worship, or also in private worship?

I am curious how you would see the non-temple uses of instruments. It seems like one could say "that is private worship, not public" in order to pair instruments in public worship with the ceremonial law. However, this seems to prompt the follow-up question (hopefully not too speculative) of what it would look like if instruments were to be permitted in public worship, but were not part of the ceremonial law - given that ceremonial worship was the only public worship of the Old Covenant. If instruments in public worship are paired with the ceremonial law, why not public worship itself - which only occurred within the sacrificial system in the Old Covenant? Obviously "public worship" itself is not ceremonial, but what criteria do you use to determine what parts of public worship are ceremonial, and what parts not?

I ask because the criteria that I read (please correct me if I am misreading) is something along the lines of "it only occurs as part of / in association with the sacrificial system." But that extends to far more than just "instruments in public worship." So if it is to catch instruments, but not catch other items (which we do not perceive as ceremonial), how is the criteria to be modified?

Further: would you consider temple worship in the Old Covenant, if it was done without instruments, to be faulty or incomplete? That is, are instruments necessary and essential to temple worship, such that without them temple worship is impossible?

Thank you for your consideration of my questions!

 

[Andres]

Andrew,
I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns. It's likely true that many who include instruments do not have a thought through defense of their position, just as many bring their children for baptism without necessarily having a proper understanding of why they should. Good defenses of the use of musical instruments are thin on the ground, for good reason. No one on that side of the argument thinks their opponents are "denying the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice", so they do not feel the urgent burden to challenge the other side that is understandably felt by the "musical instruments are unbiblical" side. Building a proper argument, as for baptism, is not a one verse or one passage task; it involves a proper understanding of the relationship of church and temple (which is the primary OT background for the church, not the synagogue), and an ability to interpret the law properly, dividing rightly between moral, civil, and ceremonial worship. We are not anabaptists, who consider it a sufficient argument against something that "That's OT worship", although too often Reformed arguments sound very like that - mainly because most of the things wrong with Rome are rooted in OT categories (priests, sacrifices, sacred buildings, etc). The bare assertion that because something is linked with temple and sacrifice, it therefore has no more significance for us as Christians today is simply false. Otherwise, we lose singing itself, which was not part of the synagogue service and become Sydney Anglicans, gathering for edification only, not exaltation. Nor does something have to be reiterated in the NT in order to guide our behavior for us today.

I contend that musical instruments are not ceremonial law (otherwise they would have to point forward to Christ in some recognizable fashion). They are not moral law, or they would always have been part of worship - and the tabernacle has neither instruments nor singing. They are part of the civil law - which means that their general equity continues to guide our behavior today. Obviously, that argument would need to be substantially fleshed out, something I don't have the time or inclination to do here, knowing I will be immediately inundated with 15 responses for people who disagree. It's perfectly fair for people to respond, but equally, it's not my calling to spend a lot of time interacting in internet comboxes, which are not ideal for complex theological discussions. Normally, I abstain from these discussions on the basis of a sense that the returns don't justify the use of my time, which would be much better served working on my magnum opus on the Biblical Theology of Worship (seriously, I've been working on this off and on for 25 years, and hope to publish it someday, but it requires a comprehensive knowledge of everything - OT, NT, CH, ST and PT - so it is a daunting task). But I have several other volumes to complete before I can seriously develop this material further.

One further mistake that often clouds these discussions is the assumption that if the OT law on instruments is still valid today, then instruments - the same instruments that David commanded - would be mandated. This first of all misunderstands the RPW, since there are several elements of worship (lawful oaths, sacraments) that are sometimes present and not always so. In the same way, instruments could be affirmed without being required. Second, it is defused by the argument that instruments are civil law; the details expire, but the general equity continues. So the law requiring a parapet around the roof of a person's house has relevance for modern building codes but doesn't have to be literally still a requirement.

Thank you for taking your valuable time in responding. Your magnum opus sounds interesting for sure. I pray you are able to complete it. And thank you generally speaking for your labors towards Christ's church.