timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Did Miriam violate the RPW, Ex. 15:20-21 having used instruments before they were commanded?
Using Instruments in Worship
- Thread starter Ryan&Amber2013
- Start date
- Status
Did Miriam violate the RPW, Ex. 15:20-21 having used instruments before they were commanded?
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Tim, an important thing to remember when looking at the many verses in Scripture pertaining to music (and there are many - I believe all documented by the sermon series by Todd Ruddell that I linked above), or really any other topic - preaching/prophesying/singing/praying...when we are talking about the RPW we must ask the question, "Does the example of this (e.g. Ex. 15:20-21 or whatever) come in the context of God's Public/corporate worship?"
For example, David dancing before the ark? Is that occasion of David dancing before the ark come in the context of public worship? The answer is "no". I believe if we study what Miriam was doing and the context of it, that we would conclude that she was playing these instruments with the women and dancing in the context of the private life (or outside of public worship). Remember for Israel, public worship wasn't instituted yet not until Mt. Sinai. And again, if we were to say this is an instance of public worship (which I think we would all agree it isn't) for argument sake, then we would also have to consider dancing in public worship given the context. I hope that makes sense, namely, we have to ask in particular examples "Does this come in the context of public worship?" Now if it doesn't, asking what can we learn from this text about music or dancing and what they were all doing in regular life outside of corporate worship? Hope that helps.
So in this case I would say that no Miriam didn't violate the RPW because she was not doing this in the context of corporate worship, she was doing this in celebration of life outside of holy corporate worship in which the Lord had just delivered Israel from the Egyptians. A fine thing to celebrate just as we would celebrate hopefully with a party and music, dancing perhaps if someone with cancer was healed by the Lord.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Are we permitted to act according to the NPW in worship?
Can we prove that Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16 and James 5:13 are speaking about public worship?
Can we prove that congregational singing is commanded explicitly or by necessary consequence?
Thanks for your help.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Miriam is mentioned to be a prophetess, and "the women going out after" shows them to participate in her prophetic act. That is sufficient warrant for then; the mention of her being a prophetess means that this is a prophetic action and so it is also an action authorized by the Lord. Additionally, prophecy continues to go together with musical instruments throughout the OT, including something like a taboret or timbrel. In this case, Miriam takes up the customary mode of celebration in Israel (women dancing with timbrels) into the prophetic act.
As for this providing a precedent now (or afterwards in Israel, for that matter; although we find women dancing with timbrels, it is as a customary mode of civil celebration; we do find prophets continuing to use instruments), we need someone with a prophetical gift to duplicate the warrant. (There are different views concerning the details of the passage, but I think this provides a sufficient response for the question at hand.)
As for this providing a precedent now (or afterwards in Israel, for that matter; although we find women dancing with timbrels, it is as a customary mode of civil celebration; we do find prophets continuing to use instruments), we need someone with a prophetical gift to duplicate the warrant. (There are different views concerning the details of the passage, but I think this provides a sufficient response for the question at hand.)
Last edited:
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Graduate
Ligonier says this in regards to Psalm 150. Thoughts?
Today’s passage orders us to praise God with virtually every kind of instrument available. In fact, any instrument not included in Psalm 150 is only a new form or derivation of the ones listed. This tells us there is no instrument that is inherently improper for use in our services of praise. To be sure, there may be instruments that are not wise to use in a particular context, but we cannot say that God absolutely forbids certain instruments in worship.
Today’s passage orders us to praise God with virtually every kind of instrument available. In fact, any instrument not included in Psalm 150 is only a new form or derivation of the ones listed. This tells us there is no instrument that is inherently improper for use in our services of praise. To be sure, there may be instruments that are not wise to use in a particular context, but we cannot say that God absolutely forbids certain instruments in worship.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
It begins by saying to praise God in his sanctuary, i.e., his holy place. The instruments passed away with the holy place itself.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Robert Godfrey has an interesting understanding of Psalm 150: https://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/praise-the-lord-psalm-150
Sorry for the delayed response. The Pharisees and many before them desired to know God's will and do it carefully, and destroyed worship soundly, and split Israel with it. It is the Christian's delight to please God, and the tension is not to confuse legalism with pleasing God. I can be sincere in my legalism, and it bring a stench to the nostrils of God. The opposite extreme is likewise displeasing to God.
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Sir, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it really sounds like you are maintaining that a serious study of the law of God destroys piety. Why do you think that God gave us his law, and commanded us to meditate in it day and night? Why does he require that it be in our hearts and never depart out of our mouths? Why does he command that we speak of it when we sit in our house, when we walk by the way, when we lie down, and when we rise up? Why does he require us to teach it diligently to our children? Surely he means us to increase our piety by meditating in his law, not thereby to destroy it.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Pastor,
I would like to state upfront that I am not yet convinced of Acapella EP. It is early in the investigation process. Manifestly, I understand that it is a serious offense to add to what God has commanded (legalism). Also, it should be the Christians delight to please God. As Tyler stated, the Law should be our delight (3rd use). If Christians, through careful study of God's word conclude that He has commanded something, either explicitly or through good and necessary consequence, should we not do it? How could that possibly be legalism? We also know that our hearts are a cesspool of unrighteousness. Is it not much better to follow what is more sure than the ground we walk upon than to either, 1) do what pleases us or 2) trust our corrupt hearts to worship rightly?
If we don't do what God has commanded, what is that called?
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Our Lord called the Pharisees hypocrites and whitewashed sepulcres. He accused them of elevating the traditions of men above God's law. They were adding to what God had said. Sincere? Jesus din't think so. Careful? only for outward appearances. No, if they had been circumcised of heart, they would have wanted to do exactly what God commanded, and they would have done it out of love to God, rather than love of self.
I would imagine you read my previous post where I stated I believe the Christian should be in tension. The simple truth is the Pharisees believed they were sincere in observing the law, and yet they were not. The difference then is significant - simply stating that one is sincere in their piety does not sincere piety make, as scripture attests. It is the heart of the worshipper ... the spirit, in "spirit and truth." One would be assuming very much to imagine that I am opposed to a serious study of the law, or a sincere desire to keep it. Likewise one would be assuming much to imagine that serious study of the law and a sincere desire to keep it is a sure defense against becoming a white washed tomb. That same heart that is a cesspool of unrighteousness will just as surely twist the law, as it will license and liberty - is that not the testimony of Christ in all of His dealings with the Pharisees? They have the law, but their hearts were far from Him. I will simply repeat: I believe the Christian should live in the tension, and not become complacent in imagining that their sincere devotion to the commandments of God is somehow different that that of the Pharisees. It is the heart of the one following the law that reveals the motives of their law keeping - keeping the law itself is no guarantee that the motive within is pure.
One's definition of legalism must acknowledge subjectivity due to the corruptness of the human heart. One can feel very strongly that the Lord has commanded, or due to necessary and reasonable consequence, a practice of worship. They can validate that with their confession and tradition, and even the testimony of good Godly counsel. And yet legalism is when the human heart elevates the law over worship, when the object of worship in the heart of the person is law-keeping, and not the law-Giver. A tell-tale sign of this subtle form of idolatry, is when it matters most to them when others are not law-keeping. The serpent is the most subtle of all creatures, and our hearts are prone to subtle sins, particularly when we consider ourselves most knowledgeable of righteousness. Pastorally then I implore you to examine your hearts constantly in your pursuit of "right worship" for the subtle shifts that make idols of the very laws God gave us for our good and His glory. I'd rather you always question yourself, be uncomfortable, lean on mercy and grace, than to risk feeling settled and wind up with the Pharisees. Their worship was distinctly absent of any God orientation, or need for God in worship, even though it observed all the forms commanded, and was highly regulated.
One's definition of legalism must acknowledge subjectivity due to the corruptness of the human heart. One can feel very strongly that the Lord has commanded, or due to necessary and reasonable consequence, a practice of worship. They can validate that with their confession and tradition, and even the testimony of good Godly counsel. And yet legalism is when the human heart elevates the law over worship, when the object of worship in the heart of the person is law-keeping, and not the law-Giver. A tell-tale sign of this subtle form of idolatry, is when it matters most to them when others are not law-keeping. The serpent is the most subtle of all creatures, and our hearts are prone to subtle sins, particularly when we consider ourselves most knowledgeable of righteousness. Pastorally then I implore you to examine your hearts constantly in your pursuit of "right worship" for the subtle shifts that make idols of the very laws God gave us for our good and His glory. I'd rather you always question yourself, be uncomfortable, lean on mercy and grace, than to risk feeling settled and wind up with the Pharisees. Their worship was distinctly absent of any God orientation, or need for God in worship, even though it observed all the forms commanded, and was highly regulated.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Rev. Nelson,
I think the root of the problem is a mistaken notion about law keeping and the nature of the law itself. The law is summarized and under-girded by two commandments--to love God, and to love one's neighbor. If these are not done, the law is not kept.
The Pharisees didn't love God with all of their hearts and their neighbor as themselves; ergo they weren't keeping the law, whatever their self-deluded notions might have been.
That's the law.
If one loves God and his neighbor (i.e., keeping the law), he will not become a whitewashed tomb.
If their hearts were far from him, they weren't keeping the law. What they needed to do was to repent and keep the law by loving God and their neighbors.
Again, the law cannot be "elevated over worship" because worship is law keeping--it is loving God. Further, if the law is worshiped, it is not kept.
That is an important exhortation, and I would add my amen to it. However, it should be noted that to examine one's heart is to test one's law keeping--it is to see if one is loving God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. The end goal in self-examination is faithful law keeping.
Tyler, I do not disagree with anything you've posted. And yet I have seen the law elevated over worship when one places the regulation at odds with love of God and love of Neighbor. And I have seen it so many times, in so many churches that I believe what you posted above is what is oft stated as what a church is doing, and yet is not in fact what a church is doing. I have witnessed on more than one occasion the Regulatory Principle of Worship used as a garrote to throttle one's neighbor; the exact language used in this thread and others was proliferate, and any attempt to suggest that what was being done was not, as you identify, actually keeping the law, was soundly rejected just as some of my posts have been, as a desire to abandon the law. We speak of it here in the thread as though its a simple matter, clean, precise, well understood and practiced well by all in agreement. Reality though reveals that no one keeps the law, not one, even amongst the elect, and the serpent loves to shift well intentioned law keepers just a 1/2 bubble off plumb.
I would be having this same conversation with those who observe no regulatory principle in worship, and indeed have had to do so recently in my official duties as we have some junior pastors that seem to think worship is a free for all - all that matters is sincerity. But the bent of this forum is to law keeping, so my replies have only been to that view. I've said my piece, I urge caution to myself and all those whose desire is to keep the sum of the law in worship, to ensure that the law stays in its proper place, and to recognize my heart is prone to wander.
I would be having this same conversation with those who observe no regulatory principle in worship, and indeed have had to do so recently in my official duties as we have some junior pastors that seem to think worship is a free for all - all that matters is sincerity. But the bent of this forum is to law keeping, so my replies have only been to that view. I've said my piece, I urge caution to myself and all those whose desire is to keep the sum of the law in worship, to ensure that the law stays in its proper place, and to recognize my heart is prone to wander.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Rob,
There is no tension needed. What you are espousing is some form of antinomianism. God is a holy God. His law gives us perfect righteousness. He requires of us perfect righteousness, as Christians in Christ we are to be holy as He is holy. PERIOD. Further, He requires a perfect heart. A heart that zealous, passionate, sincere, and willing to serve Him. That word 'serve' in scripture deals with really the duty of worship, and God desires our hearts. It's not a healthy tension. A healthy tension would be 50%/50%. But Yahweh requires 100% willing dedication and service to Him from our hearts and He requires 100% joyful keeping His law. There is no other option. The Scriptures are filled with examples of this. So here when we are discussing God's law, we are working as iron sharpening iron to come to a full knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (application) of the truth. And the truth we are seeking, as God is truth, we are to do so with all our heart devoted fully to the Lord. Seeking a more sincere devoted heart does not allow us to leave one millimeter from God's law. And all this we will do, if God permits.
I am sorry for what you have experienced, but legalism should not ever be applied to someone fully devoted in their heart of love and joy for the Lord wanting to follow Him perfectly in accord with His law. Otherwise, you will have to call David, the one who loves God's law a legalist, and that won't fly.
Now, if we could please get back to talking about instruments in worship, I think we would all be the better off seeking after what God's word says. Hopefully doing this with devoted hearts to the Lord.
Brother Barnes, you'd be hard pressed to find in me an anti-nomian; I am an anti-Pharisee. However I recognize this thread is not really about the broader discussion of interpreting the law as it relates to instruments in worship, but rather a discourse amongst a particular tradition of which I am not a part nor confessionally bound. As such, my comments have been filtered through the lens of a tradition and viewed as something they are not. I too would like to see God's word in this thread, and will look forward to following how the conversation moves, as y'all seek to figure out what is forbidden and what is edifying in worship under the law.
Rob, Trying to follow your arguments but with some difficulty. I am advocating that we obey God's word with our whole heart in spirit and truth, but it seems that you see that as not living in the tension (not sure what you mean by that). Based on what you have said how can a Christian know that he is worshipping God correctly, what is the tension, is it a feeling, is it knowable for all of us, where in Scripture can this idea be found?
D
Deleted member 6112
Guest
Rev. Nelson,
I'm a little bit confused about that last statement. Baptists have an identical history to Presbyterians in regard to instruments in worship, and the 1689 Baptist Confession teaches the same doctrine of worship that the Westminster Confession does.
This page has a list of interesting quotes from Spurgeon and other Baptists against the use of instruments in worship (NOTE: as far as I can tell, the website I have linked to is a Campbellite site, and I do not in any way mean to endorse the heresies of that sect).
Last edited by a moderator:
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Spurgeon says in one of the quotes in that site that he has no problem with men using instruments as an aid, but that he needs no such aid. I concur with that, and could wish that we needed no such aid in our congregation, while I'm grateful that the piano playing is used solely as an aid and not treated as element nor performance.
But I agree that this is indeed an issue with which confessional Baptists must grapple, and search the Scriptures, and seek to know God's will and do it. It has been a point of discussion in our past tradition, and continues so to this day.
Brother Ben has addressed it; Chapter 22 of the 1689 simply says "
the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures." And while the 1742 added a special section advocating the use of Psalms in worship (in addition to songs, hymns, and spiritual songs) the Sandy Creek Confession is essentially a paragraph en toto and left worship up to the local church. As Baptist life moved out of its sense of persecution and into mainstream, it also grew more comfortable in its local church autonomy so our heritage has not had the regulatory effect that other traditions have. But as one who upholds the 1689, I see no prohibition against instruments in worship, nor indication of which are and which are not acceptable. While I am like Spurgeon in that I prefer the instruments to be viewed as supplemental to worship, and not central, I have now shared a congregation with 3 Presbyterians (EPC, PCA, PCUSA) each of whom had differing views on the subject, but all were in agreement that piano & guitar were acceptable. Their difference was in how much more they would add.
the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures." And while the 1742 added a special section advocating the use of Psalms in worship (in addition to songs, hymns, and spiritual songs) the Sandy Creek Confession is essentially a paragraph en toto and left worship up to the local church. As Baptist life moved out of its sense of persecution and into mainstream, it also grew more comfortable in its local church autonomy so our heritage has not had the regulatory effect that other traditions have. But as one who upholds the 1689, I see no prohibition against instruments in worship, nor indication of which are and which are not acceptable. While I am like Spurgeon in that I prefer the instruments to be viewed as supplemental to worship, and not central, I have now shared a congregation with 3 Presbyterians (EPC, PCA, PCUSA) each of whom had differing views on the subject, but all were in agreement that piano & guitar were acceptable. Their difference was in how much more they would add.
Last edited:
Bill, I am not suggesting a feeling or special knowledge. I put two things up against each other which necessarily create tension: 1) we must obey God's word with our whole heart in spirit and truth; 2) we do not obey God's word with our whole heart in spirit and truth. Somewhere between the must and our doing it, there is tension. One way we fail consistently in obeying God's word is understanding God's word (i.e. rightly dividing). A common vector in cases where we have failed to rightly divide is when we turn descriptive language into prescriptive, and that practice has been common on the issue of worship. I use the term Pharisee on purpose - of all the people of Israel, they had the least excuse of ignorance. They sincerely "rightly divided" the word of God for years longer than its been since our Reformation, and yet wound up sincerely wrong. It was not merely a factor of addition, there was also subtraction, multiplication and division. If in the covenant we see the relationship between Israel and the Church, then we must also see the sins and temptations of Israel when we look at the Church, and guard ourself from it - intentionally guard ourself from the tensionless existence of our own self-confidence that we have rightly divided. A fallen human should always doubt his own abilities to know and do the will of God, but try anyways by faith in Christ on the basis of what he knows, constantly ready to admit when he's wrong and adjust accordingly. That is a tense existence.
Last edited:
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is precisely why I don't use instruments (or man-made hymns) to worship God. Knowing I am a sinful person, I listen carefully to what God has said about his worship in the New Covenant. I do not see him say he wants instruments to be a part of his worship, like he did in the Old Covenant (though this was done only by Levites). I look around cautiously at the apostles. Did they use instruments in worship? Did they give the slightest indication that instruments should be used in worship? No, not the faintest.
You acknowledge that we cannot trust ourselves to worship God rightly. Yet, here you are saying you think it's probably okay to use instruments in worship? No, they are not authorized. While an evil, Pharisaical heart can certainly nullify someone's authorized worship and make it very vain, no amount of sincerity and good intention can transform unauthorized worship into what is authorized.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Wouldn't it be Pharisaical to use instruments in this case? For example, the Pharisees to keep God's commandments added methods and instructions and commands to what God had said (we see many examples of this especially in the Gospels). The way brother Rob is arguing seems Pharisaical itself as you bring out.
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Interesting thought. However I would say that the Pharisees, with all their pride and all their corruption, and all their twisting of God's Word for their own ends, actually had enough "sense" not to desecrate God's worship in such a conspicuous way as introducing an unauthorized element into it.
Now I do think there are modern-day versions of Pharisees, who add elements to God's worship and try to bind men's consciences to doing what they do. This is probably more in line with what you're talking about.
I know we've had several side trails, but has it been established as far as the OP's question, that the argument must proceed from whether musical instruments can or cannot be established on a circumstantial basis? I think the argument needs to try to stay there.
And, speaking as an Admin, since no one is establishing their case on the commandment of men as the Pharisees sought to do with their traditions, let's not go further down that road.
And, speaking as an Admin, since no one is establishing their case on the commandment of men as the Pharisees sought to do with their traditions, let's not go further down that road.
Rob, it seems to me that in your system we can not know what God wants us to do in worship due to our sinful heart.
The Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests were not guilty of obeying God with a wrong heart they were guilty of creating their own standard of righteousness and then thinking that by keeping the traditions and teachings of men they were therefore righteous before God.
If we are ever to have unity in the Church on the topic of worship it will be founded on what God has commanded in his word, not on what he has not commanded or not forbidden. There can never be unity in the things not forbidden because that makes the mind of man the supreme authority and since there are millions of men that will mean millions of different opinions and thus no unity.
The Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests were not guilty of obeying God with a wrong heart they were guilty of creating their own standard of righteousness and then thinking that by keeping the traditions and teachings of men they were therefore righteous before God.
If we are ever to have unity in the Church on the topic of worship it will be founded on what God has commanded in his word, not on what he has not commanded or not forbidden. There can never be unity in the things not forbidden because that makes the mind of man the supreme authority and since there are millions of men that will mean millions of different opinions and thus no unity.
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
At the risk of simpling myself by vain repetition, the question of instrumental usage in worship is subject to other queries that precede. Were instruments commanded in the old dispensation? Were their use part of the whole typical representation under the glory that was to be done away with? Did they figure a prophesying aspect of worship for the time that then was? Were instruments used in tabernacle worship before David was "commanded" to institute them for the transitional period as an introduction to Temple worship? Were the instruments ceremonial, along with snuffers , pans, incense, vestments, candles and all the carnal appurtenances that adorned the Temple? Did not Christ abrogate all that, and fulfill all that in Himself, the Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and every typical embellishment, and ushered in the simplicity of worship in spirit and in truth?
All that lay under the dark clothing of typology has been uncovered by Christ, for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The truth under the types. What makes instruments different to the lamp stand, the pot of manna,the High Priest's mitre, the laver of water or the brazen altar? Nehushtan, said Hezekiah about the brazen serpent that he destroyed (which means, just a piece of brass).
The Jews only heard instruments in their obligatory annual attendance at the Passover in Jerusalem. They never heard a harp string plucked in their local synagogue until the modernising movement of the twenty first century adulterated synagogue worship.
Let the best instrument sound melodiously, the small member of the tongue, to sing forth the praises of the only Redeemer of God's elect.
All that lay under the dark clothing of typology has been uncovered by Christ, for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The truth under the types. What makes instruments different to the lamp stand, the pot of manna,the High Priest's mitre, the laver of water or the brazen altar? Nehushtan, said Hezekiah about the brazen serpent that he destroyed (which means, just a piece of brass).
The Jews only heard instruments in their obligatory annual attendance at the Passover in Jerusalem. They never heard a harp string plucked in their local synagogue until the modernising movement of the twenty first century adulterated synagogue worship.
Let the best instrument sound melodiously, the small member of the tongue, to sing forth the praises of the only Redeemer of God's elect.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Probably turning aside again, but this is interesting. Do you think the Jews had no harps for private use? Did they have no secular music? Where did David the shepherd get a harp to learn on if they were unknown among Jewry? What was the music he played for Saul?
What did the minstrels play to quiet the heart of the prophet before the kings of Israel and Judah? Do you think it was secular music or some sort of Psalm?
It seems safe to assume that instruments were commonly known, owned, and played in those days (do we not hear of Miriam playing timbrels, and there are instruments mentioned before Noah's flood). So I ask why you say that Jews only heard instruments at Jerusalem?
Further on, Jesus tells of children who piped. Surely pipes were known outside of Temple worship?
Thanks
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I do get those who think/accept the use of instruments as aids, not for mood, are ok.
I have been in churches where the music was really more an entertainment, like watching a band and i know they dont mean that.
But i have been in churches which dont use instruments and it was at times an overall struggle to stay in tune! Sometimes the singing stopped briefly to get back into tune. Or we restarted because the wrong tune began it.
That can feel a bit or quite disjointed when that happens.
I have been in churches where a piano was used merely as an aid to give the tune to sing by.
If i was asked to be 100% honest and bare my true thought's on which provided the best way to sing in a more consistently in tune manner it would be the latter.
Just my thoughts from my church going experience's.
I have been in churches where the music was really more an entertainment, like watching a band and i know they dont mean that.
But i have been in churches which dont use instruments and it was at times an overall struggle to stay in tune! Sometimes the singing stopped briefly to get back into tune. Or we restarted because the wrong tune began it.
That can feel a bit or quite disjointed when that happens.
I have been in churches where a piano was used merely as an aid to give the tune to sing by.
If i was asked to be 100% honest and bare my true thought's on which provided the best way to sing in a more consistently in tune manner it would be the latter.
Just my thoughts from my church going experience's.
- Status
