Expert: Marvin Howard - 7/20/2011

Question
QUESTION: A friend of mine also a church of Christ member (he is' i think liberal, but he denies it) that he says instruments of music(stringed instruments only) can be justified by the word "psalms" because by its definition. he goes on saying:

Christians in the New Testament were plainly instructed to sing and do it from their heart, but from Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 the use of the term "psalms" is a clear indication of allowance of stringed instrument accompaniment within our song worship.

The bible is NOT silent on instrumental use because of the word psalms.

All of the Old Testament Psalms that I know of were only accompanied by a harp, or possibly a lyre. The only indication I have is the footnote above the chapter but I have never seen one that explicitly said one was accompanied by anything other than a stringed instrument. Psalm 150 may talk about other instruments but that does not prove that the psalm itself was accompanied by the instruments that is mentioned within that chapter. Also, I would argue that Psalm 150 shows that God accepted in the Old Testament instrumental music alone WITHOUT the accompaniment of voices to be worship. I say this because David explicitly says to praise God on these instruments with no indication of singing as accompaniment and the only logical conclusion is what I'm proposing. One might argue that verse 6 which reads "Let everything that breathes praise the Lord" that this is specifically meaning singing. What you have to understand is that singing is praising but not all praising is singing. Also, within context of this chapter it makes more since to think that the "praise" in verse 6 is in reference to praise just instruments and instruments alone. If though the "praise" in verse 6 means to sing David is not saying sing with the accompaniment of the instruments he just mentioned to praise God with. If so, I would like to know where.

He emailed me this yesterday. I hope you can help me.

ANSWER: I disagree, but I will be nice; simply stating all the facts in the case. This is going to be quite lengthy. I only wish to put forth the Biblical mandate of A Cappella music these men say is not present, along with some historical evidence it seems they missed. Since the historical evidence is not binding on us religiously, I wish to begin with it, and finish with the coupe de grâce of Scripture.

What is a chapel?

This is not a Biblical word, so many think it has no bearing on the subject. In the days of the early church, there was no public place specifically designated for worship. Rather, the members of each congregation met and worshiped in the homes of several and divers members. However, since members came from distant lands for purposes of visitation, and with growth in the numbers of members, a place was needed for worship. Having a public place in no way changes the command to assemble; and it is not prohibited in any passage of Scripture by violating another command of any type. These are the criteria that must be established to meet requirements for something to be called an expedient. Many claim this liberty for the instrument, so these will be the areas we must explore when we get to Scripture.

A chapel is nothing more than a public meeting place for the church. At the time of Jesus’ birth, Rome was in power. However, as it was early in the days of Rome, Greek was the universal language. As time progressed, Latin became the common tongue. Latin, being a dead language, is fairly unknown. This is why this evidence is likely overlooked. However, we use some Latin, and do not realize it, so we must understand what we say. Even though Latin is dead, derivatives of Latin still exist (e.g., Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese). I have been to Italy while in the service. On a tour, I visited the Sistine Chapel. Does anyone know the name of the Sistine Chapel in Italian? It is Cappella Sistina. Does any part of that name look familiar? We often use the Latin phrase, “A Cappella.” We are beginning to see that it has something to do with church buildings. We know that the definition of A Cappella is vocal music without instrumental accompaniment. A Cappella music was so strange to the world at the time, a special term needed to be coined to describe it. What is the complete translation?

A Cappella translates to the English phrase, “Of the Chapel.” That’s right; A Cappella music is the type of music found to be coming from chapels or church buildings. Now, if this is true (and we just proved that it is), then logic demands the opposite must also be true. In other words, music with instruments is the type which is not found in places where the church meets. So, if there is an instrument present and in use, the people there are not part of the church: people who use instruments in their worship music are not in the church built and bought by Christ (Romans 16:16).

Again, this historical evidence is not religiously binding. However, in light of this evidence, we should be fearful of changing anything regarding this facet of worship. This should be an effective catalyst in provoking us to a deeper and complete study of this topic, regardless of how difficult such study may seem. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying this study is difficult. It is actually quite simple. It just appears difficult as it will look at the Greek, and many are fearful of the Greek language. We will reserve the Greek for the second Biblical argument against the instrument. For now, let’s look at the first, such argument.

Hebrews 13:15-16, “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”

We are commanded to give the fruit of our lips as our praise. Giving the fruit of our fingers is strange fruit, and is thus condemned. God could leave it at this and it should be sufficient for us. However, God even gives us a glimpse as to why instruments are forbidden under the New Covenant.

Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

In this passage, we see that our singing is teaching. Teaching is speaking. We must all speak the same thing (1st Corinthians 1:10). We must all speak truth (Ephesians 4:15). Everyone must be able to understand the message of our singing (1st Corinthians 14:15). So, it is Biblically demonstrated that our singing must be in truth, and that a clear, distinct message must be given in our singing. Can mechanical instruments do this? Paul didn’t think so.

1st Corinthians 13:1, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”

The context of this passage may be charity, but it demonstrates how all the spiritual gifts, of the preceding and following passages, work together for harmony and unity: they present a clear message when in their proper place. When these gifts were misused, what was the result? Harmony was disrupted. The message of the church was unclear. What comparison did Paul use to represent destroying this unity? Since unity and a clear message is required in our singing, what comparison would be valid to show an unclear message in our singing? Mechanical instruments make the message unclear. Mechanical instruments destroy the very purpose God gave for our singing. On this argument alone, instruments are prohibited. However, some people with very hard hearts, and very selfish attitudes, will argue about this. Therefore, we will press onward with the second Biblical argument against the mechanical instrument; one against which no sincere person can argue.

Ephesians 5:18b-19, “[B]e filled with the Spirit; [s]peaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord…”

This is obviously a command with the use of the verb, “be.” So, the question comes, “To whom is the command given?” “What is the grammatical construction of this passage as originally written?”

First, we must know the word under discussion. We are to both sing and make melody. We all know what singing entails, so let’s look at making melody.

ψάλλω
psallō
psal'-lo
Probably strengthened from ψάω psaō (to rub or touch the surface; compare G5597); to twitch or twang, that is, to play on a stringed instrument (celebrate the divine worship with music and accompanying odes): - make melody, sing (psalms).

Many look at this definition, raise their hands in victory, and stop studying further. Is that safe? We see the definition for making melody. However, we need to look at the grammatical construction before we can know HOW to make melody. There are two points that need to be covered.

The parsing code (key to grammar) in the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine, AND the Westcott-Hort texts for ψάλλω is: V-PAP-NPM. In fact, in all three texts, a variant of ψάλλω is used to show it is a different part of speech. Rather than ψάλλω, all use ψαλλοντες (psallotes). The lexicons only give the root word. This tells us that we absolutely must see why a variant is used. For that we need just a smidgen of Greek grammar; we need to know exactly what that parsing code means.

Ψαλλοντες is present tense and active voice, with an imperative, participial mood. Ψαλλοντες is nominative in case, plural in tense, and masculine in gender.

Being a present tense verb (but not perfect tense which would apply only to a one time action), Ψαλλοντες is valid each time one engages in the action of the predicate. The active voice ties this verb directly to a specific means of fulfilling the action; in this instance a specific, named instrument. The mood is an imperative (command), and requires a participle’s conjugation (which in turn requires a case, tense, and gender). In other words, to use this word, a specific instrument must also be named. The only instrument authorized for us in worship is the human heart; we must pluck our heartstrings with our singing.

A nominative case verb has nothing to do with the main clause (subject and predicate) of the sentence but ψαλλοντες is rather setting up the circumstance for the sentence’s meaning; describing how the subject and predicate work together. The main clause of this passage is, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” Since many have been hoodwinked to think they can find authority for mechanical instruments in there, as well, I will deal with this in a moment. Ψαλλοντες is plural. Since ψαλλοντες is both plural (2nd person) and imperative, all are commanded to ψαλλοντες each time there is music. If ψαλλοντες applies to a piano, harp, or any other stringed, mechanical instrument, and it is already proven to apply to all worshipers, then all must play that specific instrument or be in violation of the imperative. This same principle even prohibits choirs! Greek is not like the Latin in that everything is either masculine of feminine. If this ψαλλοντες applied to mechanical instruments, the gender would be neuter. Since the gender is masculine, you can rest assured this speaks of people: and masculine gender can apply to both males and females when used in the plural, as is the case with the word, “mankind.”

Now, let’s turn our attention to the main clause; specifically the subject noun, ψαλμός (psalms). Here is the parsing code for ψαλμός: N-DPM. It is a noun, dative case, plural, and masculine gender.

The dative case, in this instance, is specifically “dativus instrumenti.” This simply means that the method to complete the predicate action must be given; i.e., “singing.” It does not say sing and play asproponents of the sinful instrument need it to say if their position were true. Even though in times past the psalms were played, now they are to be sung with the voice.

Why it is plural I believe you already know, and that it is masculine (being the teachings of David, a male) is not germane to this discussion.

The given conjunction in Strong’s definition for psalms is “or,” not “and.” Instruments are not required. The voice, alone, is an acceptable option. If definitions are different or conflict with each other (or could), it is up to us to determine correctly which option is the truth of God’s Word, and which is a lie. We must use context. We must not violate other passages of Scripture. We must respect the authority of Scripture. We must examine the principles found elsewhere.

This is speaking of a worship setting. Let us look at another worship setting to see what is expected by God. Leviticus 16:11-13 firmly declares that the priests were to take fire from the altar of burnt offering for use in burning the incense. This was the command. God is not unjust. He will not punish someone for what He has not told them. He will punish someone for violating what He has told them. Do we ever see this command violated? We do. Even though the recording of the offense occurs before the recording of the command, we know by the justice of God the command was given prior to the offense by the punishment of the violation.

Leviticus 10:1-3, “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spoke, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.”

Fire is fire, right? Wrong! God said differently. Music is music, right? Wrong! God said differently. God commanded that fire for the incense be specifically from the altar. Nadab and Abihu had the attitude; “Other fire is not forbidden, so it is acceptable.” For instrumentalists the attitude is, “Other music is not forbidden, so it must be acceptable.” Even if it must wait for the judgment for one to be consumed, the instrumentalist will be in the fire as assuredly as were Nadab and Abihu. Messing with God’s commands for worship is a serious business.

If the instrumentalist’s definition of either ψαλλοντες or ψαλμός is valid, tell me who of that religion is a follower of God’s commands by playing, and who is rebellious by not playing? I can safely guarantee you that if more than one participates in this sinful activity, there are very few. You cannot dismiss this in order to cling to a false and damnable doctrine. If you dismiss it, you subvert and twist the Scripture to your own destruction.

Just as Leviticus 16:11-13 forbade the use of any fire other than that commanded, so Ephesians 5:19 DOES forbid the use of mechanical instruments. Moreover, according to Ephesians 5:19, the Psalms were to be spoken; not played. If you refuse to accept this, it will be between you and God when He sends you to Hell at the judgment, for I have told you the truth.

Furthermore, musically speaking, the instrumentalist’s religion has departed from the idea even of his founding father(s).

“I have no objection to the organ in our chapel, provided it is neither seen nor heard.” - John Wesley

Wesley is not alone in his sentiments. Additionally, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, and Zwingli were all opposed to the use of instruments. They all said it differently, but cited the same, two reasons for excluding it; a lack of Scriptural authority, and that it was not used in early church history.

For your further study of the history of instruments in worship, I offer the following web addresses in support of my declaration:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/instcalv.htm

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Brad_Haugaard/garfield.htm

http://www.qhcoc.org/q_and_a/music_01.html

Now, let us see about another point often raised in defense of the instrument. Prayer is in the Old Testament. Should we use it because it is? No! Singing is in the Old Testament. Should we use it because it is? No! Instruments are in the Old Testament. Should we use them because they are? No! HOWEVER, Prayer is in the New Testament. Should we use it because it is? Yes! Singing is in the New Testament. Should we use it because it is? Yes! Instruments are EXCLUDED from the New Testament. Can we include them since they are not? No!

Everything that we are to do today is in the New Testament. If it was also in the Old Testament, so be it. This brings us to a last point. Does this mean that the Old Testament is not acceptable?

The Old Testament is Scripture. It is inspired of God. 2nd Timothy 3:16 tells us that it is still profitable. We may use it to learn how God views things, as He didn’t change. Galatians 3:15-16 shows us the remaining purpose of the Old Law; it is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. For example, we could know nothing of the need of Christ’s sacrifice without understanding the implementation and practice of animal sacrifice as portrayed in the Mosaic Covenant.

I preach from the Old Testament with a good deal of regularity. It is acceptable. It is profitable. It is instructive. However, none of it is any longer authoritative, and it cannot be cited as the reason for doing anything religiously.

James 2:10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

We must rightly divide the Scripture (2nd Timothy 2:15). The primary division, and the most important of all that we must make, is that which exists between the Old and New Testaments. It is there for a reason. If you want to keep the instruments of the Old Testament, then you must keep the entire Old Testament. This means you do not have the Blood of Christ to cover your sins; you are still trying to make do with the blood of bulls and goats (Hebrews 10:4), which serves no further purpose. The only way to have Christ’s sacrifice be of any efficacy is to remove the Old Testament as the authority for anything you do. Learn of God there, but not of your responsibility.

I can only pray this will be studied in depth. I can only pray you will copy it for your “elders” to see and study. There is a Biblical mandate for A Cappella music. There is a Biblical exclusion for the mechanical instrument. A Cappella music does not fall into the realm of opinion (the teaching is too specific) or expediency (it renders the teaching of the song unclear in that attention is removed from the words in favor of the beauty of the instrument). It is a matter of faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).  Those who add the instrument leave the faith. They depart from Christianity. They will not see Heaven, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23), and unrepented sin (in this case stopping the instruments) leads to destruction.

The men in charge where you are seem to be deficient and insufficiently studied in the Bible rather than being grounded in the faith (Colossians 1:23). If I were in your location, it would be hard to trust them further in leading me to Heaven without a significant change in their abilities or actions.


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi, I have met a denominational friend, and of course he defended Instrumental music and i gve him texts like Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. He says in Eph. 5: 19 that [b]e filled with the Spirit is the command but [s]peaking and making melody are just participles not commands.

Answer
A Cappella Apologetics for Dishonest Souls

Ephesians 5:18-19, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;"

When confronted with the Biblical mandate for A Cappella music only in worship, people often start contorting in angst because they do not desire to give up the sinful instrument. Instead of accepting the Word of God, they begin trying to make up their own grammatical rules to deny what God said. The most common grammatical gymnastics on this subject is to claim it is not a command, but a participle. This thought completely ignores the definition of a participle.

“The Ancient Greek participle shares in the properties of adjectives and verbs. Like an adjective, it changes form for gender, case, and number. Like a verb, it has tense and voice, is modified by adverbs, and can take verb arguments, including an object.

There is a form of the participle for every combination of tense (present, aorist, perfect, future) and voice (active, middle, passive).

Like an adjective, it can modify a noun, and can be used to embed one thought into another.

•   πολλὰ καὶ φύσει καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ δεῖ τὸν εὖ στρατηγήσοντα ἔχειν
"he who intends to be a good general must have a great deal of ability and knowledge,"

In the example, the participial phrase τὸν εὖ στρατηγήσοντα, literally "the one going to be a good general," is used to embed the idea εὖ στρατηγήσει "he will be a good general" within the main verb.

The participle is very widely used in ancient Greek, especially in prose.

A participle attributes a quality of action to the noun, which is viewed as undertaking the action.”

Participles take the same arguments as their verbs. If a verb is a command, then its participle is also a command. A participle tells how to carry out the action (command/imperative) of the subject and predicate.

In Ephesians 5:18, the argument is, “be filled,” is a participle. As such the argument is that all the following, modifying phrases are participles and carry no weight as commands. Is it a participle as claimed? Since the English translation ends with the suffix, “-ed,” many think so. Here is the English text with Strong’s numbers for identification, followed by the Greek text with the parsing codes:

“AndG2532 be not drunkG3182 G3361 with wine,G3631 whereinG1722 G3739 isG2076 excess;G810 butG235 be filledG4137 withG1722 the Spirit;G4151 SpeakingG2980 to yourselvesG1438 in psalmsG5568 andG2532 hymnsG5215 andG2532 spiritualG4152 songs,G5603 singingG103 andG2532 making melodyG5567 inG1722 yourG5216 heartG2588 to theG3588 Lord;G2962”

“καιG2532 CONJ  μηG3361 PRT-N  μεθυσκεσθεG3182 V-PPM-2P  οινωG3631 N-DSM  ενG1722 PREP  ωG3739 R-DSM  εστινG1510 V-PAI-3S  ασωτιαG810 N-NSF  αλλαG235 CONJ  πληρουσθεG4137 V-PPM-2P  ενG1722 PREP  πνευματιG4151 N-DSN λαλουντεςG2980 V-PAP-NPM  εαυτοιςG1438 F-2DPM  ψαλμοιςG5568 N-DPM  καιG2532 CONJ  υμνοιςG5215 N-DPM  καιG2532 CONJ  ωδαιςG5603 N-DPF  πνευματικαιςG4152 A-DPF  αδοντεςG103 V-PAP-NPM  καιG2532 CONJ  ψαλλοντεςG5567 V-PAP-NPM  ενG1722 PREP  τηG3588 T-DSF  καρδιαG2588 N-DSF  υμωνG4771 P-2GP  τωG3588 T-DSM  κυριωG2962 N-DSM”

Notice, the Greek word for the phrase, “be filled,” is Strong’s number 4137. Next, note the parsing code for Strong’s number 4137; “V-PPM-2P.” The Phrase, “be filled,” is a verb (V); not a participle. To be a participle, the parsing code would be, “V-PPP,” with the third “P” being the position indicating a participle, and it is not. It is present tense (P), which denotes a continuous action. It is passive voice (P), which indicates it is something we must allow to happen. It is imperative mood (M), which means it IS a command. It is second person plural (2P), which means it applies to everyone.

This is clearly a command, and cannot be side-stepped by those pinned by the truth. Since it is a command, then all following modifiers declare HOW to carry out the command. When combined in context, Ephesians 5:18-19 says the way to be filled with the Spirit is to speak to each other (not some play to others) in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Making melody may be a participle. That does not eliminate it from being a command. It fulfills the command to be filled with the Spirit, so it is in itself a command.

Others may waffle. They may agree that the phrase, “be filled,” is a command, and then deny the need to obey ψαλλοντες since it is a participle. Again, I refer you to the rules and definition of a participle, when says it takes on the arguments of the verb. The thought of singing (not playing) is thereby embedded into the thought of being filled with the Spirit. Therefore, if the verb is a command (and it is), then the participle is ALSO a command. Ψαλλοντες is a command, and it is one that must be obeyed by all.

We already proved that the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are all vocal. We have already proved that all people must do them. So, the instrumentalist has not a leg on which to stand. After being presented with the final truth on the matter, there are only two things that can happen.

1. The sinner can repent and quit using the instrument.
2. The teacher can commit sin by continuing to cast pearls before swine.

Yes, those who know the truth about how sinful the instrument is, and do not cease its use, are exactly the type of people Jesus meant when He used the word, “swine.” They are pigs, and have shown themselves unworthy of the gift of the Gospel. If he will not repent, leave him to his own doom.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard