We continue to consider Ferguson’s arguments in chapter 22 of his The Early Church and Today, vol. 1 and vol. 2, edited by Leonard Allen and Robyn Burwell. This chapter is titled “Church Music in Ephesians and Colossians.”
Psalm 108
At this point, it should be abundantly obvious that Paul is not concerned with the order of worship or use of the instrument in this passage. But there’s more evidence of the obvious.
Compare —
(Eph 5:19 ESV) addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,
— with —
Ps 108:1b-2a I will sing and make melody with all my being! 2 Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn!
In Eph 5:19, it certainly appears that Paul is paraphrasing “sing and make melody” from Psalm 108.
The psalm is literally “I will sing (ado) and I will pluck (an instrument) (psallo) to the Lord.” The translation of psallo as “pluck” (an instrument) in the LXX is not controversial, but the LXX is centuries older than the New Testament, and psallo came to mean “sing” by the First Century — indicating neither the use nor absence of an instrument.
Eph 5:19 in Greek is —
sing (ado) and sing/make melody/pluck an instrument (psallo) to the Lord.
That Paul is referencing the Psalm is unmistakable.
What is the impact of the parallels with the Psalm?
Now, we can make this argument –
1. Paul clearly echoes this Psalm.
2. There are no explicit references to instruments in Ephesians, other than “in the heart” (en tE kardia), which is not “with the heart” but “in the heart.” Hence, the heart is not grammatically the instrument but where the melody is perceived.
But …
3. Psa 107 LXX (= English Psa 108) refers to singing and playing “in (en) my glory (doxE).” The use of “glory” here sounds odd to Western ears, but “glory” refers to the nature of God, man is made in the image of God, and so the Septuagint translators use “glory” to refer to the psalmist’s truest, deepest self. Thus, English translations say things like “in my soul” or “in my inner being,” and these are also true to the sense of the Hebrew text.
But Paul could not say “in my glory” in Ephesians because –
* “Glory” would not sound to the Ephesian Greeks like “soul” or “inner being.”
* Paul carefully uses “glory” in his writings to refer to God’s presence and our celebration of God — not the inner being of the Christian.
And so Paul replaces “glory” with “heart.” But the passages are otherwise parallel: “in (en) my glory” and “in (en) your heart.”
This is the Psalm in context (CEV) —
1Our God, I am faithful to you with all my heart, and you can trust me.
I will sing and play music for you with all that I am.2I will start playing my harps before the sun rises.
3I will praise you, LORD, for everyone to hear;
I will sing hymns to you in every nation.4Your love reaches higher than the heavens,
and your loyalty extends beyond the clouds.
The meaning of psallo
David plainly has instruments in mind in Psalm 108. Not all translations pick up the sense of psallo plainly, but the meaning is conceded even by conservative members of the Churches of Christ, such as Wayne Jackson in the Christian Courier –
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that dates from the 3rd century B.C. In this production,
psallois used to represent three different Hebrew words. The term may be used to denote simply the playing of an instrument (1 Sam. 16:16). It may bear the sense of singing, accompanied by an instrument (as certain contexts reveal – cf. Psa. 27:6; 98:5 – Eng. versions). Or, the word may refer to vocal music alone (cf. Psa. 135:3; 138:1; 146:2).
Jackson cites Psa 27:6 — another close parallel to Eph 5:19 — as using psallo in the sense of singing accompanied by an instrument. As Jackson notes, the context of these parallels makes the conclusion unmistakable.
Psallo and psalmos
Regarding the meanings of psallo [make melody] and psalmos [psalm], Ferguson writes,
And here let it be said that the non-use of instrumental music among churches of Christ is based on the theological principle of silence and not because the words themselves employed in the New Testament exclude an instrument.
(Kindle Locations 4941-4942). In other words, psallo and psalmos don’t, as a matter of definition, mean “sing a cappella” or “a cappella song.”
Rather, Ferguson argues that the prohibition of instruments comes from “the theological principle of silence,” that is, the Regulative Principle.
Is Paul rejecting instruments or endorsing instruments or neither?
So … does the fact that Paul omits the references to harps and lyres in Eph 5:19 imply that Paul is rejecting instruments? I don’t think so, for two reasons.
First, rabbis often quoted a portion of a passage in order to refer to the entirety of the passage.
To increase the impact of a statement, rabbis would quote part of a Scripture and then let their audience fill in the rest.
Ann Spangler & Lois Tverberg, Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus: How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith
Second, Paul uses the identical Greek verbs for “sing” and “play music” found in Psa 108. The first word, ado, means “sing” (not a cappella and not instrumental, just “sing”). The second is psallo. And in the Greek of the Septuagint, it means “play an instrument” or “sing accompanied by an instrument,” and in Ps 108, the instruments are named: a harp and a lyre.
Now, Paul had other Greek verbs available to say “sing” with no implication of instruments. He chose to retain psallo even though he was willing to replace “glory” with “heart.” And if he was quoting a Psalm from the Septuagint, he was using psallo in the sense in which David wrote it.
Just so, if I quote from the King James Version, I should normally be taken to be using the words in their 1611 sense — especially if I’m an Bible scholar. And Paul was an Old Testament scholar — trained under Gamaliel, one of the great rabbis in Jewish history.
So, if anything, this argues for Paul to be using psallo in its Septuagint sense, not in the koine (First Century) Greek sense, as it’s a quotation — paraphrased only to shift the verb tense from middle to participle and to substitute “heart” for “glory.”
In short, Paul’s decision to paraphrase Psalm 108, in which psallo refers to playing an instrument, makes it impossible to rightly interpret Paul as insisting on a cappella singing.
Conclusion
Plainly, in context, Paul is not concerned with whether the singing is instrumental. Rather, he wants the singing to lead to gratitude, and then to submission, as the Spirit fills the Christian, transforming him into the image of Jesus.
But the parallel with Psalm 108, which is plainly about instrumental praise of God, makes it impossible that Paul was intending to ban instrumental music with these words. He could not have more plainly picked a passage to quote that does not ban instrumental music.
“And here let it be said that the non-use of instrumental music among churches of Christ is based on the theological principle of silence and not because the words themselves employed in the New Testament exclude an instrument.” So, the theological principle of speaking where God chose not to speak has superseded what He did say ?? To borrow from the old hymn…it sounds like “sinking sand” to me… However, as a tradition it’s wonderful…As a command and reason for setting apart it’s deficient.
Jay has done a patient and thorough job over hundreds of words, carefully dismantling the traditional arguments by which many CoC’s continue to ban instrumental music. If this ban were actually a matter of understanding scripture, as has long been claimed, this treatment would dissolve this doctrine like those little marshmallows in your cocoa. I think this would even be true of Calvin’s Regulative Principle which is used to prop up the ban.
But in fact, Jay’s reasoned approach is unlikely to change policy in a single CoC, including his own. This tradition is just that, a tradition, with the staying power and invulnerability to reason and progress that traditions so often have. Anti-IM is so much a part of the CoC identity that many congregations will never consider IM, not becasue they have a real doctrinal problem with it, but because in their minds, it would make them no longer CoC at all,
In the CoC, the culture is changing. Unevenly, but undeniably. The regulative principle is no longer convincing to most younger believers. Where leadership tells its members that denominational tradition trumps their desire for any change in worship, members will continue to leave– or more often, fail to attach as adults. In other cases, where leaders are willing to at least allow IM, they will continue to lose their denominational identity. If this current track continues, the CoC congregations will find a fork in the road: one path to identity with the non-denominational evangelicals, and the other path to become a small and anachronistic clan that has little or no impact on its communities.
Danny Corbett made the point that in order to convey the idea of accapela singing, you must add “accapela” to “sing.” The word “sing” alone does not convey that idea.
Charles said; ” If this current track continues, the CoC congregations will find a fork in the road: one path to identity with the non-denominational evangelicals, and the other path to become a small and anachronistic clan that has little or no impact on its communities.”
Jesus said; “Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. ”
No Charles, I am not saying IM will send you to hell, What I am saying once you start down the wide road, it gets easier to walk in the ditches on either side then, there becomes no boundaries
that can’t be crossed. In my opinion the progressives have already sampled a tasting of the forbidden fruits, and they like it. obedience is not necessary, baptism is not necessary, Paul was wrong about women participation. everyone that calls Jesus Lord, is heaven bound. already praying to Jesus instead of through Jesus. is the sinners prayer next ? probably already on some lips. there is a lot more I believe I have made my point. It is a different gospel than Jesus taught.
Laymond… what makes IM a part of the “wide road” other than misreading scripture and the inferences obtained by doing so? I understand the concern of being “liberal” and moving away from clear teaching but one has to willfully ignore the clear presentation that Jay and others continue to do in this regard to suggest that it’s not acceptable or any way “liberal.” It’s just not so. To equate this discussion to disobedience and the salvation offered by grace through faith is to deflect away from the topic which is a familiar tactic of painting those that disagree with you as heretics in the making and that given an inch will take a mile.. If that mile is.. permissible under the freedom of life in Christ Jesus, it seems like an acceptable path to take… Jesus Himself never operated under the Regulative Principal and was quite often the point of conversation as he veered from traditions that were treated as law… Let’s avoid becoming Pharisees who value their opinions and traditions over what the commands and instructions actually are. Surely, we can do this or Jesus wouldn’t have so clearly condemned it.. Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” It seems to me that the “wide road” might have been the traditions. Could it be that the same holds true today?
Price, I admit I have found no place within scripture that plainly states “don’t play horns, or harps in worship of God, or stand judgment of hell” it is no where to be seen in that direct command, as far as I have seen. BUT, we are told how we MUST worship God .
Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jhn 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him MUST worship him in spirit and in truth.
And we are told how not to worship God. He does not need it, and evidently does not want it.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
I read this to say we do not offer up some physical offering such as playing an instrument WITH OUR HANDS. God wants you, not your horn or harp. I believe I remember something about “VAIN WORSHIP”
Laymond,
Would you also concede to the concept that we should not use our hands to build temples in which to worship. Would the building of a place to worship also fall into the category of a physical offering, seeing as we are instructed how to worship him in the two verses you quoted above? Can you find a physical building in those instructions? .
This is a good discussion… thanks Jay.My opinion is that Paul was neither speaking for or against instruments… I seriously doubt this was an issue with Paul as opposed to dealing with legalism and unity and love in the body of Christ. The Easy To Read Version says, “Communicate to each other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your hearts to the Lord (Eph. 5:19). This is in the context (in my opinion) of ‘living the Christian life’ (Eph.4:17- the end of Ephesians). “Do this” “don’t do that”, “put off the old”, “put on the new”, “avoid this” “avoid that”. Since context is king… it seems we should leave it that way. Christians are a special group, a family of believers and that relationship means we treat and speak to each other in a way which shows the love which caused Jesus to ‘wash his disciple’s feet… He loved them to the end… We may indeed disagree with each other… but above all, “we be brethren”. Sing, communicate, to each other from your hearts… Some do this with and some without instruments…. Which is worse… dividing the church or using an instrument? If a person doesn’t agree with (a matter of conscience) instruments being used, go where they are not being used… but love all brethren, as Christ loves us.Each person must be convinced in his own mind…. but “personal conviction is not congregational law”.
Laymond, you make my point very clearly…You point out accurately that the Bible doesn’t reject or prohibit the use of instruments in worship (or in daily life) and yet there are some that pick out verses that they “think” might apply and fill in the gap of instruction that was apparently a “mistake” or “omission” by God Himself in His communicated intentions.. Why would anyone feel they were in a place to create commands for God that He didn’t think were necessary? Why would any group hold themselves above others; refuse to worship or associate; or even include them in their collection of approved CoC churches over a command that doesn’t exist?
The only time I can think of that God rejects worship is when it’s done in an insincere way.. I recall from Isaiah 1 that God didn’t appreciate them doing what He had commanded them to do as if it didn’t matter in how they lived daily…He even refused to listen to their prayers and yet he offered them a way out of the mess beginning with “come, let us reason together.” Perhaps there is a lesson here as well against permanent divide..
I am glad Price went back to Isaiah 1. I have wished many others would read that. I am glad Jay chose to present this material clearly and thoroughly. I realize that some will never be convinced.
Larry, did you not take the time to read what I just posted/quoted from the bible.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Larry, do you think now that the building of a building, for our own comfort, is seen by God as worship to him. Maybe if you put some thought into what you are saying, you can answer that question on your own. I believe you can.
Price said; “The only time I can think of that God rejects worship is when it’s done in an insincere way..”
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
I have to return to where I have already been.
Jhn 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
When a person is placing his or her full attention on playing an instrument as well as he or she can possiably play (and you know they are) and we sit in the pew condoning this as worshiping God ” in spirit and in truth. ” as Jesus said we MUST, I am not so sure we are.
I believe this might come closer to “building a building for our own confort” it might be seen as worshiping for our own enjoyment. or worshiping in vain, or insincere worship.
My conscience won’t let me condone such actions.
I doubt that anyone enjoys a good “gospel singing” more than me, but don’t claim it is worshiping God a Spirit, in spirit and truth. To me it is pure enjoyment to the human soul. with or without instruments.
Yes, I was raised attending the CoC, and I was taught we don’t have to shout “praise the lord” in order to praise the lord God. Shouting such things was for the benefit of convincing the onlookers
you really were indwelled.
Laymond, don’t forget the “truth” part of worshipping in spirit and truth.. the Truth is that God Himself brought instruments into the corporate worship environment by command and I’ve never read where he commanded them NOT to be used. So, while it’s interesting to see the pin on the “spirit” part into singing without instruments as if that is more spiritual, it would be difficult for someone to explain to me why God would introduce their use in a corporate worship environment if He actually thought that they were inappropriate and not spiritual… He even shows John how they are being used in heaven.. Should we consider that inappropriate and unspiritual as well even though they are being used, whether actual or symbolically in His very presence? Are the Elders who are singing and playing harps from the denominational section of heaven ? LOL
Price said; “it would be difficult for someone to explain to me why God would introduce their use in a corporate worship environment if He actually thought that they were inappropriate and not spiritual”
Price is it also difficult for you to accept the change in worshiping God with sacrificial animals.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not
entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you
nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the
whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law;
ye are fallen from grace.
Anyone who use instruments in worship because they were used in the Old Testament
must necessarily insist on the use of incense while we pray, washing our hands and feet
before entering the building, and using oil lamps for lighting inside the building. Is it wrong
to use instruments? I can’t say for sure. Is it unnecessarily going back to the shadow? I think it just might be.
Laymond, once again you seem to be drawing conclusions based on no reasonable deduction. God made the change in the sacrificial system when he made Christ the one sacrifice for everyone for all time. Incense? Isn’t it used symbolically in heaven.. can’t be bad either…was it’s use condemned in worship? If so, by whom? Who de-authorized instruments in worship? Surely, if one changed God’s command they did so clearly… I can’t find it.. And, I already pointed out their use actually or symbolically in heaven.. that’s not O.T. Law…that’s present and/or future.. Not a shadow.. The N.T. clearly speaks to circumcision…it’s no longer required. One would think that God didn’t forget to tell us something that He was now displeased with and that the use of which should separate brother from brother. At least until we get to heaven and then it’ll be OK once again… Doesn’t seem reasonable to me..
“the Truth is that God Himself brought instruments into the corporate worship environment by command”
Price I was only questioning you excuse for their use being righteous, because God commanded in in the Old Testament. I was only showing that Jesus freed us from Old Testament worship commands . Paul said if you honored one you were to honor then all. and just forget what Jesus had done. Anyhow that is how I read it.
“Anyone who use instruments in worship because they were used in the Old Testament must necessarily insist on the use of incense while we pray…”
Laymond, even the Law did not insist on the use of incense whenever a Jew prayed. Your view of scripture as expressed here is more narrow and legalistic than the Law itself.
Man, now that is grasping at straws, just to be right about something, just anything beats nothing 🙂
That may be the most roundabout admission of a mistakeI think I ever heard. It’s okay, Laymond, nobody’s always right.
This fellow parks in a “no parking zone” and gets a ticket. He takes it to court, where the judge asks him, “DID you park in a ‘no parking’ zone?”
The defendant replies, “Sir– and I apply this honorific to the court more than to its current and temporary custodian– it seems to be that some folks would take no greater pleasure than to pull down a great man in a small matter as a pack of hyenas pulls down an aging lion. The lessers of mankind have long sought to nip at the heels of their betters by laying in wait for an opportunity to leap out of the bushes and shout, ‘Ah-hah!’ at the nobleman who innocently strides past. Well, then, let the jackals howl and the ravens caw! Let them revel in their callow rejoicing. I shall, today as always, stand upon my honor and await history to trumpet my quality into ages to come!”
The judge asks, “So, that’s a ‘yes’?”
Actually, the Septuagint was written during the Koine Greek era(300BC-300AD). Not the Classical Period. The Greek term Psallo originally meant to pluck the strings of an instrument but came to signify to make melody in any and all fashions. According to Danker, it’s not until the 15th century AD that psallo simply took on a vocal definition(weather accompanied or not).
Laymond,
I’ll attempt this enlightenment of your statement again. After quoting this text, “And we are told how not to worship God. He does not need it, and evidently does not want it.”
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
You said, “I read this to say we do not offer up some physical offering such as playing an instrument WITH OUR HANDS. God wants you, not your horn or harp. I believe I remember something about “VAIN WORSHIP””
If we use our hands and build a building containing physical comforts, then dedicate it’s use to only the worshiping services while assembled for worship to God, are we only serving ourselves, or are we bringing the physical building into an offering that serves God also, even tho he does not dwell in it. By dwelling in us while we are there in the building serves both God and Man.
I’ll apply another illustration, if the building that we meet in does not serve God in any fashion, then by what authority could you remove a portion of the offering (possibly from the Tithe as some refer to the offering that is collected and promoted as our giving back to God of his bountiful gifts) for payment of any of the expenses occurred concerning a physical building?
Summation, we use buildings built by hands to worship God in, but we cannot consider the labor of our hands while building the building as an offering to the Lord? Yet we can receive payment for the labor of our hands at a job and then give of the proceeds to the offering and then use of this offering to support the needs of the building? You seem to claim that none of the fruit of our physical labors or talents can be accounted as worshiping God.
“Regarding the meanings of psallo [make melody] and psalmos [psalm], Ferguson writes,
And here let it be said that the non-use of instrumental music among churches of Christ is based on the theological principle of silence and not because the words themselves employed in the New Testament exclude an instrument.”
Using this logic, Ferguson must conclude that the heavenly Father would only supply his children with actual physical bread (artos) and nothing more in Matt 6:11 – “Give us this day our daily bread.”
Discussion which consists of nothing more than telling other people what somebody else must mean about something off-topic is, IMO, not intended to be discussion.
KG, would you please show me the connection you are making between the Regulative Principle -which is what Ferguson is speaking of- and the rejection of metaphoric language in scripture, which you conclude is a part of this? Calvin’s RP does not speak to metaphoric language specifically.
OR perhaps you could point out in scripture the banning of musical instruments presented in metaphoric language?
One can easily accept metaphoric language AND reject the Regulative Principle. In fact, most of the church does.
The point is simply this – how can you say in effect that you exclude instruments “not because the words themselves employed in the New Testament exclude an instrument”, but based on silence? If the salient “words” don’t exclude them, then why are you excluding them?
How would you know that “bread” was being used metaphorically in Matt 6:11? Obviously contextual factors and prior usage must be taken into account. Why can`t you apply the same logic to “psallo” and “ado/ode” in Eph 5:19.
Something can be non-biblical but not anti-biblical. Do we exclude church buildings, communion trays or email because of “silence?”
I think I follow you better now, KG. The “exclusion” you point out is based on Calvin’s “Regulative Principle” from the 16th Century, which said, in essence, that what one cannot find in New Testament descriptions of worship is thus “unauthorized” and must be excluded from the worship of the church. Most of us reject this doctrine wholesale, but a significant portion of the CoC still holds strongly to it, and in fact, they expand it to a far broader application of that which is “authorized” or “not authorized” for the church to do. Which, BTW, is the basis for many controversies which might readily be resolved by your statement that “something can be non-biblical but not anti-biblical”. I would note that proponents of the Regulative Principle are highly selective in their application of this doctrine, and thus miss the clear point you made here.
Many of the folks who follow this doctrine don’t even know what it is called nor that it comes from John Calvin.
Great insights brother Mclean, I wholeheartedly concur.