I’m an Everett Ferguson fan. We disagree on some things, but that doesn’t change the fact that Ferguson is a widely respected scholar of the early church whose work is well worth study and reflection.
Ferguson’s Early Christians Speak – Vol. 2
Ferguson is the author of the recently published The Early Church and Today, vol. 1 and vol. 2, edited by Leonard Allen and Robyn Burwell. These are collections of scholarly essays by Ferguson on a number of topics connected to the early church and modern church practice.
Volume 1 has been the subject of a series of blog posts at Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog.
The Argument against Musical Instruments in Worship
In spite of what so many think…
Although McKnight has no Church of Christ heritage, and often disagrees with Ferguson, Ferguson carries such scholarly respect that his arguments merit discussion at one of the most popular evangelical blogs in the world.
Sources regarding the First Century synagogue
Ferguson dedicates one chapter to the question of whether the First Century synagogues had congregational singing, in particular, a cappella singing. It’s not an easily answered question.
It was once assumed by scholars that the early synagogues included congregational singing, but some recent studies reach a different conclusion. You see, until recently, many scholars have assumed, without any real analysis, that the Talmud and Mishnah describe the synagogue and other Jewish practices as they existed at the time of Jesus. But this is hardly a safe assumption.
The Mishnah and Talmud are the written records of the Oral Law assembled by the rabbis. The Mishnah is a collection of interpretations of the Law of Moses made by rabbis from around 100 BC to 200 AD or so. The Talmud, a collection of several much more extensive works, was written and edited and re-edited from around 400 AD to maybe 700 AD — more than half a millennium from the time of Jesus.
The Mishnah wasn’t reduced to writing until around 220 AD, that is, nearly 200 years after the time of Jesus. The Talmud wasn’t written down until much later, perhaps beginning around 400 AD and continuing until 700 AD or so. Thus, the Talmud, a vast collection of the Jewish Oral Law, is centuries — even half a millennium — after the time of Jesus.
A lot happened in the Jewish community during those 200 years! For example, the Jews rebelled against Rome, leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Jews rebelled again in the early Second Century under Bar Kochbar, leading to the deaths of over 500,000 Jews. And this second rebellion caused Romans (including many Christians) to judge the Jews as hopelessly disloyal to the Empire — leading to much greater marginalization and persecution of Jews.
These events dramatically changed how Judaism was practiced, as the rabbis had to wrestle with the long-term absence of the Temple, the further scattering of the Jews across the Empire, and increasing persecution.
The Oral Law was clearly not static, as the rabbis were forced to change their views as circumstances forced them to accept new realities. The loss of the Temple forced a dramatic reconsideration of the Law of Moses, for example. What about animal sacrifices? The song service? The instrumental service? And the rabbis concluded that the Temple was irreplaceable and so the synagogue should not seek to duplicate the services held at the Temple.
However, over time, the synagogues took up singing, and until the last century, this singing was a cappella. But that hardly means that the synagogues were used for congregational singing at the time of the apostles.
Because it’s so difficult to know how far back given passages in the Mishnah or Talmud extend, many scholars insist on determining First Century practices solely from other Jewish sources connected to Second Temple Judaism (the time from Ezra to 70 AD). These sources are largely the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the writings of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus.
These works are clearly dated to this time frame. Philo was born fewer than 20 years before Jesus. Josephus wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem but lived much of his life and wrote extensively about Judaism as it existed before then. The Apocrypha was part of the Septuagint and so predates Jesus by two or three hundred years, but teaches us a great deal about the period between the testaments. The pseudepigrapha were written largely during this period.
The origins of the synagogue
Now, it’s important to realize that the synagogue is not a biblical institution. It was plainly a human innovation, added to Jewish practice utterly without command, example, or necessary inference. It was also a brilliantly conceived idea to preserve Judaism and Torah study while the Jews were dispersed throughout the Empire, far from Judea.
We don’t know how the idea was conceived or who first came up with the idea. We know from the New Testament that synagogues were an ordinary part of Jewish life in Judea, Galilee, and where Paul conducted his missionary journeys, meaning it was a mature, established institution by then. But we know little else.
What happened in the synagogues
Some scholars have recently surveyed the available material on synagogue practices during apostolic times and concluded that the only practices we have a record of are study of the Hebrew scriptures and prayer. Thus, these scholars argue, there is no evidence of congregational singing in the synagogues until well after apostolic times. James W. McKinnon, “The Exclusion of Musical Instruments from the Ancient Synagogue,” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association (1979– 1980); J. A. Smith , “The Ancient Synagogue, the Early Church and Singing,” Music and Letters (1984).
Of course, the absence of evidence is not proof, but there is ample evidence of scripture study and reading and of prayer — and no evidence for congregational singing, sermons, or anything remotely like the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, these scholars conclude, there is no reason to suppose that the early Christian assemblies were based on the synagogue practices.
This argument, that is made for reasons quite independent of the Church of Christ concerns with a cappella music, defeats the argument that the early church was necessarily a cappella in its singing because the First Century synagogue was a cappella.
Ferguson’s case for a cappella music
Ferguson’s essay in chapter 7 of volume 1 is a response to this scholarly background. He writes,
There is a similar lack of first-century sources for musical practices in the synagogues. Here the situation is more controversial, however, because there are first-century references to other activities in the synagogues [in additional to prayer and scripture study]. It is generally agreed that instrumental music was absent from the synagogue meetings, but some have argued that singing too, and particularly psalm-singing, was also absent. The argument from the silence of first-century sources about psalmody proves too much. The sources cited mention only scripture reading and its interpretation; if these sources were all we had to go on, we would have to omit prayer from the synagogue service in the first century.
(Kindle Locations 4710-4715). In fact, some of Ferguson’s opponents make a point of prayer being a First Century synagogue activity. After all, in many places, the word for synagogue is actually “place of prayer.”
Ferguson then demonstrates that there is indeed evidence of prayer in the First Century synagogues (which is not really controversial at all).
Ferguson next argues that there is evidence of reading or recitation of certain of the Psalms in the First Century synagogue.
The Mishnah, compiled around AD 200, gives instructions about the congregational reciting of the Hallel. The tractate Rosh HaShanah 4.7 refers to reciting the Hallel before the ark where the Torah scrolls were kept in the synagogues. The argument is made that the accounts of “reciting” do not refer to “singing,” but it must be remembered that cantillation, a kind of chanting, was employed in scripture reading (b. Megillah 32a; Sopherim 3.13), prayer (b. Ta’anit 16a), and reciting the Shema ( Abot de Rabbi Nathan b. 44). In the context of the times we must describe the Hallel as “sung,” not “read.”
(Kindle Locations 4722-4728). Well, it’s far from certain the Mishhah’s account can be read back to apostolic times. A lot happened between then and the writing down of the Mishnah. More importantly, we can’t assume that “recite” includes “cantillate.” Nor may we equate “cantillate” with a cappella congregational singing.
Some of Ferguson’s assumptions may be quite reasonable, but he strings together too many for us to confidently conclude that the First Century synagogue engaged in congregational singing. It’s just assumption upon assumption.
Cantillation
Let’s consider the nature of cantillation. It’s a type of reading of the text by the chosen speaker, not congregational singing at all. Rather, the idea is that by adding variations in pitch to the spoken word, in something of a chant, the scriptures are more easily understood and remembered.
I offer this sample of modern cantillation —
— because I enjoyed it, but there’d have been no instruments and no female voices in the First Century synagogue. Moreover, there’s no evidence that portions of the text would be cantillated by the congregation with the speaker during apostolic times.
Here’s video that comes far closer to the First Century practice —
Great celebration, leading to spontaneous singing at the prospect of reading Torah, followed by a sing-song reading style in which the words are given pitch but not melody. And notice there is no formal “service” as such. After all, nowhere are we told that the Jews assembled for a one-hour Sabbath meeting similar to our congregational worship services. We assume the Jewish practice to have been the same 2000 years ago because it’s so similar today — but today’s similarity in practice proves nothing about the First Century.
Is cantillation singing? It’s a matter of definition, I suppose, but it’s not congregational singing, and it’s strictly secondary to what’s really going on — the reading of the Torah. It’s not a separate “act of worship,” as in Church of Christ parlance and doctrine. We cannot equate this to the congregational singing as a distinct act of worship as found in our polemics.
Therefore, even if the Mishnah is referring to practices 200 years earlier, the reciting of the Psalms, which might have been by cantillation, is no argument for a cappella congregational singing in the First Century synagogues.
Really… Dr. Ferguson is arguing for CENI by using a Non-CENI institution as a guiding example ?? How odd is that ? What we should emulate as a binding example from an example which contradicts our position on where binding examples should come from… Odd indeed. To those in the CENI camp, is that not like using “sin” as an example of how to “not sin?”
It is true that Everett Ferguson is a brilliant mind, and his knowledge of the early church is well respected in the evangelical community. However, brilliant minds, like others in their fellowship, feel compelled to defend their traditions.
The truth is if you were to put before other scholars of the Christian world the arguments against instrumental music, against church corporation and against multiple communion cups, while they would certainly see them coming from different wings of the Restoration Movement, would still see them as coming from the same mindset, that of needing to recreate the one true church. The synagogue being a point of reference may be of some interest to them, but it would not hold any authority.
While I see some CoC congregations that call themselves “progressive”, yet more in an evangelical mode, adopting an instrumental service in the future, the churches that are considered more liberal will be quite happy solely with a cappella. I would compare them to the Episcopal church that has retained the “one” cup part of its Eucharist. They see the physical cup as tradition, beautiful, and that which preserves the solemnity of the worship; but, never something worth the time of debate.
Is the conclusion that Ferguson holds instruments in worship to be wrong? I have not read him, but from other sources I get that idea. For people whose ancient claim is to be people of the Bible, some of us will go to any length to support a tradition we hold dear even if the Bible doesn’t address it. Why is that? Why is something like singing with our without instruments so important? I think the honest answer says more about us than we care to admit.
Price,
You are quite right to point out the irony. Al Maxey, I think, made that point some time ago. 19th Century Christian scholarship assumed the Christian assembly was derived from the synagogue, without any serious research to back the claim. Only recently has the claim been challenged and it’s not standing up very well at all.
John,
I just spoke with a friend in another state whose church just added a second service — with instruments. They lost half their members and contribution despite excellent preaching and leadership. It’s not an easy transition. (And there are other churches that made the transition without such a dramatic loss.)
It is interesting to wonder whether the tradition of a cappella might survive well as just a tradition? You rightly point out that the Episcopalians are one-cuppers. The Orthodox are growing despite being AC.
On the other hand, the legalism and attitudes of superiority that AC often produces are huge disadvantages to evangelism. We in the CoC have this tendency to look down on others for not having the right practices — and that’s a huge problem. How do you keep the traditional practices and yet get rid of the traditional doctrines and attitudes that accompany them?
Royce,
Yes, Ferguson provides the scholarly backbone for the argument that instruments are sinful. His arguments are much more honest than the usual, meaning that there are few hidden assumptions. He doesn’t do polemics. That is, he doesn’t try to win at any cost. And outside of the IM/AC controversy, he is very solid and reliable, even brilliant.
From Scots blog…
“Ferguson argues this term(psallo) was often used among Jews for non-instrumental “’rendition of their religious songs’” (278)
In all due respect, where does Mr. Ferguson base this claim?
Would not the practices of the early church be based upon the things they were taught by the Holy Spirit, the LORD’S chosen apostles, and their appointed elders & ministers? We accept their testimony on every other tenet of faith, but when we approach the issue of singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, we often look at other sources than the testimony they gave. What does the practices of 1st century Jews have to do with what we were taught by the LORD through His apostles? If we are taught by them to “sing,” then there is no need to frame the issue in some other way. I know it’s not exactly as simple as that….it is a huge issue for many believers. But the best place to start is the Scripture itself, not looking at the practices of the 1st century synagogue in order to support some pet doctrine.
Don, There are several church of Christ congregations that now have instrument accompanied services. It defies the English language (and the Greek by the way), and human logic to say those folks who attend those services are not singing. That appears to be your line of reasoning.
Jay, A couple of observations. Yes, a cappella is thriving quite well at our congregation as a beloved tradition. Long ago we stopped teaching the Bible demands it. It doesn’t. We love the beauty of it and I think that in most cases it is superior to instrumental accompaniment in worship because usually the instruments are way too loud and drown out the vocals.
The very idea that a person who has mastered a violin for instance is forbidden by God to use that beautiful sound to glorify God is a very strange way to look at things in my view.
As for Ferguson, I too think he is a great scholar. I only disagree with his conclusion on this topic of IM. No person reached the conclusion that it is sinful and wrong to have instruments accompany singing in the Christian assembly. I have talked to a lot of people who say so but yet have not had one produce any logical evidence, just from the Bible.
Listening to the sermon this morning, I thought about this particular post… Regarding Jesus and the crowds.. Some wanted to see miracles, Jesus healed.. Some wanted the food…Jesus fed them…Some wanted the teaching, Jesus taught.. Some had cast aside God, and Jesus went to them… Not so sure about all the complaining about whether a church is entertainment or a “first century duplicate.” Pretty clear to me that none of us is Jesus and to the degree that we can get sinners to join us and let God work His will in them…that good things will happen…Otherwise, we must insist that each one that comes must understand and interpret the Bible as we do, act as we do, sing as we do, pray as we do…. Jesus never required that..Should we ?
How does a COC determine the acceptance of a second service with instruments beforehand? Could the members be polled to
gauge interest or is it just left up to leadership to make the decision and move forward?
However that group chooses
Royce, Jay, et al…
I am NOT trying to just follow the party line of the church of Christ or RM doctrine…only the teachings of our LORD that He has revealed through His inspired word. However, I am NOT of the persuasion that casts everyone into the pit and covers them with brimstone because they use an instrument to make beautiful music while worshiping the LORD. But for me, the issue is not about whether worship is pleasing to my ears or not. What is important to me is “what does God require of me?” Is my worship of Him genuine, heartfelt, and not just some imitation of what He wanted?
I perceive that the issue found in Ephesians 5:19 has nothing to do with examining every jot and tittle associated with psallo, nor with imitating what one believes was practiced by the Jews in the synagogue years ago. Verse eighteen of Paul’s epistle says, “be filled with the Spirit.” That, it seems to me, indicates that it is the Holy Spirit who is responsible for giving a person of faith the heartfelt condition that causes them to sing with melody in their heart. Verse nineteen makes it clear that this heartfelt expression is for the benefit of those gathered in fellowship and is directed to the LORD. He wants all believers to possess that condition and to share the joy. Since it is the Spirit of God who leads in this situation, I do not see why anyone would need an instrument at all. It does not improve upon what has been placed there by the Spirit, so why even use one?
I’m not trying to persuade anyone here to follow what I’m saying. I respect our differences of opinion on this issue. I just wanted to present an observation on why the doctrine relating to unaccompanied song worship is a “safe” approach and does not require support from extra-biblical sources.
If Ferguson’s argument is that their is a “pattern” based on 1st century synagogue practices, then I think he is trying to justify his position by going outside the Bible. And I don’t think that is necessary.
“18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;” (Ephesians 5:18-19)
“15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also you are called in one body; and be you thankful. 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.” (Colossians 3:15-16)
Sorry, Jay. I did not mean to take over your site. I really enjoyed the article and await your following thoughts about Ferguson’s book.
Your assumption is that a Spirit filled Christian can’t play an instrument?
Don,
No need to apologize. Ferguson takes up Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 in his book, and so I’ll be addressing those passages in due course. I don’t know whether Ferguson addresses the “safe” approach question, however. The idea that some interpretations might be safer than others, based on which interpretations are closest to the Regulative Principle is an approach that deeply concerns me, however.
The question of what is “safe” presupposes a God who allows his children to be in danger, not because their hearts are wrong or rebellious (which is very unsafe) but because they’ve not managed to discover John Calvin’s Regulative Principle or have discovered it but applied it imprecisely.
You see, the idea that we need authority to worship God the right way only goes back to about 1500. You find no such argument in the early church fathers, even those rejecting the instrument. They did so for very, very different reasons.
Safety is found in the oft-repeated promise of God to save those with faith in Jesus. “Faith,” in my view, includes faithfulness or loyalty, but faithfulness is a state of the heart, not an attainment of the intellect. That is, God saves the circumcised and the uncircumcised, those who honor the Sabbath and those who do not, so long as they have faithful hearts prompted by faith in Jesus.
That hardly means that God has no position on circumcision or the Sabbath, but that he saves based on our faith, not the expertise with which we sort out secondary doctrines.
Leaning on Jesus,
Leaning on Jesus,
Safe and secure from all alarms,
Leaning on Jesus,
Leaning on Jesus,
Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.
We should take our hymns seriously. We don’t lean on ourselves. Rather, Jesus holds us up — because none of us is able to support himself in the presence of God.
PS — Consider the history of the 20th Century Churches of Christ. We divided over and over — very often with the more conservative side arguing for the “safe” position. Some argued that it was safer to use one cup, safer to refuse support for orphans from the church treasury, safer not to build fellowship halls, etc.
But by being safe, we divided — which is sin. Arguments premised on safety tend to divide, because they suppose that we must separate ourselves from those who are unsafe — because isn’t that the safest thing? And we “safe” ourselves right into division, which is a very dangerous sin.
You see, Jesus addressed safety in the Parable of the Talents. The man who feared his master so much that he did the safe thing — not investing his money — was damned. This was an age when investing even with the money lenders involved considerable risk. And so I worry greatly about an institutional mindset where our driving motivation is a fear of God that drives us to have a spirit of timidity.
(Rom 8:15 ESV) For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
Why does Paul say that we need not fall back into fear? Because we’ve received the Spirit who puts us in “Abba” relationship with God. God is our Father, loves us, and isn’t looking for foot faults by which to damn us. Rather, he is willing to die to save us.
Should we therefore want to obey? Desperately. Should we make every effort to understand his will so that we please him? Urgently. Will our mistakes regarding fellowship halls, instruments, and such like damn us? Of course, not.
Does that mean we can be callous and ignore God’s will? Of course, not, but neither does it mean that we must adopt positions out of fear that we might be wrong. Rather, we adopt whatever position we think is right, prayerfully, obediently, faithfully, studiously, without fear or timidity, knowing that Jesus will hold us up in the end. We are thereby freed from fear.
We really should be more concerned about our lives outside the assembly being conducted in a fashion that worships God, and that is undeniably seen as worship by the men of world around us. As for singing you cannot find a directive in the New Testament specifying that the singing of psalms or songs is an act that was to be performed only in assemblies of Christians as we view it today. There are several occasions where Christians were singing in small groups, in the garden with Jesus, and a duet in prison Paul and Silas. Don’t misunderstand, I do not intend to oppose singing in the assemblies, but if we attempt to apply CENI as the guide you cannot provide an example, and I do not see how necessary inference provides the authority either. An assembly of Christians just to study or even just to fellowship with one another is no less of serving our savior than what some see as containing all the acts service does.
“What does the practices of 1st century Jews have to do with what we were taught by the LORD through His apostles?” Er, I seem to remember that the Lord and his apostles WERE 1st century Jews. At least the Twelve were…
That reality aside, I find early church practice interesting, but cannot for the life of me find God telling anyone to freeze it in time and never change it. There was a history of change surrounding the time of Jesus, and the early church (read “messianic Jews”) was smack in the middle of it. Converting practices of that day into a new set of stone tablets is a much, much later invention on our part.
Charles, try telling that to most cofC congregations who believe they are to recreate the 1st century church 100%.
Also, there 167 hours in the week when I would hope a Christian demonstrates his or her faith by acting ethical, being good, not defrauding a payer, etc. sadly, the evidence do being a good Christian is in attendance at church, not anything else done during the week.
Jay,
Thanks for your reasoned reply. I can appreciate your arguments about “safe” not always being what pleases the LORD. My comments were not meant to say we should be timid in our approach to the faith. What I am talking about is a matter of adding to and taking away. Presumptuous approaches to worship are not what pleases the LORD, and I’m somewhat certain that “will” worship is forbidden. But all I was saying is that under the biblical instruction to not add to or take away from the teachings of the LORD, it seems “safe” to maintain an approach to worship that is based on what the Scripture actually reveals and not just our own tastes. But so much about this issue is characterized by dogma…like trying to beat a square peg into a round hole. It’s often quite fruitless. But let me conclude, that I found your comments (in response to me, and in your 2nd article) to be very interesting, and they provide plenty of food for thought.
Charles,
I only meant the practices of the Jews who were still in Judaism, not in the church!
It’s a difficult assignment to prove a point when you start with the conclusion. There is no evidence I am aware of that the Christian assembly was patterned after the synagogue. If the synagogue is our model preaching would be wrong too. At least the way we do it.
I wonder why people of good will are not content to leave some things in the category “tradition” and leave it at that? I love a cappella singing, at church and away. My wife has been singing with choruses and quartets all her adult life. To make the way we sing a fellowship boundary is wrong and sinful. If I exclude others because of singing, communion, and a host of other things, I am excluding many people who are much better Christians than I am.
The only thing that would be better than this, is being in a room with you guys debating IM. now that would be fun 🙂
Royce,
The idea of never using tradition (but strange proof texting) as a justification is part of the dogma of the cofC. Nevermind that they have traditions, most will never admit they use tradition. Too many sermons have been preached on the evils of tradition, as though it is a damning sin. Sadly, the exclusion of others has become common place and has led to people being pitted against each other.
What is CENI? I feel like I should know this acronym, but it is a bit “inside baseball” for me.
Command
Example
Necessary Inference
At least as far I have been told
I think we have gotten into such a habit of drawing bright transitional lines across history– which lines are great for sermon outlines but little else– that we lose our grasp on things like the nature of the early church, whose Jews never “left Judaism” at all. Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, would have been horrified at such a suggestion. In the mind of a Jewish believer, what could possibly be more Jewish than receiving the Messiah? It took ten years for them to realize that anyone else could possibly do it! Being free from the Law did not make Jews into non-Jews. They were not grafted in– we were.
Charles,
I know there are some messianic jewish synagogues which are probably pretty close to what was going on in the first century.