• Home
  
  
• Origins of IFBs
  
  
• About Me
  
  
• Whats New?
  
  
• Articles by Topic
  
  
• IFB Church Directory
  
  
• Links
  
  
• Comments
  
• Email Me

Should the New Testament Church use Instrumental Music in Worship?

by Larry Harriman

It may suprise the reader to know that there is not one mention of any specific instrument being used in a New Testament Church in the Bible. It may be inferred by some words that are used in the New Testament, and this is one of many debatable areas we will address concerning instrumental music in the church.

Another interesting thing I found in studying and researching for this topic was that the majority of articles I pulled up on this subject were against instrumental music in worship. Most of these articles are either produced by the Churches of Christ or Primitive Baptist Churches. These two denominations take great offense and believe it is a great sin for Christians to worship God with instruments, only the human voice can be offered up in praise to God in their view.

I also found that the early church fathers as well as the majority of the church were in opposition to instrumental worship (including most Baptist churches) all the way up to the late 1800s. One of my heroes of the faith, Charles Spurgeon, was against instrumental worship as well.

So if all these great thinkers were against instrumental music, and if the New Testament says nothing specifically about any instrument being used, does that not settle it? Shouldn't we sell our pianos, organs, flutes and horns and take the stand they did against instrumental music? I don't think so.

The questions we must ask are these:
Could the early fathers have been wrong on their views of instrumental music? Could this error have been kept all throughout the church all the way up to the late 1800s? Could even great Christian thinkers be deceived by their own prejudices and traditions? What does the New Testament really say about instrumental music? These and many other questions I will seek to answer in this article.

"His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute."
Genesis 4:21

According to the scriptures a man name Jubal was the father of music. From the harp and flute instrumental music expanded to at least 8 distinct instruments we can see in the Old Testament later on. These included the tambourine,pipe,flute,dulcimers,harp,lyre,cymbals and the horn.

It is interesting to note there are no restrictions placed on instrumental music even up to and including the giving of the Mosaic Law. It is not until centuries later that David, acting under the inspiration of God, gives new rules regarding the playing of instruments.

In 1 Chronicles 16.4-6 and 1 Chronicles 25 David says that in the Temple only certain Levites could play on only these 4 instruments: the harp,the lyre, the cymbals and the horn (or trumpet). It is never said why the other instruments(tambourine,pipe,flute,dulcimers) cannot be used in the Temple.

If some were to try and take this as a way to preclude certain instruments from New Testament worship today they would be standing on shaky ground, for who comes up with the list (for instance only piano and organ). This distinction between instruments is never explained in the Old Testament and certainly is never carried forward to New Testament worship.

As I stated in the introduction there are no New Testament passages which show New Testament churches using specific instruments in their worship. Whether it is implied or not is another discussion we will get into. There are however some New Testament passages that show instruments in heaven being used to worship God - these passages are:

"And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps."
Revelation 14:2

"I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God's wrath is completed. And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: 'Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages'."
Revelation 15:1-3

So definitely we see harps being used by the saints in worship God in heaven. A question at this point to those who oppose instrumental music in worship would be why does God allow this by the saints in heaven, but not by the saints on earth?

Why are trumpets used to usher in the Second Coming coming of Christ in passages such as Matthew 24:31, 1 Corinthians 15:52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16 yet they cannot be used to worship that same Christ anytime before that?

Paul did give instructions on singing and these passages have been used by some even to this day to conclude that instrumental music cannot be used to worship God in the New Testament today. Here are the passages:

"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms[Gr. psalmos], hymns[Gr.humnos] and spiritual songs. Sing[Gr. psallo] and make music[Gr. psallo] in your heart to the Lord,"
Ephesians 5:18-19

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms[Gr. psalmos], hymns[Gr.humnos] and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God."
Colossians 3:16

"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn[Gr. psalmos] , or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church."
1 Corinthians 14:26

At this point, the keen observer may note that Paul never forbids instrumentation in worship, he simply does not specifically mention it. Those who oppose instrumental music based on these passages do so by what they call "The Law of Exclusion". The Law of Exclusion simply stated is that in religious practice, we must have Bible Authority (a command) for everything we do and any practice not Authorized (commanded) in the Bible is a sin.

An Biblical example in this view, can be a command, if it is performed by an Apostle or other believer and the Bible cast the example in a positive light.

This method of application is used more or less consistently among est most fundamentalists, especially Baptists although there are many different variations on the rule. In the future I would like to devote an article to this subject of interpretation and application of scripture.

Advocates of this method of interpretation and application are quick to point to the Old Testament where God was very specific with how the tabernacle was to be set up and a favorite instance they use is when God commanded Noah to build the ark out of gopher wood. They contend then that this then excluded every other kind if wood including oak, walnut, pine and such. At this point we would agree with them and then they drive us into the music area and say since Paul command us to sing and never said anything about instruments this excludes instruments from worship.

They say phrases such as "make music in your heart" from Ephesians 5:19 specifically means we can have no mechanical accompaniment with our music.

So how are we to answer these brothers in the Lord? First off lets just for sake of conversation assume at this point that there is no inference in these passages to instrumental worship. Even so at this point the command to sing does not exclude instrumental accompaniment.

Lets look at this example of Noah being commanded by God to use Gopher wood(Genesis 6:14). In this example, as in the example of the temple - these were not general commands. God did not just say, build an ark Noah. He was very specific down to the smallest detail. God did not just tell the Israelites to build a Tabernacle. He was very specific as to how this tabernacle should be built down to the smallest details. Sometimes God is very specific on some things, and when he is we must adhere down to the smallest detail.

In the New Testament, Paul gets very specific on subjects such as the qualifications of Pastors and Deacons, he is very specific on the husband wife relationship and divorce. He is very specific on the practice of Tongues. Christ is very specific in the Gospels as to how to discipline a brother in sin and Paul continues to exhort the churches to discipline disobedient brothers. In cases like these this law of exclusion could readily apply.

At other times more general commands are given, and in these we are given liberty as to how to fulfill those commands. This liberty ,however, is not boundless, for we can do nothing that conflicts with other commands when fulfilling certain general commands.

In the above passages, Paul is not addressing how to conduct official worship in the assembly. He is speaking of every day life actions, for we should worship God at all times, not just in the assembly. I think it speaks volumes that Paul never gave any order of service. He left this to the individual churches.

You can see throughout Paul's epistles, a restraint on himself to "not go beyond what is written"(1 Corinthians 4:6). This is where pride and division takes place in our churches, when we go beyond what is written. This is what is at the heart of so many divisions within Christianity. Many have attempted to take Paul's statement in I Corinthians 4:6 and turn it around as a restraint on Christianity in such things as the law of exclusion, instead of what Paul meant it for - freedom. As Paul said, "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."(2 Corinthians 3:6).

Paul was not getting into the smallest detail of worship, just as he did not give an order of service. He was giving a general command regarding worship, mainly that we as Christians should worship God at all the times, and worship is a wonderful way to teach one another about God. He was not giving this as a manual down to the smallest detail of how we are to worship.

In the last section we said just for sake of conversation we would assume at that point that there is no inference in these passages to instrumental worship. In this next section I will demonstrate to you that there are indeed inferences to instrumental worship. There are three Greek words from these passages that we want to examine - psalmos, psallo and humnos:

psalmos
"primarily denoted 'a striking or twitching with the fingers (on musical strings);' then, 'a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm.'"
- Vines Bible Dictionary

psallo
"primarily 'to twitch, twang,' then, 'to play a stringed instrument with the fingers,' and hence, in the Sept., 'to sing with a harp, sing psalms,'"
- Vines Bible Dictionary

humnos
"denotes 'a song of praise addressed to God'"
- Vines Bible Dictionary
"a song in tithe praise of gods, heroes, conquerors"
-Smith's Bible Dictionary

A psalm originally meant music that was either completely instrumental or music that had singing and instruments. A hymn is simply a song of praise, in this case of song of praise to our God - does not denote instruments specifically, but does not preclude them either.

It must also be remembered that the Greek word psalmos was used to refer directly to the book of Psalms in the Old Testament. Why is this important? Because there are literally hundreds of references, whether in instructions for how the psalm should be played , or the actual verses themselves to instrumental worship.

Those who oppose instrumental music in the church do so on the basis that psalmos could only mean singing so we must assume the most conservative definition when seeing it in the text. The problem is, Paul in two passages goes on to distinguish between three types of sound praise, hymns (which could be only singing),psalms (which most of the time involved instruments) and spiritual songs - psalms here is included in my belief to denote instrumental music.

The other argument by opponents of instrumental music in worship, is that if psalms does mean instrumental music, then all Christians would have to play an instrument. Again this argument is faulty when compared with the scriptures when we understand that we do not all have the same gifts and abilities and God does not expect us all to be able to do the same things.

I think an especially compelling case for the word psalms meaning singing and instrumental music is when it is used 1 Corinthians 14:26. In this passage Paul does not use the three part method of describing worship (hymns, psalms and spiritual songs) that he did in Ephesians 5:18-19 and Colossians 3:16. Instead he just uses the term psalms to describe all the music(vocal and instrumental) in the church.

So at this point I think it can be easily demonstrated that the law exclusion does not apply in this case, for these are general commands about worship and not meant to specifically exclude other methods of worship including the use of instrumental music. Even if someone could find a way to apply the law of exclusion here, the Greek words psalmos and psallo would punch another hole in their argument. Finally they have to answer how God can be worshiped in heaven with instruments but not on earth. Their case is on such shaky ground at this point to be almost completely without merit.

In writing this paper, I did a lot of research on the first few hundred years of the New Testament church and can see no mention of instruments being used in worship during their services. But really as you study the apostolic church, they did not really have "services" in the sense of how we have them today. They many times met in someone's home where the elder(Pastor) would read the scriptures and perhaps sing a hymn or psalm. They had communion together and fellowshiped together. I don't see one ounce of formality, whether it be order of service or how they dressed in the apostolic church.

But we come back to the question - why is there no mention of instruments in the apostolic church (first hundred years or so)? I believe based upon my own examination that it was because the church was under intense persecution from its very beginning. It would be very dangerous to play instruments that would bring attention to the area you worshiped. Singing hymns silently together would be safer and I think that is the way it was done.

But instead of it just being the practice because of persecution, some fathers took it upon themselves to make it the practice because of conviction. I believe these early church fathers while sincere, were wrong to draw such conclusions the New Testament never does. The error of the early fathers in this area of music (as well as many other errors) stayed in and continues to stay in many churches to this day.

Take for instance Clement of Alexandria:

"Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ."
- Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130

And here is Augustine speaking of instruments:

"musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship."
- Augustine 354 A.D.- describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius

The famous Catholic Philospher,Thomas Aquinas, wrote in the 13th century:

"Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize."
- Thomas Aquinas, Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137

It must be understood that in most of these cases of the fathers they were writing these things at least 100 years from the start of the New Testament Church. It must also be understood that they are speculating why the early church did not use instruments. To the best of my knowledge from studying this, no Apostle is quoted by a father opposing instrumental music. Even if such a quote could be produced, it would not carry the weight of the inspired scriptures.

While Thomas Aquinas was not an early father, he does reflect the notions of many early church fathers. It is unfortunate that even contemporaries of the Apostles not long after their deaths became very hostile to those who still practiced Judaism. A rift formed between Jewish and Gentile Christians which led many in the first few centuries of the church to say that Jews were cursed and the church completely replaced Israel. Here are some quotes to illustrate my point:

We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.

The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.

-Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)

We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.

-Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.)

I believe based on the quotes I supplied, as well as countless others I have read that the Anti-Judaism of many of the early fathers played a part in influencing the non-instrumental position. They wanted nothing to do with the worship methods of the Old Testament, as it was too Jewish for them.

I think it will be beneficial to see the rift between these two believers when it came to instruments in the church. Luther allowed for instruments although at times he made statements against the organ (because of its close association with Rome) but never forbade it to be used. Calvin, on the other hand, was a radical opponent of all instruments in worship and encouraged his followers to destroy them in their churches.

Before I give my quote from Luther on Music, I want to dispel the myth that Luther opposed instrumental music in the church. The following quote is given in many articles to support the position that Luther opposed instruments in worship in the church:

"An organ in the worship of God is an ensign of Baal"
(McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 8, page 739).

The fact is there is no evidence from the Lutheran history that the Lutheran church ever abandoned the use of the organ or any other instruments. Look at these quotes by historians below to prove my point:

"With the whole Eastern Church barring the church organ, the Church of Rome officially reflecting on its abuse, Luther only lukewarm to it, Calvin objecting to it and many good Anglican dignitaries doing the same, it will be seen that at this period the instrument was under a cloud. —Percy A. Scholes (scholar and author), The Puritans and Music (1934).

"The use of organs is ascribed to Pope Vitalian (657-672). Constantine Copronymos sent an organ with other presents to King Pepin of France in 767.... The attitude of the churches towards the organ varies. It shared to some extent the fate of images, except that it never was an object of worship.... The Greek church disapproves the use of organs. The Latin church introduced it pretty generally, but not without the protest of eminent men, so that even in the Council of Trent a motion was made, though not carried, to prohibit the organ at least in the mass. The Lutheran church retained, the Calvinistic churches rejected it, especially in Switzerland and Scotland; but in recent times the opposition has largely ceased." —Philip Schaff (professor, Union Theological Seminary, New York; Presbyterian Church, USA), History of the Christian Church (1885)."

Certainly Luther may not have like the association of the organ with the Roman Catholic church, but he never forbad its use or encouraged his churches to get rid of their organs. One other quote regarding the introduction of Lutheranism into Basle is interesting:

Gradually he [Simon Sulzer] introduced more and more of Lutheranism into Basle. Thus he introduced lay-baptism, a distinctively Lutheran custom and not at all Reformed. He also introduced communion of the sick, which many of the Reformed, especially in Switzerland, opposed at that time. On Palm Sunday, 1558, he introduced four-part music in the cathedral at Passion week and had the organ played, assisted by flute and kettle-drum. All this was regarded with suspicion by the Reformed. For, although Basle, had...kept up singing since the reformation, four-part music instead of singing in one part was an innovation, as was the use of the organ, which had been closed up to that time.
—James I. Good (minister and professor, Reformed Church [German], US), History of the Swiss Reformed Church Since the Reformation (1913).

Now lets consider some of Luther's words regarding music in this light:

Music is an outstanding gift of God and next to theology. I would not give up my slight knowledge of music for a great consideration. And youth should be taught this art; for it makes fine skillful people (W-T 3, No. 3815).

Nor am I at all of the opinion that all the arts are to be overthrown and cast aside by the Gospel, as some superspiritual people protest; but I would gladly see all the arts, especially music, in the service of Him who has given and created them (W 35, 474).

And now look at the stark contrast of Calvin's words:

"Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?"
(John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)

The difference between these two men could be summarized in the following two statements:

Luther believed that whatever is not contrary to the scriptures is permitted. If it is not expressly forbidden by the scriptures any practice is acceptable, this was the Christian's freedom in his opinion.

Calvin, on the other hand, believed the church only had authority to do what was expressly commanded. If it was not commanded, it cannot be done. This greatly affected their views on liturgy and the order of service. Calvins views were then passed down to his followers in the Presbyterian and Puritan(Churches of Christ) churches.

So the Spiritual descendents of Calvin looked on their Lutheran brethren as not being fully consistent with their shared belief in Sola Scriptura or the Scripture alone. The funny thing is, the Baptists then looked on Calvin and Luther's followers as not being completely consistent with Sola Scriptura.

Before I conclude this article I just want to give some brief points of interest as to how instruments made their way into the church.

The harp was used by monks in monasteries very early in the church to accompany their chants. The harp was one of only a few instruments permitted in the early church. The rattles, drum and horn were believed to be the devil's instruments. It was sometime in the fifth century that a Papal Music School was established in Ireland where the harp was taught.

History tells us that somewhere between the mid 7th and mid 8th century A.D. the organ was introduced into the church but became more prominent during the 10th century. It was not without its critics as can be seen from the quote we gave from Thomas Aquinas. By the 15th century, organs were all throughout Europe in monasteries and cathedrals.

In America, the cello, flute, clarinet, bassoon, and violin all started being used in worship during the late 1700's. These changes did not come without much controversy. Baptist churches and many other churches had splits and divisions over the new use of instruments in services. Many Baptist churches rejected the practice for well over a hundred years until most incorporated instruments by the turn of the 20th century.

Charles Spurgeon was one of the last hold-outs, following the teachings of his beloved John Calvin whom he admired so much. He opposed instruments in his church to the very end of his ministry.

The organ was well entrenched in Baptist Churches (and most Protestant Churches) by the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century the piano was introduced into churches by musical evangelists like Charles M. Alexander.

The piano and the organ became the standard instruments in most churches until the late 1960's where a limited number of churches began to incorporate guitars, saxophones and drums into their regular worship.

With the explosion of the Christian Contemporary Music Movement, many more churches in the 1980's and 1990's began to incorporate electric keyboards, guitars and drums into their worship services. Many churches in effort to not offend older membership began having separate worship services, one for the older and one for the younger members. Others have opted for what is called a "blended worship" approach in which traditional hymns and some of the more conservative CCM music is used in worship.

As we previously stated, the law of exclusion does not apply to these passage we have discussed. Paul exhorting us to sing and make melody does not exclude instruments from worship as it is a general command and not a specific manual on worship. The Greek words psalmos and psallo are also very damaging to such a shaking case as there original meaning had to do with playing instruments, even if later the words could also denote singing. The players in heaven on the Harps that we saw in Revelation is another blow to the non-instrumentalists case.

Were the church fathers wrong in the case of music as they were in other doctrinal areas? Absolutely! The Apostles were fighting against error creeping into the church while they were still alive, why would we be so shocked that it poured in like a flood right after their deaths? Even one of my heroes, Charles Spurgeon was deceived by this because of not being critical enough of Calvin and Augustine.

It is interesting to note that most attackers of using instruments in church will briefly address the scriptures - misapply their rule of exclusion, and then spend the majority of their articles quoting church fathers and historians about the non-instrumental position. The reason is they know that standing on their interpretation of the scriptures alone, they have a very shaky case, and really if truth be told, no case at all.

In closing I want to quote from the Book of Psalms, one of the passages Paul gave us in Ephesians about worship, and a passage from Revelation:

"3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, 4 praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, 5 praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals."
Psalms 150:3-5

"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms[Gr. psalmos], hymns[Gr.humnos] and spiritual songs. Sing[Gr. psallo] and make music[Gr. psallo] in your heart to the Lord,"
Ephesians 5:18-19

"I saw in heaven another great and marvelous sign: seven angels with the seven last plagues–last, because with them God's wrath is completed. And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: 'Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty. Just and true are your ways, King of the ages'."
Revelation 15:1-3

All we need to do is compare scripture with scripture, and the evidence is right in front our face. God was worshiped with instruments in the Old Testament, we have the freedom in Christ to worship him with instruments now, and we will one day worship him with instruments in heaven - praise the Lord!

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.