Questions From Correspondence (Part 2)

Singing and Instruments of Music

A second question in the written correspondence I recently received involved the use of instrumental music in worship. Because so few in our current society actually forego their use in worship, they fail to grasp the principles taught in Hebrews 7:13-14 or Colossians 3:17. Therefore, the only way to get them to see the truth is to state again the Biblical principles that God gave us and at the same time show why their own reasoning trying to justify them is not valid.

The first argument is that, although the New Testament does not authorize the use of musical instruments, "it does not really discuss the point either way." That's not exactly correct. It does discuss singing and enjoins Christians to sing. It does not discuss accompanying that singing with musical accompaniment. The next argument will say that they were used in the Old Testament, and we will show why that argument does not hold momentarily, but since the Jews were accustomed to using instruments under the Old Covenant, then it is even more significant to notice their abrupt cessation. What kind of explanation is there for their sudden non-use, except that they were not authorized? The correspondent suggests another reason for their absence:

Paul spent so many years traveling and in prison. His praise and worship were not by rational thinking in the proximity to such things as musical instruments; so, he does not discuss them.

Obviously, many considerations were not taken into account to make this statement. First of all, Paul is not the only apostle. He does not come along until well after the establishment of the church. Peter and the other apostles preached, and people obeyed the gospel on the Day of Pentecost. About 3,000 were baptized that day, and the church was established (Acts 2:41, 47). It continued to grow and multiply (Acts 6:1). These descriptions are long before Saul of Tarsus was converted (Acts 9, 22).

Even after the persecution began, the apostles remained in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). Nothing is said about the church in Jerusalem using instruments of music in worship. Nothing is mentioned of their use in Samaria (Acts 8). Furthermore, although it is true that Paul did a great deal of traveling (three missionary journeys) and spent time in prison, the places where the church was established did not go wandering around. But nothing is said of any of the congregations that were established anywhere using musical accompaniment. True, it may not be stated either way, but when a reference is made it is to singing only, and no references are made to the use of mechanical instruments of music whatsoever. How can a complete absence of something not be noteworthy?

However, two of the verses that mention singing were written by Paul to churches. He wrote:

Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord (Eph. 5:19).

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 (Col. 3:16).

Notice the emphasis on content rather than on performance. Speaking to one another is involved, as is teaching and admonishing. These are things that words accomplish—not musical instruments. Notice where the melody is made—not on pipes or strings—but in the heart. It is singing that is commanded, is it not? Can anyone imagine that in Ephesus, after reading Paul's admonition here, some brethren said, "I think we ought to get a new set of drums to provide the beat for our singing"? Would those in Colosse conclude that they needed to purchase some new lyres?

Consider all the instruments listed in the book of Daniel that were available more than 500 years before the birth of Jesus? Listed are "the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery in symphony with all kinds of music" (3:15). Congregations could have had all of these, and Paul could have taken a flute with him in his travels, had he so desired. Why didn't they have these musical instruments in the worship of the churches in Jerusalem, Ephesus (where Paul spent three years), or Colosse? Or anywhere else?

It should be obvious that it is by design. Did the apostles never give instructions concerning worship after Jesus had made it plain that "the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him" (John 4:23)? We know, in fact, that the three thousand who were baptized on Pentecost "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). Their teaching must have been convincing; as a result, no church anywhere in the world used instruments of music in worship.

We do not find a single command to use them. Not one church sets the example of using them in worship. No one can find a single implication that they ought to be used. These are the three ways something is authorized; therefore, no authority exists for Christians to use instruments of music in worship. And they were not—for 1,000 years, according to history. All that is needed is one verse that indicates otherwise, but no one—despite diligent searching—has ever found or called our attention to that verse. The reason is that God never authorized their use in Christian worship.

The Old Testament and Revelation

A second rationale is often supplied to justify instruments to accompanying singing. They were used in the Old Testament and in Revelation. First of all, this is an admission that they were not used in New Testament churches. Here, then, is the argument: "However, the Old Testament and Revelation describe the trumpet and other percussive instruments."

First of all, no one denies that instruments were used in Old testament worship. Consider 2 Chronicles 29:25, which describes what King Hezekiah did:

And he stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets.

Therefore, to observe that musical instruments were used in Old Testament worship is accurate. However, what is striking about the verse? David commanded it. Gad, the king's seer, commanded it. Nathan the prophet commanded it. Ultimately, the Lord commanded it. In other words, the use of instrumental music was authorized, authorized, authorized, authorized. But where is the commandment and the authorization for it under the new covenant? God goes to great lengths to show authority for it under the old covenant—but He utters not a word in favor of it in the new!

Showing its approval under the old covenant, however, proves nothing because Christians do not live and worship under the old; we are under the new. The writer of Hebrews pointed this out concerning Jesus.

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which is established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second (8:6-7).

Jesus took that first covenant "out of the way, having nailed it to His cross" (Col. 2:14). We no longer offer animal sacrifices (Lev. 1-5); we do not keep the Sabbath day which was part of the Law of Moses (Ex. 20:8); we do not keep Israel's dietary laws (Acts 10:10-16); we do not keep the annual Passover feast or the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16); and we do not worship with instruments. All of these are part of a covenant that God replaced by the New Testament of Jesus.

Concerning what is described in Revelation, we can only say this: If heaven has literal instruments of music, and if the saints are singing with them, then they will do so by the authority of God Almighty, but even if all that were true, it would still not authorize the use of instruments of music on earth under our current covenant. Since heaven is a spiritual place, however, will there actually be physical, musical instruments there?

One more point should be made concerning an appeal to the Law of Moses. Paul answered this objection in Galatians 5:1-4. If anyone appeals to the Law as authority for us in the Christian age, then he must accept everything that the law teaches. "And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law" (Gal. 5:3). All of it! Has anyone ever worked on the Sabbath day? He is worthy of being put to death, then. That's what the Law of Moses says (Num. 15:32-36).

Furthermore, those who appeal to the Law of Moses for authority "have become estranged from Christ" and "fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4). Does anyone love the use of instrumental music so much that he is willing to pay this high of a price to use it? Hopefully, the answer is no.

Authorization Versus Condemnation

The last argument is another one frequently offered: "Nowhere does the New Testament condemn the use of instruments of music or instruct against or for." This is true but irrelevant. The New Testament does not specifically condemn a number of things, such as rosary beads, the celebration of Christmas or Easter, the establishment of dioceses, church councils, or even a pope. The New Testament does not condemn polygamy, rape, or incest, either, specifically (although they are probably included in the word fornication).

The question is not, "What does God forbid or condemn?" The appropriate question is, "What does God authorize?" No condemnation for polygamy needs to be given since Jesus cites as valid today God's ideal plan for marriage in Matthew 19:3-9. When we see that brethren met on the first day of the week in the New Testament (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2), we don't have to also be instructed that the Sabbath day is no longer in effect. In other words, when we are taught what is required of us today, we do not similarly need to be instructed regarding what is not required.

When all the references we find pertaining to the Christian system enjoin singing, we do not need to be also told that instrumental music cannot be used. Colossians 3:17 tells us that we need authority for what we do. "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God our Father through Him." We have authority in a few verses to sing; we have no authority to add instruments to our singing.

Under the Old Covenant, God specified that the Levites were to be priests. Jeroboam made priests of other tribes (1 Kings 12:31), but he did so without the approval of God. God did not need to forbid that twelve other tribes could not be priests—no; He only needed to specify which one could be priests. God Himself makes this argument in Hebrews 7:14 in explaining that Jesus could not be our high priest while He lived under the Law of Moses. He was from the tribe of Judah, concerning which Moses said nothing—that is, God had not authorized anyone from Judah to be a priest.

The Lord did not need to say (specifically) that no one from Judah could be a priest. He condemned the idea by specifying or authorizing the Levites for that work. God had to change the law (the covenant) in order for His own Son to become high priest. Therefore, when God specifies singing under the Christian covenant, He does not also have to rule out the use of instruments of music, yodeling, whistling, humming, or thumping on a table top. We all should be thoroughly satisfied to sing.