What May Be Observed From the Law?

Despite the fact that no authority exists to use instruments of music in worship during the Christian era, some keep trying to justify their use. Over the past 150 years, some of the wildest and most illogical schemes have been concocted in an effort to do what some are going to do regardless. Every sort of argument has been offered and defeated, but it has never caused the losers to abandon their "idol." Recently, someone posted a few points he would like to debate, but they do not resemble any legitimate or practical debate proposition. Rather they are the ramblings of a meandering mind who possesses just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Below is the first sentence.

If following the Law of Moses, of one's own free will, were not sinful, and if musical instruments were part of the Old Testament System, in how God was worshipped at the Temple of God at Jerusalem from the time of King David, then would it have been sinful to use musical instruments in worship at the Temple?

First of all, the writer of this sentence assumes that Christians could follow the Law of Moses of their own free will, and it would not be sinful. So, where is the proof of this statement? It is true that they could do so in matters of no consequence. For example, those who live under the New Testament (including former Jews) have God's authority to eat of every beast of the earth (Acts 10:10-16). However, some who had been brought up all of their lives to avoid certain meats might feel awkward in eating what was once forbidden. They could still choose to abstain from that food, but they could not require anyone else to do the same (whether Jew or Gentile).

The same thing applies to observing the Sabbath day. Christians have never been required to do what Moses commanded Israel. However, if a Jewish Christian desired to do no work on that day, it was his right to abstain. The law which forbade working on the Sabbath had been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So, it became a matter of personal preference rather than a legal dictum. Once again, the Jewish Christian had no right, however, to bully anyone else into obeying what God no longer commanded.

Here is the point at which the question cited above makes a false assumption. Since a few things that were part of the Law were now optional under the New Covenant, the querist assumes that any practice under the Law became optional, which is totally false. Consider some other situations. Since incense was used in the temple, a Jewish Christian could bring incense into the worship of Christians. Since polygamy was allowed under the Law, a Jewish Christian could take several wives. Since, under the Law, it was commanded to put to death adulterers and homosexuals, Christians can participate in killing them, also.

See how quickly this all gets out of hand? For that reason, the principle stated in the question can only apply to matters of indifference. Jewish Christians could eat meat or not eat meat. They could circumcise their children or not circumcise their children. It was up to them. But in the Christian system, no one authorized the use of incense. Lacking authority, then, it cannot be considered a matter of indifference.

Jesus returned mankind to God's original intent on marriage and divorce. Polygamy is not, therefore, a viable option. Laws about putting Israelites to death for being immoral are not part of the Christian system. Just because all these things were required under the Law and the people observed them at that time cannot constitute authority for Christians. Today, the fact that some things in the Law became optional does not mean everything is.

Could instrumental music be used under the Old Covenant? Yes. Was it authorized? Yes (2 Chron. 29:25). Could Christians partake in Jewish worship with instruments under the New Covenant? No. Why not? Why would a Christian desire to partake in any kind of temple worship after the cross? Sure, Paul could go to a synagogue in order to reach the Jews, but they did not use instruments of music. Christians would not be participating in anything that had to do with the temple. Why would any Christian desire to have fellowship with a system of religion that was no longer valid?

So, while it was not sinful for Jews to use instrumental music under the Old Covenant (since God authorized it), it does become sinful to do so under the New Covenant because God has not authorized it. Have we not learned the lesson God gave us concerning doing that which is not authorized? Nadab and Abihu offered profane fire which God "had not commanded them" (Lev. 10:1-2). Instead of making specious and convoluted arguments that have no merit, why not just stick to the Biblical principles clearly set forth? Christians do not teach or practice what God has not authorized us to do. He has not authorized Christians to use instruments of music in worship.

But even if God had allowed Jewish Christians in the first century to engage in temple worship, how would that apply to anyone today? Such would have occurred only 40 years before the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. Then where would such an argument get anyone?

Furthermore, this argument has to do only with Jews born under one covenant and made Christians under another covenant. How many such people are alive today? Zero. Even if one tried to apply it to Jews being converted today, how would that justify instrumental music for everyone? It would not.

Proof?

The rest of the would-be debater's arguments from his first two points use the same kind of erroneous logic as already discussed. He makes a rather presumptuous statement at the end of number 1: "The removal of the Old Testament Law proves that musical instruments are not necessary in New Testament Worship but not sinful." The removal of the Old Testament Law proves no such thing. What the removal of the Law (Col. 2:14) proves is that we are no longer under its authority, period. The eradication of that Law says not one word about the Covenant we are now under.

In the New Covenant, God might have authorized instruments of music, had He so desired. He could have authorized the use of incense, if it had been His will. The fact that the Old Law was nailed to the cross says nothing about the New Covenant—except that the Old was not sufficient (in certain aspects)—or it would not have been replaced (Heb. 8:6-7). The only way to know anything about the New Covenant is to read it and see what it authorizes.

Ephesians 5:19

What does the New Testament authorize? This brings us to the third point that this anonymous individual wants to debate. He writes:

Eph. 5:19 is not teaching "singing" without the use of musical instruments; but it is teaching that as we sing praises to the Lord, we should be controlled by the Spirit of God, and we should have thankfulness in our hearts, which is what is meant by "making melody in our heart" when compared with Col. 3:16.

Where is the proof that Ephesians 5:19 is not teaching singing without the use of instruments? Are we supposed to agree just because this fellow makes assertions—without any evidence to back it up? Can a verse only teach one truth at a time? We do need to be filled with the Spirit (v. 18), which means we will do only what the Spirit teaches, which is to sing—yes, to sing words. No mention is made of instruments of music because we do not teach with sounds—but rather with words.

The person making this argument should not have mentioned Colossians 3:16. Yes, it too emphasizes what is in our hearts as we sing, but: 1) it also mentions words (as opposed to instruments of music) by which we teach and admonish one another; 2) and the very next verse states the authority principle: "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." Is the mention of singing just accidentally connected to the need for authority for what we teach and practice? Or did the Holy Spirit put these two verses together intentionally? In either case, the Holy Spirit authorized singing (with words as communication) but did not authorize accompaniment.

If these two verses were all we had regarding singing, they would be sufficient because Paul is talking about worship directed to God but which edifies one another. He does not specify whether this worship is public (in the assembly) or private (outside the assembly, as at a Bible camp or with a group of Christians in someone's home). But the singing is directed to God and therefore constitutes worship. How can the absence of the mention of musical instruments not be significant? Only singing is authorized.

But other passages do mention singing. Jesus and His apostles sang a hymn on the way out to the Mount of Olives (Matt. 26:30). No guitar accompanying them can be found in the text. Paul and Silas sang at midnight (Acts 16:25). No mention is made of Silas playing the harmonica. No New Testament writers describe Christians meeting at any time or any place and singing with instruments. No verse authorizes it, period. The would-be debater has no case.

Hebrews 2:12

The final point is really the same as the one made in the last "argument." Our misguided friend writes:

Heb. 2:12. The context shows that this Scripture in Ps. 22:22 was being used to prove that Jesus is our brother, for He shared in our "flesh and blood" and not that the use of instruments in New Testament worship were sinful. It is not a sing versus play passage.

Once again, it must be asked: "Can a Scripture contain only one truth?" If so, where is the proof of such an assertion? There can be none, and none is offered. The first half of the paragraph above is true, as regarding the purpose for quoting Psalm 22. But how does the "debater" know that the verse has nothing to do with worship? And what exactly is a "sing versus play" passage?

Does he expect to find a verse in the New Testament that says, "Sing, but don't play"? He will not find it stated in those terms any more than he can find one that says, "Marry, but don't practice polygamy." God authorized what He desires to have. No one will find a "no incense" verse, either. He does not need to spell out everything He does not want if He simply specifies what He is looking for. Therefore, God did not have to put in "sing versus play" when every verse that mentions singing omits any mention of playing instruments of music. God has shown us how this authority principle works—if Christians would just pay attention to it.

The fact is that God did not authorize instruments accompanying the singing in the New Testament. Its absence is conspicuous. If proponents of its use had a single verse authorizing it in our worship, they would proudly trot it forth. Why don't they do so? They know nothing corroborates their use, but instead of recognizing God's authority, they make up vain arguments that do not establish their case.