The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Regulative Principle and Psalm 149-150

The choir director tells the choir dudes how to properly play their instruments. So if we take instruments out of this equation, the choir dudes will have nothing to play on and the choir director will have no job! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" /> ...Its all part of fine algebra...

This entire line of argumentation is based upon 1) Choir members are defined as those who play instruments. And 2), The principles of the worship of God are restricted and defined by that which was done after the construction of the Temple.

I believe neither is defensible. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Well, I suppose it all depends on what sort of "choir" we're talking about. Usually a "choir" is a group of singers.

Hey, this is coming from a guy who played Tuba for years and still plays the fiddle to this day...so I love instrumental music! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I think a more specific argument against musical instruments in worship is this:

First, it wasn't an incidental in the Old Covenant worship. This is an important point. Rather, it was an explicitly commanded practice, and it was a restricted practice (only certain people were permitted to play the specified classes of instruments commanded). Here's the proof of this:

2 Chronicles 29:25-27 "And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. (26) And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. (27) And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel."

Notice that God has specific commandments that He gave through His prophets pertaining to instruments as they relate to His worship. Now, since God doesn't make superfluous commands, we must conclude that instruments weren't incidentals or mere circumstances from God's perspective (or why would He care enough to make specific commands?). So that's point one: they weren't incidentals or mere circumstances of worship in the Old Covenant. In my opinion, that should make us wonder why they would be mere circumstances in worship today (especially if God is immutable).

With that in mind, it is also interesting to note to whom God gave the responsibility to play the instruments in worship. Rather than being an incidental, the playing of specific instruments was required in the Old Testament as a part of the Levitical office. Notice, the Levites were the ones who were to play these instruments for worship. Now, no sound Protestant thinks that the office of the Levitical priesthood continues today. Sure, we believe in the priesthood of believers, but that is a different thing altogether than suggesting that we can or ought to outwardly do what the Levites did (literally perform animal sacrifices, burn incense in worship, play instruments, etc.).

So, now that it seems reasonable to conclude that the playing of musical instruments in worship is not an incidental and that it was a commanded function of the Levitical priesthood, the question becomes this: why should we treat the playing of musical instruments in the worship of God any differently than any other official function of the abolished Levitical Priesthood such as sacrificing, burnt offerings, etc.?

If we have no specific warrant from the New Testament to demonstrate God's will that they were to be reinstituted, then they ought to be eliminated from worship on the same grounds that all other Levitical functions were gotten rid of. (This is all supposing the Regulative Principle is a good principle to work with.)

This is why the early church and most reformers chucked instruments. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Do you really want to impose this idea upon the people of God as a principle of worship? I mean do you REALLY want to do this? Did not the Levites teach the people of God? (e.g., Deut 24:8; 27:9, 14; et al) Did not the Levites have charge over the money, etc., which the people of God brought before the Lord [cf. Deaconal duties] (cf. 1Chron 9:26; 26:20)? Did not the Levites sing in their official capacity in the worship of God? (e.g., 1Chron 9:33; 15:16, 19, 22, 27; 2Chron 5:12)? Did not the Levites also judge among the people? [cf. counsel and discipline] (e.g., 1Chron 23:4) Well, I think these few items are enough to demonstrate that IF one where to be consistent with this particular "regulative principle", then there would be no legitimate reason to institute teaching, deaconal work, counsel or discipline nor singing today in the Church. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Yes, but why stop there? I read that the Levites were officially commanded to minister in an edifice constructed for the purpose (Exodus 26), with untrimmed facial hair (Leviticus 19:27), having washed their hands and feet in water (Exodus 30:19), wearing linen undergarments (Exodus 28:42). I guess that means we must not enter church buildings, sport beards, take showers, or wear underwear on the Lord's Day...

But Paul, where does it say that those things mentioned were restricted to the Lord's Day? Having no precedence for the restriction of those things to a day, that would of necessity mean that they would be abolished for everyday of the week. But I'm sure that some Pharisee would redefine what facial hair is, a church building is, the definition of a shower and what constitutes the material called linen as well as what one should consider to be underwear. (cf. Calvin's Institutes BOOK III CHAPTER 19 SECTION 7) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />



In His grace,

Howdy Pilgrim!

Notice that each of the functions of the Levitical Priesthood that you just mentioned are also reinstituted in the New Covenant worship.

-teaching,
-singing,
-taking charge of the money,
-counsel and discipline,
-etc.

Each of these are plainly done in New Testament worship. Instrumental accompaniment in worship was *not* done (in fact, it wasn't done in worship until 700+ years after the apostles).

Now, what about these functions that aren't reinstituted in the New Testament:

-Make atonement for himself and the people (Lev. 16:24)
-Offering sacrifices (Leviticus 1:4-17)
-Keep a sacred fire always burning (Lev. 6:12-13)
etc.

Clearly, there are some things the Levites did that we continue to do, and some things they did that we don't continue to do. My suggestion is this: since the priesthood has been abolished (better: fulfilled) in Christ, the assumption needs to be that what the Levitical priests did is done away with, too (they played, after all, a central part in the abolished ceremonial law and worship of the Old Testament). The only exceptions would be those functions of the Levites that have been reinstituted in the New Covenant worship.

John

Hi Paul!

As far as the passages you brought up, here goes:

First, as far as the Levites having to worship in a structure constructed for the purpose (Exodus 26), that wasn't peculiar to the Levites. The whole congregation of Israel was to come to that structure to worship, too. So, that doesn't seem to be peculiar to the Levites.

Second, Leviticus 19:27 is addressed to "all the congregation of the children of Israel". See verse 1. This is hardly a unique command to the Levites pertaining to worship. As you know, the regular ceremonial law was abolished (this command included) and we are no longer bound to it. So, yes, we can trim the corners of our beard. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Third, as far as Exodus 30:19 is concerned, there is a difference between washing as a religious ritual and washing to maintain hygiene. It would be sinful to wash as a religious ritual before coming to worship. That is abolished.

Fourth, as far as Exodus 28:42 is concerned, my understanding is that the underwear (as you can tell from the context) was simply a component part of the sacred outfit the Levites were to wear. Since sacred outfits were not reinstituted in the New Covenant, it would be sinful for us to think we must dress in some special garb for corporate worship. This is especially the case for ministers wearing fancy, sacred robes, etc. (see the Catholic Church for a church that hasn't gotten rid of the Levitical priesthood). Hey, perhaps this is where the Mormons get their sacred underwear?

Hope that helps! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

jmp,

And just how do you KNOW that no instruments were used in the worship of God until 700+ years after the apostles? Do we have extant records of all that was done in the Church by all peoples from the time of the Apostles onward?

And your answer contradicts your original statement where you wrote:

If ALL that pertained to the Levitical Priesthood was abolished, then it cannot be "re-established". If you want to use that principle then ALL that has been abolished in the Old Testament administration of the covenant can be re-instituted, then it is theoretically possible that anything can be done today if one wants to twist the Scriptures and find a re-establishment for it.

The Reformers and Puritans weren't correct in everything, in case you didn't realize that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> And their idea of a "strict" Regulative Principle was errant, IMHO. The administration of the new covenant introduced much more freedom as well as depth to the worship of God, based upon the principles set down by God in the old administration. If God desired to be worshiped with musical accompaniment and so ordered that it be done in the old administration. How much more would He not want those living in the fulness of the new administration to do likewise?

Lastly, where is it written that beards, the wearing of linen under garments and bathing have been re-instituted? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

I suppose we don't have extent records of all that was done in the early church, Pilgrim, but I didn't realize the bar was raised that high in the study of history. If we must know every single thing that happened in the past to draw reliable historical conclusions, we might as well eliminate history departments at universities around the world. That said, here are some accounts of the early church and instruments from people other than those who hold the anti-instrument position (as far as I recall, none of these people hold the same position that I'm suggesting is biblical):

(btw - I'm not trying to be obnoxious by quoting as many people as I can, nor am I saying that this proves the reformed position concerning instruments - I'm only responding to Pilgrim's claim that we don't know instruments weren't used in worship in the early church)...

Here goes:

"After the most diligent inquire concerning the time when instrumental music had admission into the ecclesiastical service, there is reason to conclude, that, before the reign of Constantine, ;is the converts to the Christian religion were subject to frequent persecution and disturbance in their devotion, the rise of instruments could hardly have been allowed: and by all that can be collected from the writings of the primitive Christians, they seem never to have been admitted." (Charles Burney, A general history of Music, 1957, p. 426)

"Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe about 670 but the earliest trustworthy account is that of one sent as a present by the Greek emperor Constantine Copronymus to Pepin, king of Franks in 755" (American Encyclopedia, Volume 12, p. 688)

"For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any instrumental or harmonic addition was the only music used in connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant…. The church has never encouraged and at most only tolerated the use of instruments. She enjoins in the 'Caeremonials Episcoporum', - that permission for their use should first be obtained from the ordinary. She holds up as her ideal the unaccompanied chant, and polyphonic, a-capella style. The Sistene Chapel has not even an organ."" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 657-688.)

"The organ is said to have been first introduced into church music by Pop Vitalian in 666. In 757, a great organ was sent as a present to Pepin by the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine, and placed in the church St. Corneille as Compiegne." (Chambers Encyclopedia, Vol 7, p. 112)

"While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were anitphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal" (Edward Dickinson, History of Music, p. 54)

"This species. which is the most natural, is to be considered to have existed before any other... Instrumental music is also of very ancient date, its invention being ascribed to Tubal, the sixth descendant from Cain. The instrumental music was not practiced by the primitive Christians, but was an aid to devotion of later times, is evident from church history. (Fessenden's Encyclopedia of Art and Music, p. 852)

"The early Christians refused to have anything to do with the instrumental music which they might have inherited from the ancient world." (Theodore Finney, A History of Music, 1947, p. 43)

"At first the church music was simple, artless, recitative. But rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art. Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularization of church music. More lasting was the opposition to the introduction of instrumental music." (John Kurtz, Lutheran Scholar, Church History, Vol 1, p. 376)

"All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church, but they are chary with mention of any other manifestations of musical art . . . The development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church." (Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization, p. 53-54)

"The use of organs in churches is ascribed to Pope Vitalian (657-672). Constantine Copronymos sent an organ with other presents to King Pepin of France in 767. Charlemagne received one as a present from the Caliph Haroun al Rashid, and had it put up in the cathedral of Aixia-Chapelle... The attitude of the churches toward the organ varies. It shared, to some extent, the fate of images, except that it never was an object of worship... The Greek church disapproved 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." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4, pg. 439.)

"It is questionable whether, as used in the New Testament, 'psallo' means more than to sing . . . The absence of instrumental music from the church for some centuries after the apostles and the sentiment regarding it which pervades the writing, the fathers are unaccountable, if in the apostolic church such music was used" (Schaff-Herzog, Vol. 3, p. 961).

"David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes. We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it...
'Praise the Lord with harp.' Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument is like the human voice." (Charles Spurgeon (Baptist), Commentary on Psalm 42.)

Oops, I did include one person who was against instruments in the above set of quotes...Spurgeon. Sorry.

Pilgrim, you said the following:

"If God desired to be worshiped with musical accompaniment and so ordered that it be done in the old administration. How much more would He not want those living in the fulness of the new administration to do likewise?"

Now, how about I say the same thing you did, and substitute sacrifice for musicial accomaniment. You'll see you're reasoning is way off base.

"If God desired to be worshiped with [sacrifices) and so ordered that it be done in the old administration. How much more would He not want those living in the fulness of the new administration to do likewise?"

That line of reasoning simply doesn't work. And, yes, I know the reformers weren't right about everything. I'm positive of it. There are many things I'm doubtful of that they believed, and some of their commentaries aren't even good in my opinion. But so what?

Two more things (sorry):

First: You said, "Lastly, where is it written that beards, the wearing of linen under garments and bathing have been re-instituted?"

They weren't, but they didn't need to be. Wearing of beards wasn't peculiar to the Levites nor was it a part of worship. Accordingly, no regulative principle applies to it, and - just as eating pork - it has become an indifferent matter now.

You can probably figure out what I think of the underwear comment in my earlier post talking about underwear, too. Wearing underwear is indifferent (though much more comfortable <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ). Wearing special underwear as a part of a special religious outfit for the purpose of worship is not indifferent, and is - in fact - sinful and superstitious.

Second: The office of the Levitical Priesthood is abolished and all that was pertinent to it. If something is reinstuted for some other purpose than the typical function the Levite, then it is irrelevant if we call it a "reinstitution" of a practice, or a new institution of a practice for a different purpose. It isn't a contradiction, it is a simple fact. Old Covenant worship is out, New Covenant worship is in. If we do something today that they did then, it isn't because they did it then, but because it was instituted in the New Covenant.

Take care! Perhaps you'll fix me. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

John

jmp, the fact is that there is no direct testimony in the NT that instruments should or should not be used in worship. As to your OT references I will simply remind you that Jesus (the LORD of the Sabbath, Mark 2:27-28) is GREATER than the Temple (Matt 12:6) and that He superseded the OT institution of worship and rendered its rituals obsolete. Jesus himself broke many of the rules of the Sabbath as developed by the Pharisees (Mark 7:1-23, Matt 6:5-8, etc.). In each of these instances Christ exhibits His lordship over the Sabbath. TMK He still rules and instituted no set rules for instruments.

Simply, there is no law that states we should or should not use instruments. As far as your history lesson you had better do some more review: Constantine the Great (A.D. 278-337) instituted the use of bells; Paulinus (353-431), bishop of Nola in Campania, Italy, is alleged to have introduced the first tower bell toward the close of the fourth century-to be rung as a summons to worship; in the 4th century AD, monk vocalizations predating Gregorian chanting were used in worship services in the Christian Church. The harp became a preferred instrument for accompaniment for the monks' voices; bells are frequently mentioned in the writings of French clerics during the 6th century, including an account by St. Gregory, bishop of Tours (573-595), referring to their various liturgical uses; and St. Patrick (c. 389-446) is credited with introducing handbells to Ireland around 432, etc. In addition, it should be noted that substantial arguments have been made that instruments were not used in the early church due to the Church's initial persecution. It would be a “dead” give away if you were seen walking to the catacombs with a harp, et. al. We need not speak of the expense of the musical instruments, but it play a part in the early church lack of instruments as well.

Moreover when it comes to regulative worship there is again no biblical command for everything that goes on in the Worship Service. As it states in Reformed Worship (by David Engelsma, Barry Gritters, and Charles Terpstra, published by RFPA);

However, Engelsma goes further and states;

Thus, if one is dogmatic in a position for or against instruments in worship, he has not a biblical/historical leg to stand on. God has allowed us some latitude in the elements of worship.