PDA

View Full Version : Non-instrumental churches



Pages : [1] 2

Hburgpreacher
Oct 6th 2007, 10:31 AM
Let me preface this thread with a love-filled introduction. I have a deep respect for my brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ (non-instrumental). We have way more in common doctrinally than we do in contrast. I am a member of the Indepedent Christian church. I am not raising this question to attack anyone, but merely to open a dialogue of understanding in regards to beliefs.

I've often thought it to be a shame that it seems to me that the major difference keeping the Independent Christian church and the Church of Christ divided is the issue of instruments in worship. I understand the Church of Christ reasoning that they will not do anything that they cannot find authority given for in the scripture.

However, I also think of the example of David, a man after God's own heart, who wrote music, played instruments, and even danced before the Lord in worship. If we can agree that all scripture is God-breathed and given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, help me understand how instrumentation in worship is forbidden in light of Psalm 150 which reads:

Psalm 150, "Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
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. 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD."

I know this is an Old Testament passage and the Church of Christ looks for authority in the New Testament. However, the line of reasoning that says, "if the Bible doesn't mention it happening in the New Testament then we won't do it either" eliminates a lot of things.

I believe that the use of instruments in worship was established in the Old Testament by men of God and, although Jesus didn't specifically say that we should use instruments in worship, it is never stated that it was inappropriate.

Again, please do not take this as an attack. I simply want to gain an increased understanding of Church of Christ beliefs.

Frances
Oct 6th 2007, 06:14 PM
Not knowing anything of either church you mention I cannot comment on them, but regarding instruments in worship - they can be sensitively used and are then an aid to worship, however I have been in churches where the impression is more of a concert than worship . . . and the worst ones have an enthusiastic drummer bashing away !!! .

enarchay
Oct 6th 2007, 06:25 PM
I don't know much about the churches you mentioned, but I think the problem with all churches is that in modern society many different people prefer many different types of music. I can't get into worshiping the Lord if I hate the style of the music I'm supposed to be worshipping along with. The problem is, if a church played the music I liked, others may not like it.

TrustGzus
Oct 6th 2007, 07:30 PM
Christians need to form their view of music and instruments from Scripture, i.e. Christians need to form a systematic theology about music - a musicology.

There are 380 verses in the Bible that speak to the issue of music - 340 in the Old Testament, 40 in the New Testament. None of them forbid any instrument or style of music. I'm sure the musicians of the Old Testament played with lots of enthusiasm.

I used to be part of a Christian heavy metal band. Nothing in the Bible forbids that. In fact, we just played a reunion last night for a high school youth group.

Everybody has styles they prefer. That's fine. What Christians must not do is force their preferences (or their anti-preferences) on others. I think its a good thing to check out styles we don't like and talk to those who do like them and thank God for musicians that can reach people that our music cannot.

AlainaJ
Oct 6th 2007, 08:07 PM
Christians need to form their view of music and instruments from Scripture, i.e. Christians need to form a systematic theology about music - a musicology.

There are 380 verses in the Bible that speak to the issue of music - 340 in the Old Testament, 40 in the New Testament. None of them forbid any instrument or style of music. I'm sure the musicians of the Old Testament played with lots of enthusiasm.

I used to be part of a Christian heavy metal band. Nothing in the Bible forbids that. In fact, we just played a reunion last night for a high school youth group.

Everybody has styles they prefer. That's fine. What Christians must not do is force their preferences (or their anti-preferences) on others. I think its a good thing to check out styles we don't like and talk to those who do like them and thank God for musicians that can reach people that our music cannot.

I agree- I also think the Holy Spirit will lead people to differrent styles of music to worship to- just like cars, some of us might prefer red and others blue.:)

Personally I think music is one issue the devil loves to use to divide Christians and laughs at us, as we bicker over it.:)

Tit.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5268432)
[15] Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.God Bless

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 12:30 AM
Christians need to form their view of music and instruments from Scripture, i.e. Christians need to form a systematic theology about music - a musicology.

There are 380 verses in the Bible that speak to the issue of music - 340 in the Old Testament, 40 in the New Testament. None of them forbid any instrument or style of music. I'm sure the musicians of the Old Testament played with lots of enthusiasm.

I used to be part of a Christian heavy metal band. Nothing in the Bible forbids that. In fact, we just played a reunion last night for a high school youth group.

Everybody has styles they prefer. That's fine. What Christians must not do is force their preferences (or their anti-preferences) on others. I think its a good thing to check out styles we don't like and talk to those who do like them and thank God for musicians that can reach people that our music cannot.

AMEN!!! Very good points.

Matt14
Oct 7th 2007, 01:18 AM
Let me preface this thread with a love-filled introduction. I have a deep respect for my brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ (non-instrumental). We have way more in common doctrinally than we do in contrast. I am a member of the Indepedent Christian church. I am not raising this question to attack anyone, but merely to open a dialogue of understanding in regards to beliefs.

I've often thought it to be a shame that it seems to me that the major difference keeping the Independent Christian church and the Church of Christ divided is the issue of instruments in worship. I understand the Church of Christ reasoning that they will not do anything that they cannot find authority given for in the scripture.

However, I also think of the example of David, a man after God's own heart, who wrote music, played instruments, and even danced before the Lord in worship. If we can agree that all scripture is God-breathed and given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, help me understand how instrumentation in worship is forbidden in light of Psalm 150 which reads:

Psalm 150, "Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
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. 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD."

I know this is an Old Testament passage and the Church of Christ looks for authority in the New Testament. However, the line of reasoning that says, "if the Bible doesn't mention it happening in the New Testament then we won't do it either" eliminates a lot of things.

I believe that the use of instruments in worship was established in the Old Testament by men of God and, although Jesus didn't specifically say that we should use instruments in worship, it is never stated that it was inappropriate.

Again, please do not take this as an attack. I simply want to gain an increased understanding of Church of Christ beliefs.

The same reasoning that you use to defend the necessity of baptism is the same reasoning you would use to understand why the churches of Christ do not use instrumental music.

We understand the thief was saved without baptism because he lived under a different covenant.

Likewise, we understand that what David did cannot be an example for us because he lived under a different covenant. David was also bound by the Law of Moses.

If we did everything David did, what else would we be missing?

God bless, brother.

Steven3
Oct 7th 2007, 04:52 AM
Just a note that it's not just the OT, the NT also recommends the use of instruments - look up PSALLW in a concordance ;) "sing and make melody"

Though music can get out of hand "I will sing with my emotion, but I will also sing with my brain" (which is what Paul in 1Co14 is actually saying to the Corinthians).

God bless :)
Steven

godsgirl
Oct 7th 2007, 12:11 PM
actually, I don't see any reason not to use instraments if you want to-or to worship only with your voice if you would like. All ways and always praise HIM.

skc53
Oct 8th 2007, 10:00 PM
I see nothing wrong with using instruments in church. I think it adds something to the worship service.;):pray:

Matt14
Oct 8th 2007, 11:42 PM
I see nothing wrong with using instruments in church. I think it adds something to the worship service.;):pray:
I agree that it adds something. ;)

What do you think it adds?

amazzin
Oct 8th 2007, 11:47 PM
The same reasoning that you use to defend the necessity of baptism is the same reasoning you would use to understand why the churches of Christ do not use instrumental music.

We understand the thief was saved without baptism because he lived under a different covenant.

Likewise, we understand that what David did cannot be an example for us because he lived under a different covenant. David was also bound by the Law of Moses.

If we did everything David did, what else would we be missing?

God bless, brother.

Wow, that is totally a wrong exogesis of the Bible. The Psalm clearly states PRAISE HIM WITH.... you may think it is Davidic but in reality it is a Psalm that encourages us to express ourselves towards God. Do you, by virtue of your salvation experience, now throw out the OT?

jeffreys
Oct 9th 2007, 01:12 AM
Hey "Hburpreacher", I too pastor an independent Christian Church - the "middle of the road" in the Restoration Movement Churches. I love it.

While I understand, and can appreciate, where the non-instrumentalists come from, I simply don't agree.

With all due respect, I think they're study of the Word sometimes includes a lot of foregone conclusions. Ephesians 5:19, for instance, is often used as "proof" that God forbids the use of musical instruments in Worship. But the word used there - psalmos - is actually defined as a song accompanied by a stringed instrument.

There are a LOT of things we all do, that are not expressly commanded in Scripture - particularly the New Testament. There is no New Testament mandate for Sunday Morning Worship Services, Pulpits, Pews, or even the use of Bibles. Where do we draw the line?


On the other hand, I believe they make some very good points about instrumental music that is "distracting". The playing of instruments, in my opinion, must always be done for the glory of God. They should assist us in singing, not drown us out (this includes pipe organs), and should always be an accompaniment, not a show.

jeffreys
Oct 9th 2007, 01:22 AM
The same reasoning that you use to defend the necessity of baptism is the same reasoning you would use to understand why the churches of Christ do not use instrumental music.

We understand the thief was saved without baptism because he lived under a different covenant.

Likewise, we understand that what David did cannot be an example for us because he lived under a different covenant. David was also bound by the Law of Moses.

If we did everything David did, what else would we be missing?

God bless, brother.

I've pondered the "separation from the Law" argument quite a bit. It's very legitimate, because we all wrestle with what parts of the Law carry over, and what parts do not. I certainly don't have any fail-safe answers.

But one thing I've realized is this: God allowed and accepted worship that was accompanied by instruments under the Old Covenant. We read of the use of instruments, in worship, in heaven in the book of Revelation. This leads me to wonder why God would forbid the use of instruments, in worship, just during the Christian dispensation. In other words, if it was okay "then" and it will be okay for all eternity, why is it not okay now?

skc53
Oct 9th 2007, 08:47 AM
I agree that it adds something. ;)

What do you think it adds?


I should have left out the word something. Singing and musical instruments just sound better together. I'm not much on acapella singing. Although sometimes when we sing a praise song the song director will have us sing it once acapella, and that's ok. We don't do that too often, we sing it with the instruments.;)

jeffreys
Oct 9th 2007, 01:21 PM
I should have left out the word something. Singing and musical instruments just sound better together. I'm not much on acapella singing. Although sometimes when we sing a praise song the song director will have us sing it once acapella, and that's ok. We don't do that too often, we sing it with the instruments.;)

The church I pastor has a rather contemporary style of worship. Our worship leader does a fantastic job of "leading worship" rather than "performing a concert" (and I think you know what I mean).

However, every time there's a 5 Sunday month, we have an all-old-hymns day on the 5th Sunday of that month. In September, we went all accappella with our hymns. No piano, no pitch-pipe, no nothing. Just the song leader and a mixed quartet leading. People loved it! But most important, I do believe God was blessed and pleased.

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 02:32 PM
Wow, that is totally a wrong exogesis of the Bible. The Psalm clearly states PRAISE HIM WITH.... you may think it is Davidic but in reality it is a Psalm that encourages us to express ourselves towards God. Do you, by virtue of your salvation experience, now throw out the OT?

Before shouting "wrong," perhaps it would be good to understand my position. :)

The New Testament teaches a clear division between two covenants: The Law of Moses, and the Law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). This New Covenant in Christ's blood (Luke 22:20). This New Covenant in Christ's blood was instituted upon Christ's death (Hebrews 9:15-17), and not before.

Therefore, understanding that we are under a new covenant, does it not make sense to go to the writings of the new covenant (NT) to understand how to live and worship in Christ?

If you agree that this is the case, and since the church is neither commanded nor given examples in the NT of the use of instruments in worship by early Christians, why would we want to add them?

That's my understanding. As awesome and holy as God is, I do not want to add a thing to His word that I am not positive from scriptures that He desires.

I hope this helps you understand better why I worship as I do.

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 02:39 PM
With all due respect, I think they're study of the Word sometimes includes a lot of foregone conclusions. Ephesians 5:19, for instance, is often used as "proof" that God forbids the use of musical instruments in Worship. But the word used there - psalmos - is actually defined as a song accompanied by a stringed instrument.

Hi jeffreys,

That is not exactly true. Strong's defines psalmos as:

G5568
ψαλμός
psalmos
psal-mos'
From G5567; a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument; a “psalm”); collectively the book of the Psalms: - psalm. Compare G5603.
\

Notice a psalmos is a piece of music accompanied by voice, harp or other instrument. Here Strong lists the human voice as an instrument.

In Eph. 5:19, Paul says we are to sing and make melody in our hearts. The instruments in question are not harps or other man-made instruments, but rather the God-made instruments of the voice and the heart!

God bless!

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 02:44 PM
I've pondered the "separation from the Law" argument quite a bit. It's very legitimate, because we all wrestle with what parts of the Law carry over, and what parts do not. I certainly don't have any fail-safe answers.

But one thing I've realized is this: God allowed and accepted worship that was accompanied by instruments under the Old Covenant. We read of the use of instruments, in worship, in heaven in the book of Revelation. This leads me to wonder why God would forbid the use of instruments, in worship, just during the Christian dispensation. In other words, if it was okay "then" and it will be okay for all eternity, why is it not okay now?

I understand your point. But remember, God also accepted worship that included sacrificing bulls and goats. We understand, though, that the Law is not our guide for worship today, so we don't do such things.

Also, Revelation is not a good source for how we worship, since it is filled to the brim with symbolism. We should note that the folks in Revelation worshiping in heaven are playing upon "harps of God," ie harps given them by God (Rev. 15:2). Have you and I been given "harps of God" here on earth? If not, do we have authorization to make our own?

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 02:46 PM
I should have left out the word something. Singing and musical instruments just sound better together. I'm not much on acapella singing. Although sometimes when we sing a praise song the song director will have us sing it once acapella, and that's ok. We don't do that too often, we sing it with the instruments.;)

Oh, okay, I see what you meant. :)

Which do you think is more important: How something sounds to man, or how something sounds to God?

Prezken
Oct 9th 2007, 04:09 PM
Are we not suppose to imitatate Christ?? Did not Christ partake of the biblical feasts? Most of the biblical feasts involve a lot of singing, a lot of music, and a lot of dancing....just food for thought ;)

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 04:15 PM
Are we not suppose to imitatate Christ?? Did not Christ partake of the biblical feasts? Most of the biblical feasts involve a lot of singing, a lot of music, and a lot of dancing....just food for thought ;)
Not sure about the dancing. ;)

If Jesus observed the Law Moses (He did), does that mean we should too?

Prezken
Oct 9th 2007, 05:23 PM
Not sure about the dancing. ;)

If Jesus observed the Law Moses (He did), does that mean we should too?

Oh yes, there is plenty of dancing, i've been to israel during the feasts before. You have never seen a celebration or true joy until you witness a jewish feast!!

Ast to observing the law, we should observe that which continued through the cross. By that I mean there were certain things that were finished at the cross...ie blood sacrifices, but the feasts and various other things were certainly not done away with in any form or fashion. People think the KJV is the inspired word of God that came down from Mt. Sinai and that just runs all over me. It bugs me how people claim that Acts 15 done away with the law, when the entire council was called for one purpose only....discussion of gentile adult circumcision. Most of the issues that we have in our churches and denominations would evaporate if people understood jewish concepts and studied the bible through a hebraic mindset.

KingFisher
Oct 9th 2007, 06:42 PM
I used to be part of a Christian heavy metal band.

I like what Psalms 98 says.

Particularly in the KJV

Psalm 98:4 Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.

"a loud noise" Well, don't get no louder than a screamin' guitar.

Also thanks for your input Matt.
I have never been exposed to those views. At this point I find them...
...well interesting.

KingFisher

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 07:39 PM
It bugs me how people claim that Acts 15 done away with the law, when the entire council was called for one purpose only....discussion of gentile adult circumcision.

Well, I hate to bug you further, but... :D

According to the scriptures, the reason Paul, Barnabas and others went from Antioch to Jerusalem was to discuss the issue of forcing the Gentiles to be circumcised:

Act 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

However, when they got to Jerusalem and were received by the church there, other men said something even further:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

So you see, it wasn't just circumcision, but also the rest of the Law of Moses as well. In fact, when Peter began speaking to this subject during this gathering, he said:

Act 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Was it the cutting of the foreskin while they were eight days old that Peter said they were not able to bear? No, of course not. It was the requirements of the Law.

So, I don't mean to bug you. But to be true to scriptures, we have to understand the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 had to do with the whole Law, not just circumcision.

God bless!

jeffreys
Oct 9th 2007, 07:51 PM
Hi jeffreys,

That is not exactly true. Strong's defines psalmos as:

G5568
ψαλμός
psalmos
psal-mos'
From G5567; a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument; a “psalm”); collectively the book of the Psalms: - psalm. Compare G5603.
\

Notice a psalmos is a piece of music accompanied by voice, harp or other instrument. Here Strong lists the human voice as an instrument.

In Eph. 5:19, Paul says we are to sing and make melody in our hearts. The instruments in question are not harps or other man-made instruments, but rather the God-made instruments of the voice and the heart!

God bless!

Correct. And I understand all that.

But why do the accappella brethren condone one "definition" and condemn the other? Both are equally valid. And to differentiate is to really be splitting hairs.

I'm also curious as to why this particular verse (Ephesians 5:19) is ever even used by the accappella brethren, since its context is not in reference to corporate worship, but rather to daily behavior.

jeffreys
Oct 9th 2007, 08:02 PM
I understand your point. But remember, God also accepted worship that included sacrificing bulls and goats. We understand, though, that the Law is not our guide for worship today, so we don't do such things.

Also, Revelation is not a good source for how we worship, since it is filled to the brim with symbolism. We should note that the folks in Revelation worshiping in heaven are playing upon "harps of God," ie harps given them by God (Rev. 15:2). Have you and I been given "harps of God" here on earth? If not, do we have authorization to make our own?

What I'm pointing out is the obvious "between the lines" acceptance - extended by God - of instruments.

1. God accepted fully worship that was accompanied by instruments in the Old Testament.
2. God never stated that He no longer wants or accepts that type of worship.
3. Symbolic or not (as you obviously know, the extent of symbolism in Revelation is a matter of constant debate), we see reference to instruments being used, in Heaven, in worship of God.


It is obvious why we no longer sacrifice bulls and goats today. It is because Jesus is "the Lamb of God", and any other sacrifice is totally unnecessary.

But worship is another thing altogether.

In fact, I wonder why there's such a prohibition against the use of instruments in worship- based on the absence of "authorization - when we see no New Testament authorization for singing in worship at all.


Basically, it seems to me that God has always been explicitly clear on what is, and is not, acceptable to Him. From my perspective, I can't see "the absence of authorization" as being equal to a prohibition.

I also want to note that I do not want to argue with you, brother. So I'm going to drop this here, unless there are some muddy points I made that you'd like me to clarify. Thanks! :)

Prezken
Oct 9th 2007, 08:43 PM
Well, I hate to bug you further, but... :D

So you see, it wasn't just circumcision, but also the rest of the Law of Moses as well. In fact, when Peter began speaking to this subject during this gathering, he said:

Act 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Was it the cutting of the foreskin while they were eight days old that Peter said they were not able to bear? No, of course not. It was the requirements of the Law.

So, I don't mean to bug you. But to be true to scriptures, we have to understand the meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 had to do with the whole Law, not just circumcision.

God bless!




I can see how you get your view from the above....so let me break everything down and hopefully it will shed some light on this subject for you and others who may be reading. First we must look at the root of the problem. Here is the circumcision command found in the Law of Moses:
LEVITICUS 12:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.' " Instead of this command from the Law of Moses, the Messianic Jews from Judea were apparently using the circumcision command for the Passover as the basis for their teaching:
EXODUS 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." Apparently, the position of these Jews was that a Gentile who wished to partake of Yeshua's sacrifice was the same as a "stranger" who anciently dwelled among Israel and desired to observe the Passover.

Ok, now we can see the problem. Now to delve further into the matter we need to understand how a biblical jewish council conducted business as well as a decent understanding of hebrew and jewish culture.




ACTS 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue [zetematos]. The word Issue is a very key word to understanding the rest of Acts 15. The Greek noun zetematos, translated "issue" above, is SINGULAR. This is important to recognize because it tells us that there was only ONE issue here – the necessity of circumcision for a Gentile to be saved and receive the covenant promises of Israel. There were no other topics being debated. This is a crucial point to comprehend if we are to truly grasp the reason for and the meaning of the decision rendered by James (Acts 15:19-21). Let's continue now.



ACTS 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." Having had both sides of the issue presented to them, the apostles and church elders assembled together to discuss the matter. Apparently both sides of the argument had supporters. After a heated discussion, the apostle Peter stood up and began to relate how Gentiles had originally been brought into the church.
ACTS 15:8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. We have to keep in mind that Peter's point here is directly related to the issue at hand – circumcision. Peter's point was that God gave Cornelius and his house the Holy Spirit without requiring them to first be circumcised. Now lets get to the biggie....:D


ACTS 15:10 "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke [zugon] on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear [[I]bastasai]?" By his question ("why do you test God?"), Peter rebuked those who wanted to require the circumcision of adult Gentile converts in order for them to become part of the covenant people of Israel. Since the ONE issue being discussed here was circumcision (NOT the entire Law of Moses), it was circumcision that Peter referred to as a "yoke." The word zugon ("yoke") literally referred to a piece of wood that fastened on the neck of a beast of burden. But here Peter uses it figuratively to refer to circumcision as something that was burdensome or difficult for the adult Gentile men to endure.

The final two Greek verbs in Peter's statement, ischusamen bastasai ("were able to bear"), are both in the aorist tense. In Greek, the aorist tense in all of its moods represents the action denoted by it simply as a one-time event. Obeying the law certainly doesn't fall under that category, therefore the only logical and plausible conclusion is they weren't talking about the law when mentioning this "yoke." Furthermore, the verb ischusamen comes from the root ischuo. The primary meaning of this word is: "to be strong or physically powerful". Peter's statement to the Council was intended to point out that the Pharisees were trying to lay a burden on the adult Gentiles that none of the Jews themselves would have been physically strong enough to endure. Just read Genesis 34:24-26 to see just how bad adult circumcision could be. Adult circumcision was never required of the Jewish disciples of Yeshua because they had been circumcised on the eighth day after their birth in accordance with the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:1-3). Peter's question in verse 10 is designed to cause the Jews advocating circumcision to put themselves in the Gentiles' place.

I hope this wasn't too long and boring for you, but I feel it's important to go past the english and delve deeper into the original language and culture to get a true understanding of what is going on. God Bless.

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 09:01 PM
Correct. And I understand all that.

But why do the accappella brethren condone one "definition" and condemn the other? Both are equally valid. And to differentiate is to really be splitting hairs.

Because we are without command or example when it comes to using instruments. Plus, I'm sure you are familiar with the historical background, how the early church did not use the instrument either.


I'm also curious as to why this particular verse (Ephesians 5:19) is ever even used by the accappella brethren, since its context is not in reference to corporate worship, but rather to daily behavior.

Is worship part of daily behavior?

Matt14
Oct 9th 2007, 09:03 PM
There are lots of things I would like to respond to immediately. However, I've got miles to go today before I sleep. ;)

Tomorrow, Lord willing, I wil respond to all posts directed toward me. Until then...

God bless!

Matt14
Oct 11th 2007, 03:48 PM
1. God accepted fully worship that was accompanied by instruments in the Old Testament.

...under a different covenant.


2. God never stated that He no longer wants or accepts that type of worship.

Does He have to say outright what He does not want in worship? Or does He only need to say what He does want in order to regulate worship?

If He listed ALL things He does not want in worship, the Book would be 100,000 pages or more!

It's like telling my daughter to go to the store to get a loaf of bread. She returns with a loaf of bread and three bananas. Did she faithfully execute my command?


3. Symbolic or not (as you obviously know, the extent of symbolism in Revelation is a matter of constant debate), we see reference to instruments being used, in Heaven, in worship of God.

Symbolism in some areas of Revelation may be debatable, but the passages in which the harps are being played before God are definitely symbolic. If you would like to see some sources on why this is so, I would be glad to present them.

And again, just because something is happening in heaven does not give the church on earth the right to do likewise.


It is obvious why we no longer sacrifice bulls and goats today. It is because Jesus is "the Lamb of God", and any other sacrifice is totally unnecessary.

But worship is another thing altogether.

We, as Christians under the New Covenant, are to worship in Spirit and in truth, John 4:24. The material worship tools of the Law of Moses, which are only types and shadows of the NT reality (Heb. 8:5), are gone away.


In fact, I wonder why there's such a prohibition against the use of instruments in worship- based on the absence of "authorization - when we see no New Testament authorization for singing in worship at all.

No New Testament authorization for singing in worship? I'm not sure how you can make that assertion, brother. :)

Was this a worship assembly?

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

When the first century Christians gathered, it was to teach and admonish one another, partake of the Lord's supper, give, and pray.

Now look at Colossians:

Col 3:16 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.

How can we teach and admonish one another by singing alone in our cars or homes? Do you not think Paul was referring to the times when the Christians gathered together for worship and fellowship? Of course, this seems to be the case.


Basically, it seems to me that God has always been explicitly clear on what is, and is not, acceptable to Him. From my perspective, I can't see "the absence of authorization" as being equal to a prohibition.

"Absence of authorization" is indeed a prohibition. Remember these guys?

Lev 10:1 Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.
Lev 10:2 So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Lev 10:3 And Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.' " So Aaron held his peace.

The fire Nadab and Abihu offered was not specifically prohibited, but it was not the manner of fire that God commanded.


I also want to note that I do not want to argue with you, brother. So I'm going to drop this here, unless there are some muddy points I made that you'd like me to clarify. Thanks! :)

Of course, no one wants to argue. I've considered the things you have said, and I hope you will give me likewise consideration. God bless you!

Matt14
Oct 11th 2007, 03:58 PM
I can see how you get your view from the above....so let me break everything down and hopefully it will shed some light on this subject for you and others who may be reading. First we must look at the root of the problem. Here is the circumcision command found in the Law of Moses:
LEVITICUS 12:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.' " Instead of this command from the Law of Moses, the Messianic Jews from Judea were apparently using the circumcision command for the Passover as the basis for their teaching:
EXODUS 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." Apparently, the position of these Jews was that a Gentile who wished to partake of Yeshua's sacrifice was the same as a "stranger" who anciently dwelled among Israel and desired to observe the Passover.

Ok, now we can see the problem. Now to delve further into the matter we need to understand how a biblical jewish council conducted business as well as a decent understanding of hebrew and jewish culture.




ACTS 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue [zetematos]. The word Issue is a very key word to understanding the rest of Acts 15. The Greek noun zetematos, translated "issue" above, is SINGULAR. This is important to recognize because it tells us that there was only ONE issue here – the necessity of circumcision for a Gentile to be saved and receive the covenant promises of Israel. There were no other topics being debated. This is a crucial point to comprehend if we are to truly grasp the reason for and the meaning of the decision rendered by James (Acts 15:19-21). Let's continue now.



ACTS 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." Having had both sides of the issue presented to them, the apostles and church elders assembled together to discuss the matter. Apparently both sides of the argument had supporters. After a heated discussion, the apostle Peter stood up and began to relate how Gentiles had originally been brought into the church.
ACTS 15:8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. We have to keep in mind that Peter's point here is directly related to the issue at hand – circumcision. Peter's point was that God gave Cornelius and his house the Holy Spirit without requiring them to first be circumcised. Now lets get to the biggie....:D


ACTS 15:10 "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke [zugon] on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear [[I]bastasai]?" By his question ("why do you test God?"), Peter rebuked those who wanted to require the circumcision of adult Gentile converts in order for them to become part of the covenant people of Israel. Since the ONE issue being discussed here was circumcision (NOT the entire Law of Moses), it was circumcision that Peter referred to as a "yoke." The word zugon ("yoke") literally referred to a piece of wood that fastened on the neck of a beast of burden. But here Peter uses it figuratively to refer to circumcision as something that was burdensome or difficult for the adult Gentile men to endure.

The final two Greek verbs in Peter's statement, ischusamen bastasai ("were able to bear"), are both in the aorist tense. In Greek, the aorist tense in all of its moods represents the action denoted by it simply as a one-time event. Obeying the law certainly doesn't fall under that category, therefore the only logical and plausible conclusion is they weren't talking about the law when mentioning this "yoke." Furthermore, the verb ischusamen comes from the root ischuo. The primary meaning of this word is: "to be strong or physically powerful". Peter's statement to the Council was intended to point out that the Pharisees were trying to lay a burden on the adult Gentiles that none of the Jews themselves would have been physically strong enough to endure. Just read Genesis 34:24-26 to see just how bad adult circumcision could be. Adult circumcision was never required of the Jewish disciples of Yeshua because they had been circumcised on the eighth day after their birth in accordance with the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:1-3). Peter's question in verse 10 is designed to cause the Jews advocating circumcision to put themselves in the Gentiles' place.

I hope this wasn't too long and boring for you, but I feel it's important to go past the english and delve deeper into the original language and culture to get a true understanding of what is going on. God Bless.


No, the length of the post does not bother me, nor does discussion of original languages, since I have a master's degree in Biblical studies, including training in Greek.

What bothers me is the way you avoided this passage:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Before the discussion began to take in place in Acts 15:6, another issue of obedience to the whole Law of Moses was added in 15:5.

It's really a cut and dried issue: The meeting was a discussion of whether or not Gentiles should be bound by the Law of Moses.

BTW, is this your website:

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/acts15.htm

Most of your post was cut-and-paste from this site.

God bless!

jeffreys
Oct 11th 2007, 11:14 PM
Matt14...

Simple question. Do you believe that instrumental music is a salvation issue? In other words, do you believe that people who use instruments in corporate worship will be condemned to hell?

Matt14
Oct 11th 2007, 11:42 PM
Matt14...

Simple question. Do you believe that instrumental music is a salvation issue? In other words, do you believe that people who use instruments in corporate worship will be condemned to hell?

You know, jeffreys, I think about that all the time.

I hope you know, as a brother in Christ, that I do not take this issue lightly, nor the implications of this issue.

But, what sort of disobedience is not a salvation issue?

I am so thankful to my God that He has not placed me or any other man in the position to have to make those judgments on that great day.

However, since I fear God (and I am not implying that you do not), I am afraid to teach anything other than what I find in the New Testament, for fear that my teaching may condemn someone else! Remember James 3:1?

Jas 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

If I teach something not found in God's word, do you see how I might bring judgment not only upon those I lead astray, but also upon myself?

How could I in good conscience teach another man to use instruments in worship, if there is no example, neither in scripture nor in history of its use by the early church?

In the end, the question you present is much like that "do you REALLY believe you have to be baptized in order to be saved?"

On the one hand, you may think me "cold hearted" if I say that the use of instruments is a salvation issue.

But then, many may charge the same thing in regard to my belief in the necessity of baptism.

In the end, we struggle here on this earth to be pleasing to God. If there is any chance God may be displeased with the use of the instrument, why take such a chance? He is God, and He is to be revered and respected.

Is it a salvation issue? I suspect that it is, brother. Since musical instruments were an addition to the church that was never authorized by the NT, or used by the early church, it is therefore a sign and symbol of division and addition to the worship of the Lord's body.

jeffreys
Oct 12th 2007, 03:32 PM
Thanks for your honesty, Matt14.

I'm not going to take this discussion any further. Experience has shown me that that is not a productive course to pursue.

Peace to you!

Matt14
Oct 12th 2007, 05:11 PM
Thanks for your honesty, Matt14.

I'm not going to take this discussion any further. Experience has shown me that that is not a productive course to pursue.

Peace to you!

You're welcome. There's nothing but honesty, when you are trying to serve the Lord.

Let me ask you a question, then, since you do not wish to respond to the thoughts in my two previous posts.

Do you think a believer who is not baptized for the remission of sins will be condemned to hell?

Thanks!

Prezken
Oct 12th 2007, 06:03 PM
No, the length of the post does not bother me, nor does discussion of original languages, since I have a master's degree in Biblical studies, including training in Greek.

What bothers me is the way you avoided this passage:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

Before the discussion began to take in place in Acts 15:6, another issue of obedience to the whole Law of Moses was added in 15:5.

It's really a cut and dried issue: The meeting was a discussion of whether or not Gentiles should be bound by the Law of Moses.

This is where you are missing it. My realm of expertise is not on greek, but hebraic understanding and biblical judaism. Are you familiar with a Yeshiva? That is what was taking place here. To jewish people circumcision and the law could not be seperated. They believed that one could not follow the law without first being circumcized as per the Torah. Again the entire topic was based around circumcision. That is how a Yeshiva proceeds, there is only one topic of discussion in a Yeshiva. In this instance that topic is circumcision, the law is just a necessary part of the discussion. Before you could follow the law you must be circumcised first. Hence the reading of Acts 15:5. You are seeing much more in the verse than is actually there to begin with. The pharisees were simply stating they must do both circumcise and follow the law. They weren't adding anything to the discussion. There was no doubt as to whether or not the law was to be followed, the question was what parts were to be followed. In this Yeshiva the part in question was circumcision.

It's the same way that one may call a meeting to discuss the financial situation of your church. During the meeting you may mention tithes, special projects, and etc...but those things are a necessary part of the topic of discussion.

In this Yeshiva the discussion was Gentiles and whether they must be circumcised to follow the law. Not whether they need to follow the law to begin with. Thus all the testimonies of what God has done through the gentiles. If circumcision was necessary why would God have done so much for them without it?



BTW, is this your website:

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/acts15.htm

Most of your post was cut-and-paste from this site.

God bless!

Yes that is where this part of my post came from. I had it cited along with a couple of other sites, but I must have messed up on my edit because a lot of my original post is missing.

Matt14
Oct 12th 2007, 07:01 PM
Are you familiar with a Yeshiva? That is what was taking place here.

Yes, and that is NOT what is taking place here. A Yeshiva is a school or or formal institution for the study of Torah and usually the Talmud.


To jewish people circumcision and the law could not be seperated. They believed that one could not follow the law without first being circumcized as per the Torah. Again the entire topic was based around circumcision. That is how a Yeshiva proceeds, there is only one topic of discussion in a Yeshiva. In this instance that topic is circumcision, the law is just a necessary part of the discussion. Before you could follow the law you must be circumcised first. Hence the reading of Acts 15:5. You are seeing much more in the verse than is actually there to begin with. The pharisees were simply stating they must do both circumcise and follow the law. They weren't adding anything to the discussion. There was no doubt as to whether or not the law was to be followed, the question was what parts were to be followed. In this Yeshiva the part in question was circumcision.

It's the same way that one may call a meeting to discuss the financial situation of your church. During the meeting you may mention tithes, special projects, and etc...but those things are a necessary part of the topic of discussion.

In this Yeshiva the discussion was Gentiles and whether they must be circumcised to follow the law. Not whether they need to follow the law to begin with. Thus all the testimonies of what God has done through the gentiles. If circumcision was necessary why would God have done so much for them without it?

It is clear that the intent of the Pharisaic Christians in this chapter is to have Gentiles circumcised AND to follow the whole Law of Moses. As Paul says:

Gal 5:3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

In Galatians, Paul says that if a man becomes circumcised for religious purposes, he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. The very purpose of the Gentiles NOT becoming circumcised is because through Christ Jesus, man is RELEASED from the Law of Moses!

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.


Yes that is where this part of my post came from.

It appeared that you were calling it your own. You even omitted the website's discussion on Acts 15:5, a crucial passage, in the middle of your post.

God bless!

Hburgpreacher
Oct 13th 2007, 05:21 AM
The same reasoning that you use to defend the necessity of baptism is the same reasoning you would use to understand why the churches of Christ do not use instrumental music.

We understand the thief was saved without baptism because he lived under a different covenant.

Likewise, we understand that what David did cannot be an example for us because he lived under a different covenant. David was also bound by the Law of Moses.

If we did everything David did, what else would we be missing?

God bless, brother.

But nowhere does the New Testament condemn or even discourage the use of music. Quite a dogmatic stance considering that it's inconsistent with Old Testament worship and is never addressed in the New Testament. Don't you think Jesus would have mentioned music at least once if it mattered as much as non-instrumentalists seem to think it does?

Hburgpreacher
Oct 13th 2007, 05:27 AM
Hey "Hburpreacher", I too pastor an independent Christian Church - the "middle of the road" in the Restoration Movement Churches. I love it.

While I understand, and can appreciate, where the non-instrumentalists come from, I simply don't agree.

With all due respect, I think they're study of the Word sometimes includes a lot of foregone conclusions. Ephesians 5:19, for instance, is often used as "proof" that God forbids the use of musical instruments in Worship. But the word used there - psalmos - is actually defined as a song accompanied by a stringed instrument.

There are a LOT of things we all do, that are not expressly commanded in Scripture - particularly the New Testament. There is no New Testament mandate for Sunday Morning Worship Services, Pulpits, Pews, or even the use of Bibles. Where do we draw the line?


On the other hand, I believe they make some very good points about instrumental music that is "distracting". The playing of instruments, in my opinion, must always be done for the glory of God. They should assist us in singing, not drown us out (this includes pipe organs), and should always be an accompaniment, not a show.

I agree with you brother. :hug:

Music can be done "for show" with or without instruments. An acapella vocalist can be just as flamboyant and "performance-oriented" as one who uses instrumentation. Of course, the focus should be on the Lord and not the person providing the music.

I do not see the scriptural support for such a dogmatic stand. I think such dogmatism does more to divide the Body of Christ than it does to preserve any kind of purity. It's a shame because we are very similar to our brothers/sisters in the Church of Christ in other doctrines.

Hburgpreacher
Oct 13th 2007, 05:34 AM
What other doctrinal differences do you see between the independent Christian church and Church of Christ Non-Instrumentalists?

Steven3
Oct 13th 2007, 10:08 AM
Hi Matt, Jeffreys :)
You know, jeffreys, I think about that all the time.

I hope you know, as a brother in Christ, that I do not take this issue lightly, nor the implications of this issue.

But, what sort of disobedience is not a salvation issue?Since the NT commands the use of instruments (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5567&Version=kjv) the question would be would churches that are disobedient to the NT and don't use them be saved? :rolleyes: Personally I believe God will forgive those who disobey and don't use instruments :)

Anyone interested can check out the meaning of the NT command to "sing and make melody (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %23115311) (<- click for LSJ entry)" for themselves by clicking the link. It isn't a choice, either sing (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G103&Version=kjv) adō or psallō make melody (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=5567&version=kjv) (<- click for NT usage), Paul commands both. And the difference between ado and psallo doesn't mean "sing without instruments and sing without instruments" either ;)
God bless
Steven

Matt14
Oct 13th 2007, 12:44 PM
Hi Matt, Jeffreys :)Since the NT commands the use of instruments (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5567&Version=kjv) the question would be would churches that are disobedient to the NT and don't use them be saved? :rolleyes: Personally I believe God will forgive those who disobey and don't use instruments :)

Anyone interested can check out the meaning of the NT command to "sing and make melody (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D %23115311) (<- click for LSJ entry)" for themselves by clicking the link. It isn't a choice, either sing (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G103&Version=kjv) adō or psallō make melody (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=5567&version=kjv) (<- click for NT usage), Paul commands both. And the difference between ado and psallo doesn't mean "sing without instruments and sing without instruments" either ;)
God bless
Steven

There is not one single command in the NT to use instruments. The passage you are referring to says to sing and make melody in your heart to the Lord, not "upon a musical instrument." The instrument is the human heart.

Matt14
Oct 13th 2007, 12:45 PM
I agree with you brother. :hug:

Music can be done "for show" with or without instruments. An acapella vocalist can be just as flamboyant and "performance-oriented" as one who uses instrumentation. Of course, the focus should be on the Lord and not the person providing the music.

I do not see the scriptural support for such a dogmatic stand. I think such dogmatism does more to divide the Body of Christ than it does to preserve any kind of purity. It's a shame because we are very similar to our brothers/sisters in the Church of Christ in other doctrines.

Once upon a time it was your group that broke away because they wanted to add instruments. We can have unity once again, just stop using the instrument and rejoin us!

Matt14
Oct 13th 2007, 12:49 PM
But nowhere does the New Testament condemn or even discourage the use of music. Quite a dogmatic stance considering that it's inconsistent with Old Testament worship and is never addressed in the New Testament.

I've already discussed this issue above. Nadab and Abihu did not have a command from the Lord, either, but God was displeased with their strange fire.

Would you add steak to the Lord's table, in addition to the bread and fruit of the vine? If not, why not?


Don't you think Jesus would have mentioned music at least once if it mattered as much as non-instrumentalists seem to think it does?

That's the same argument the pro-ho*mose*xual movement uses to defend their practices. They say, "Jesus didn't say anything about ga*y issues, so He must not care."

We know, though, that the apostles carried on His teachings in the correct way, which included prhobitions against such actions.

Steven3
Oct 13th 2007, 01:59 PM
Hiya Matt :)
There is not one single command in the NT to use instruments. The passage you are referring to says to sing and make melody in your heart to the Lord, not "upon a musical instrument." The instrument is the human heart.

Without wanting to sound like some stuck up limey academic swot ;), "in your heart" εν τη καρδια is a dative prepositional phrase which normally indicates instrumental rather than positional meaning, "with" not "in". But even without the fancy grammar, I think we already know that "in your heart" clearly means "with the heart" or "by the heart" doesn't it? You don't sing or make melody "inside" the heart unless you have a very rare heart condition. The singing actually comes out of the glottis, the throat, not out of the valves of the heart. Likewise the lyre or lute (which is what was the common continuo instrument in Greek music) comes from the hand not the valves of the heart (Doctor: we have your x-rays Mr Menuhin, and the problem appears to be a violin lodged in one of the heart chambers :)).

Back to "singing" αδοντες and "making melody" ψαλλοντες , a lot of people think that Classical Greek is a language that can be magically mastered without any study whatsoever (simply by eating Dr Dulcamara's magic Berlitz beans available for $5.99 on the Internet ;)), but really it isn't, it's like Spanish x 10, it needs study and take it from Professors Liddle, Scott and Johnson that "sing and make melody" means exactly that, "sing and make melody" not "sing and sing".

Recap:

A. context of all 4 uses of psallw in the NT show that psallw means sing-to-instruments. This is dazzling clear in Corinth where musical instruments are named. If someone is going to say that psallw means the same as adw, sing and sing, then what exactly is the Greek word for psallw if it is isn't psallw? :)

B. In the Greek psallw - pluck, use a plectrum - I gave the link for people who want to know what the word means to click on the Liddle Scott classical Greek dictionary. Anyone who wants to can click away to their heart's content on links to Greek texts, or search the entire Perseus database. But can anyone provide any usage in Classical Greek where psallw means 'sing a cappella'?

C. This meaning of psallw in pagan texts is doubly true in Jewish Greek texts, such as Josephus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=ya%2Fllw&lang=greek&group=bilevel) (click to see 8 links to psallw in Josephus, in among 10 other Greek texts, click again for English)

D. and most important of all the Greek Septuagint, where psallw relates to all the joyous accompanied singing in temple and synagogue.

Sorry, but the NT does teach singing to instruments. :)
Steven

Steven3
Oct 13th 2007, 05:40 PM
Ephesians 5:19, for instance, is often used as "proof" that God forbids the use of musical instruments in Worship. But the word used there - psallo - is actually defined as a song accompanied by a stringed instrument.Sure is. :)

Liddle Scott Johnson, go crazy folks and click on all the links :)



psallô (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ya%2Fllw&bytepos=183018907&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) , fut.
A. psa^lô (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=yalw%3D&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) LXX Jd.5.3 , 1 Ep.Cor.14.15 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0031%2c007%3a14%3a 15&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1): aor. epsêla (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29%2Fyhla&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Pl.Ly. 209b (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0059%2c020%3a209b&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1) , etc., and in LXX epsa_la (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29%2Fya_la&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Ps.9.12 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0527%2c027%3a9%3a1 2&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1) , al.:--pluck, pull, twitch, ps. etheiran (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29%2Fqeiran&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) pluck the hair, A.Pers.1062 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0085%2c002%3a1062&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1): esp. of the bow-string, toxôn (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=to%2Fcwn&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) cheri (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=xeri%2F&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) psallousi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ya%2Fllousi&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) neuras (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=neura%2Fs&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) twang them, E.Ba.784 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0006%2c017%3a784&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1); kenon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=keno%2Fn&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) kroton (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=kro%2Fton&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Lyc.1453 ; ek (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29k&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) keraos (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ke%2Fraos&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) ps. belos (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=be%2Flos&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) send a shaft twanging from the bow, APl.4.211 (Stat. Flacc.); so miltocharês schoinos (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=sxoi%3Dnos&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) psallomenê (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=yallome%2Fnh&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) a carpenter's red line, which is twitched and then suddenly let go, so as to leave a mark, AP6.103 (Phil (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Phil&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman).): metaph., gunaikas (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=gunai%3Dkas&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) ex (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29c&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) andrôn (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=a%29ndrw%3Dn&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) psogos (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=yo%2Fgos&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) psallei (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ya%2Fllei&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057), kenon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=keno%2Fn&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=2&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) toxeuma (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=to%2Fceuma&bytepos=183019018&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) E.Fr.499 . II. mostly of the strings of musical instruments, play a stringed instrument with the fingers, and not with the plectron, psêlai (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=yh%3Dlai&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) kai (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=kai%2F&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) krouein (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=krou%2Fein&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) tôi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=tw%3D%7C&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) plêktrôi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=plh%2Fktrw%7C&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Pl. l. c., et ibi Sch.; ean (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29a%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) tis (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=tis&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) psêlas (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=yh%2Flas&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) tên (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=th%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) nêtên (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=nh%2Fthn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) epilabêi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29pila%2Fbh%7C&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Arist.Pr.919b15 ; mousikôtatos (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=mousikw%2Ftatos&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) ôn (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=w%29%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) chata cheira (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=xei%3Dra&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) dicha (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=di%2Fxa&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) plêktrou (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=plh%2Fktrou&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) epsalle (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29%2Fyalle&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Ath.4.183d ; opp. kitharizô (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=kiqari%2Fzw&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057), Hdt.1.155 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0016%2c001%3a1%3a1 55&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1), SIG578.18 (Teos (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Teos&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman), ii B. C.); prin (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=pri%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) men (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=me%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) s' (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=s%27&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) heptatonon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%28pta%2Ftonon&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) psallon (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ya%2Fllon&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) (sc. tên (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=th%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=2&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) luran (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=lu%2Fran&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057)) Ion Eleg.3.3: abs., Hdt. l. c., Ar.Eq.522 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0019%2c002%3a522&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1), Hippias (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Hippias&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman) (?) in PHib.1.13.24 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3apap%2cP.Hib.%3a1%3a13%3a 24&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1); korais (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ko%2Frais&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Men.Epit (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Epit&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman).260 ; psallein (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ya%2Fllein&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) [ouk (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=ou%29k&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) eni] (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=e%29%2Fni&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) aneu (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=a%29%2Fneu&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) luras (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=lu%2Fras&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Luc.Par.17 :--Prov (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?type=phrase&alts=0&group=typecat&lookup=Prov&collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman)., rhaion (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=r%28a%3D%7Con&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) ê (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=h%29%2F&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) tis (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=tis&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=2&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) an (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=a%29%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) chordên (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=xordh%2Fn&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) psêleie (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=yh%2Fleie&bytepos=183022190&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) 'as easy as falling off a log', Aristid.Or.26(14).31. 2. later, sing to a harp, LXX Ps.7.18 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0527%2c027%3a7%3a1 8&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1), 9.12 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0527%2c027%3a9%3a1 2&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1), al.; têi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=th%3D%7C&bytepos=183025334&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) kardiai (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=kardi%2Fa%7C&bytepos=183025334&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Ep.Eph.5.19 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3aabo%3atlg%2c0031%2c010%3a5%3a1 9&vers=original&word=ya%2fllw#word1) ; tôi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=tw%3D%7C&bytepos=183025334&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) pneumati (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=pneu%2Fmati&bytepos=183025334&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) 1 Ep.Cor. l. c. 3. Pass., of the instrument, to be struck or played, psallomenê (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=yallome%2Fnh&bytepos=183026155&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) chordê (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=xordh%2F&bytepos=183026155&wordcount=1&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057) Arist.Pr.919b2 ; also of persons, to be played to on the harp, Macho ap.Ath.8.348f.

JollyRoger1970
Oct 15th 2007, 12:48 AM
Once upon a time it was your group that broke away because they wanted to add instruments. We can have unity once again, just stop using the instrument and rejoin us!


Yes, the split took place in 1906.

Hburgpreacher
Oct 15th 2007, 03:59 AM
That's the same argument the pro-ho*mose*xual movement uses to defend their practices. They say, "Jesus didn't say anything about ga*y issues, so He must not care."

We know, though, that the apostles carried on His teachings in the correct way, which included prhobitions against such actions.

That's not a fair comparison. There is a direct command in the Old Testament forbidding the practice of homosexuality. Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law.

This whole argument just seems so Pharisitical. Have we really gotten to the point where we're telling our brothers and sisters in Christ that, because they play an instrument in their worship of the Lord, that they forfeit their salvation? Isn't it about the heart of the worshipper more so than the mode of the worship? I mean, if we want to get REALLY Pharistical about it, we shouldn't use disposable communion cups because the New Testament doesn't specifically list that as something we're allowed to do. Do we have authority to baptize people in indoor baptistries? I don't know of any New Testament precedent that gives us that authority. What about the use of microphones?

You mentioned in an earlier post that the New Testament could not list every single thing we're NOT supposed to do. By your own line of reasoning, likewise, the New Testament would have to be an exhaustive list in order to list every single thing we're ALLOWED to do. At some point, you have to use some common sense and ask, "Is this consistent with the overall message of the Bible as a whole?"

Matt14
Oct 15th 2007, 07:04 PM
Hiya Matt :)

Without wanting to sound like some stuck up limey academic swot ;), "in your heart" εν τη καρδια is a dative prepositional phrase which normally indicates instrumental rather than positional meaning, "with" not "in". But even without the fancy grammar, I think we already know that "in your heart" clearly means "with the heart" or "by the heart" doesn't it? You don't sing or make melody "inside" the heart unless you have a very rare heart condition. The singing actually comes out of the glottis, the throat, not out of the valves of the heart. Likewise the lyre or lute (which is what was the common continuo instrument in Greek music) comes from the hand not the valves of the heart (Doctor: we have your x-rays Mr Menuhin, and the problem appears to be a violin lodged in one of the heart chambers :)).

Yes, it is with the heart that one is making melody. Not "with a harp," or "with an instrument." The instrument is with the heart.


Back to "singing" αδοντες and "making melody" ψαλλοντες , a lot of people think that Classical Greek is a language that can be magically mastered without any study whatsoever (simply by eating Dr Dulcamara's magic Berlitz beans available for $5.99 on the Internet ;)), but really it isn't, it's like Spanish x 10, it needs study and take it from Professors Liddle, Scott and Johnson that "sing and make melody" means exactly that, "sing and make melody" not "sing and sing".

It means, not "sing and sing," but "sing and pluck the strings of the heart."


Recap:

A. context of all 4 uses of psallw in the NT show that psallw means sing-to-instruments. This is dazzling clear in Corinth where musical instruments are named. If someone is going to say that psallw means the same as adw, sing and sing, then what exactly is the Greek word for psallw if it is isn't psallw? :)

This particular argument has been brought up in debate after debate between the churches of Christ and the Christian Church and others, but it has never been used successfully. Here are some resources for those willing to study the issue:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/psallo_and_the_instrumental_music_controversy


B. In the Greek psallw - pluck, use a plectrum - I gave the link for people who want to know what the word means to click on the Liddle Scott classical Greek dictionary. Anyone who wants to can click away to their heart's content on links to Greek texts, or search the entire Perseus database. But can anyone provide any usage in Classical Greek where psallw means 'sing a cappella'?

C. This meaning of psallw in pagan texts is doubly true in Jewish Greek texts, such as Josephus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=ya%2Fllw&lang=greek&group=bilevel) (click to see 8 links to psallw in Josephus, in among 10 other Greek texts, click again for English)

D. and most important of all the Greek Septuagint, where psallw relates to all the joyous accompanied singing in temple and synagogue.

Sorry, but the NT does teach singing to instruments. :)
Steven

Steven, the argument you are presented has been brought up and rejected over and again. I'm sure you are well-versed in Greek, but there are far more well-versed scholars who disagree with you.

Instead of quoting the scholars, though, let me show you scriptures.

Col 3:16 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.

In this passage, Paul says to "teach and admonish" on another in psalms, hyms and spiritual songs.

From this passage, do you think there is authority here for an "instrumental-only" worship song? Why or why not?

Additionally, I'd like to add that both Presbyterian scholars and Reformed Christian scholars are beginning to return to the non-instrumental understanding of music in the church. Here are some links for folks who are interested to study:

http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/reg1.html

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Light-New-Worship-Psychological/dp/1881095010/ref=sr_1_1/104-0057865-5239926?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192475045&sr=8-1

God bless!

Matt14
Oct 15th 2007, 07:18 PM
That's not a fair comparison. There is a direct command in the Old Testament forbidding the practice of homosexuality. Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law.

There is a comparison, indeed. People say since Jesus did not condemn it, then it must be okay. That's their argument. May be extreme, but there is a small comparison.

If we are people of the New Covenant, we live by the New Covenant, not the old.

Jesus did not say He came to keep the Law going. He said:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

He came to fulfill the Law. Did He fulfill it, or did He not? Jesus says the Law would not pass away until all is fulfilled. Did He do His job?

"It is finished." -- John 19:30


This whole argument just seems so Pharisitical. Have we really gotten to the point where we're telling our brothers and sisters in Christ that, because they play an instrument in their worship of the Lord, that they forfeit their salvation?

What about worship will we sacrifice next for fear of looking "Pharisitical?" Where will it end? Are we, or are we not, called upon to worship in Spirit and in truth (John 4:24)? And what is truth?

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

If it is not according to the word of God, we should not practice it.


Isn't it about the heart of the worshipper more so than the mode of the worship?

It's both. Spirit (heart) and truth (God's word).


I mean, if we want to get REALLY Pharistical about it, we shouldn't use disposable communion cups because the New Testament doesn't specifically list that as something we're allowed to do.

Using plastic cups does not change the practice. It's still fruit of the vine, whether it's in a plastic cup, or the palm of your hand.


Do we have authority to baptize people in indoor baptistries? I don't know of any New Testament precedent that gives us that authority.

Again, it's still water, whether in an indoor or outdoor pool. Doesn't change the substance.


What about the use of microphones?

Applified or straight from mouth to ear, it's still a voice speaking the word.

Singing is the command. Adding an instrument changes the kind of music. Vocal music and instrumental music are different types of music. Adding an instrument changes the command.


You mentioned in an earlier post that the New Testament could not list every single thing we're NOT supposed to do. By your own line of reasoning, likewise, the New Testament would have to be an exhaustive list in order to list every single thing we're ALLOWED to do.

When it comes to how God wants us to worship Him, don't you think that is important enough to tell us how to do it? I think it is.


At some point, you have to use some common sense and ask, "Is this consistent with the overall message of the Bible as a whole?"

Sure, and it is consistent with the overall message of the Bible.

I'll repeat my question to you:

Would you be willing to add steak to the Lord's upper? If not, why not?

Thanks!

jeffreys
Oct 15th 2007, 09:52 PM
Do you think a believer who is not baptized for the remission of sins will be condemned to hell?

Thanks!

Hi Matt;

As several other members here have mentioned, you're not making fair and adequate comparisons. Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are specific and explicit in regards to baptism. The Greek word baptizo, though it has several secondary meanings, is clear in its primary definition of "dip, immerse, overwhelm". Baptism is both a command, and a practice we specifically see engaged in - repeatedly - in the New Testament.


There is, however, absolutely no such thing concerning the use of instruments in worship, or the lack thereof. In fact, the accappella argument requires semantic hair-splitting regarding the definition of a psallo.


The absence of specific New Testament authorization does NOT automatically mean that something is prohibited. If you were to take that position, you would need to do so - across the board - with honesty and integrity.

- The NT does not authorize Sunday morning worship services.
- The NT does not authorize the hiring of a preacher.
- The NT does not authorize the use of PA systems in church buildings that are not, themselves, authorized in the NT.
- The NT does not authorize the use of a pitch pipe, of hymnals, nor of the Holy Bible itself.
- The NT does not authorize the establishment of Bible Colleges.
- The NT does not authorize the use of individual communion cups, nor even a communion table.

This then being true, integrity would mean you must prohibit such practices, and abstain from them, correct?


But mostly, I simply cannot imagine God having the following conversation with a Christian who has recently died. "My son, I was delighted when you came to a knowledge of Jesus, and full faith in him. I know that you repented of your sins and were immersed into Christ, according to the New Testament pattern. And I remain delighted by the fact that you, through your witness, led dozens of other people to salvation in Jesus. In fact, your generous financial giving has enabled missionaries to do just that, the world over. Your humility, devotion and piety are impeccable. You have not only not been an embarrassment to the Kingdom, but have been a shining example of what Christians ought to be. Unfortunately, you also played a guitar while leading worship in church - and for that I am going to have to consign you to an eternity in Hell."

In light of logic, and God's love specified in Romans 5:8, does that make any sense? Can you imagine God doing that?

jeffreys
Oct 15th 2007, 10:15 PM
Would you be willing to add steak to the Lord's upper? If not, why not?

Nope. But again, that's an irrelevant question/comparison. You might as well ask, "Would you be willing to slaughter a pig on the Lord's Supper table?"

A more applicable question would be, "Would you be willing to use wine for the Lord's Supper?" or "Would you be willing to use regular bread for the Lord's Supper?" Those are questions that deal with debatable fine points that are not perfectly and clearly defined.

Matt14
Oct 15th 2007, 10:41 PM
Hi Matt;

As several other members here have mentioned, you're not making fair and adequate comparisons. Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are specific and explicit in regards to baptism. The Greek word baptizo, though it has several secondary meanings, is clear in its primary definition of "dip, immerse, overwhelm". Baptism is both a command, and a practice we specifically see engaged in - repeatedly - in the New Testament.


There is, however, absolutely no such thing concerning the use of instruments in worship, or the lack thereof. In fact, the accappella argument requires semantic hair-splitting regarding the definition of a psallo.


The absence of specific New Testament authorization does NOT automatically mean that something is prohibited. If you were to take that position, you would need to do so - across the board - with honesty and integrity.

- The NT does not authorize Sunday morning worship services.
- The NT does not authorize the hiring of a preacher.
- The NT does not authorize the use of PA systems in church buildings that are not, themselves, authorized in the NT.
- The NT does not authorize the use of a pitch pipe, of hymnals, nor of the Holy Bible itself.
- The NT does not authorize the establishment of Bible Colleges.
- The NT does not authorize the use of individual communion cups, nor even a communion table.

This then being true, integrity would mean you must prohibit such practices, and abstain from them, correct?


But mostly, I simply cannot imagine God having the following conversation with a Christian who has recently died. "My son, I was delighted when you came to a knowledge of Jesus, and full faith in him. I know that you repented of your sins and were immersed into Christ, according to the New Testament pattern. And I remain delighted by the fact that you, through your witness, led dozens of other people to salvation in Jesus. In fact, your generous financial giving has enabled missionaries to do just that, the world over. Your humility, devotion and piety are impeccable. You have not only not been an embarrassment to the Kingdom, but have been a shining example of what Christians ought to be. Unfortunately, you also played a guitar while leading worship in church - and for that I am going to have to consign you to an eternity in Hell."

In light of logic, and God's love specified in Romans 5:8, does that make any sense? Can you imagine God doing that?

What we imagine is nowhere near a firm basis for understanding God and what He wants from us.

Moses could not enter the promised land because he disobeyed God. What did Moses do? He hit a rock with a stick, instead of speaking to it, as God commanded.

We, as mere humans, might imagine this to be harsh. "Aw c'mon, God! Let him in!" But God said no.

What does matter is taking only what we are certain to be true, and acting on that. All the red herrings about worship buildings, microphones, etc., read like a laundry list of things the Christian Church has used over the years to justify its addition of musical instruments to the worship of the church. What matters is being sure!

What else are you willing to add to the worship, jeffreys?

Would you allow:


Painting a picture as worship in the assembly?

Dancing?

A ping-pong game?


None of these things are specifically prohibited by the New Testament. Can these be used as worship items? Would you allow them in your assembly? Why or why not?

Matt14
Oct 15th 2007, 10:46 PM
Nope. But again, that's an irrelevant question/comparison. You might as well ask, "Would you be willing to slaughter a pig on the Lord's Supper table?"

No, it is certainly not irrelavant. Please humor me with an answer.

Why NOT add steak to the Lord's supper? On what grounds do you prohibit steak on the Lord's table?

When you answer this, then we will see why the churches of Christ refuse to use instruments of music in worship.

Please respect me enough to answer.


A more applicable question would be, "Would you be willing to use wine for the Lord's Supper?" or "Would you be willing to use regular bread for the Lord's Supper?" Those are questions that deal with debatable fine points that are not perfectly and clearly defined.

As long as it is "fruit of the vine," I see cause for either.

As long as it is bread, I'm not sure there's a difference.

Instruments are not singing. Singing is what is called for. We cannot gather instrumental use in the New Testament. No reputable scholars see use of instruments in the NT, or in history, by the church.

Why would you not drop the instrument, if you desire unity? What does the instrument gain for you, that you would not have already had?

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 12:41 AM
No, it is certainly not irrelavant. Please humor me with an answer.

Why NOT add steak to the Lord's supper? On what grounds do you prohibit steak on the Lord's table?

When you answer this, then we will see why the churches of Christ refuse to use instruments of music in worship.

Please respect me enough to answer.

Hey Matt;

I've already answered this question, but I'll answer it again.

Why not add steak to the Lord's supper? Because Jesus specifically and explicitly spoke of two elements that would be present in the feast of remembrance, "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" (Luke 22:19). Here, and in the other Gospels, Jesus explicitly and specifically says to eat the bread in remembrance of him.

At the same Passover feast, as you know, Jesus took a cup of wine and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." As with the bread, we see Jesus explicitly and specifically pointing to the wine as his blood - symbolic of the new covenant. We are to drink the wine in remembrance of him.

The apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 11:23-25 writes, "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.'"

We both know that the Cup and Loaf were and are specifically and explicitly
called for emblems of remembrance. Jesus said, "Do this." Therefore, the oft-repeated argument of "adding steak at the Lord's Supper" is really rather irrelevant, because when you're trying to compare that to the use of instruments, you're pulling together two completely and totally different issues. You could just as well be asking, "Why do we not sit on pigs during worship services?"

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 12:48 AM
What we imagine is nowhere near a firm basis for understanding God and what He wants from us.

Moses could not enter the promised land because he disobeyed God. What did Moses do? He hit a rock with a stick, instead of speaking to it, as God commanded.

We, as mere humans, might imagine this to be harsh. "Aw c'mon, God! Let him in!" But God said no.

What does matter is taking only what we are certain to be true, and acting on that. All the red herrings about worship buildings, microphones, etc., read like a laundry list of things the Christian Church has used over the years to justify its addition of musical instruments to the worship of the church. What matters is being sure!

What else are you willing to add to the worship, jeffreys?

Would you allow:

Painting a picture as worship in the assembly?
Dancing?
A ping-pong game?
None of these things are specifically prohibited by the New Testament. Can these be used as worship items? Would you allow them in your assembly? Why or why not?

You've again refused to answer my questions...

1. Please provide me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we are to gather on Sunday mornings for worship. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

2. Please provide for me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we are to have hired preachers. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

3. Please provide for me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we should use hymnals during worship. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

4. Please provide for me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we are to PA systems in worship. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

All these elements, #1-#4, are in the exact same category as the use of instruments in worship. All these elements, #1-#4, are directly related to worship. If you cannot provide Scriptural authorization for them, why are you using/doing them?

Why prohibit one thing that is not authorized in the New Testament, yet engage in countless other things that are not authorized in the New Testament?

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 12:50 AM
What we imagine is nowhere near a firm basis for understanding God and what He wants from us.

So you honestly believe God will send millions of baptized, committed, faithful Christians to hell for playing a guitar in worship (or being involved in worship services with instrumental accompaniment) - even though God never said not to play an instrument in worship?

I find that sad indeed. I really do.

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 12:54 AM
Would you allow:
Painting a picture as worship in the assembly?
Dancing?
A ping-pong game?None of these things are specifically prohibited by the New Testament. Can these be used as worship items? Would you allow them in your assembly? Why or why not?

Painting a picture? Perhaps, depending on what the picture was, and the context. I've actually seen that specific thing done during a Christmas worship service, and it was very well done. It was wonderful, and called attention to the Christ-child who was born to be our Savior.

Dancing? Perhaps, depending on if it was a God-honoring dance, such as those the saints of old often engaged in. Would I make it the focus of a Sunday morning worship service? Nope.

Ping Pong? Nope - because ping pong is a sport, not an act of worship. On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem with having a ping-pong table in the church somewhere, and having people use it.

Steven3
Oct 16th 2007, 04:30 AM
Matt14 :)

1. then what does mean sing-with-instruments in Greek?
Critically you missed my question "if psallo doesn't mean psallo what does mean psallo?" If you're saying that the word doesn't mean "make melody" then what word is left in Greek that does. Are we saying that it was impossible for the Greeks to say "sing with instruments" because the word didn't exist? Please address this question - please suggest which Greek word does mean "sing with instruments" :)

2. "with the heart"
Maybe pictures will help us move beyond this question.

Yes, it is with the heart that one is making melody. Not "with a harp," or "with an instrument." The instrument is with the heart.Repeat previous question.

This is a literal heart okay - goes with literal hands, throat. :)
http://whyfiles.org/102spareparts/images/heart2.gif
- when Pavarotti "sings with his heart" does he sing from his lungs or his heart?
- when classical guitarist Julian Bream does a guitar solo, does that come from his heart or hands?
- when a singer-songwriter like the Cranberry girl (unplugged below) "psallos from the heart" does it come from her lungs-and-guitar or from her heart?
http://cdn.last.fm/coverart/300x300/2030685.jpg

So, can we now move on from this objection that "with the heart" can only be a cappella? Please :)


3. Vine vs. the lexicons

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/psallo_and_the_instrumental_music_controversy

Okay, so a CoC writer, Wayne Jackson has marshalled
1. a Darbyite (W.E. Vine) in support of Darby's "sing and chant" against "sing and make melody (KJV)
2. a teacher at NTS, a Wesleyan-Arminian seminary, a certain Ralph Earle (whom I've never heard of)
3. a single line out of Kittel TDNT, which I'm sure is out of context - (not that TDNT is as objective as a classical lexicon, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt till I see the full entry)
4. an unreferenced claim that Danker had private doubts about the entry in BAGD, which then were'nt reflected when BAGD was revised.

And that still leaves all the big guns (Thayer, Liddell Scott, Bauer (auf Deutsch), Arndt, Gingrich Danker, Robinson) pointing firmly in the direction of psallo not excluding instrumental plucking. Not a single one supports Darby/Vine's claim.

4. The links
I've provided all the links to LSJ, psallo in Josephus, psallo in NT, psallo in a dozen pagan texts, psallo in LXX. All anyone who wants to prove that psallo doesn't allow instrumental accompaniment, plucking with a plectrum originally, has to do is simply click and read them.

The evidence is in front of us. Where is the Greek text where psallo doesn't mean what the big lexicons says it means? If it exists why doesn't W.E. Vine quote it as evidence. I'm almost tempted to offer a Paypal reward for an a-cappella psallo verse.
God bless :)
Steven

Matt14
Oct 16th 2007, 03:34 PM
Hey Matt;

I've already answered this question, but I'll answer it again.

Why not add steak to the Lord's supper? Because Jesus specifically and explicitly spoke of two elements that would be present in the feast of remembrance, "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" (Luke 22:19). Here, and in the other Gospels, Jesus explicitly and specifically says to eat the bread in remembrance of him.

At the same Passover feast, as you know, Jesus took a cup of wine and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." As with the bread, we see Jesus explicitly and specifically pointing to the wine as his blood - symbolic of the new covenant. We are to drink the wine in remembrance of him.

The apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 11:23-25 writes, "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.'"

We both know that the Cup and Loaf were and are specifically and explicitly
called for emblems of remembrance. Jesus said, "Do this." Therefore, the oft-repeated argument of "adding steak at the Lord's Supper" is really rather irrelevant, because when you're trying to compare that to the use of instruments, you're pulling together two completely and totally different issues. You could just as well be asking, "Why do we not sit on pigs during worship services?"

You see, the justification you use is that Jesus specifically commanded two things in remembrance: fruit of the vine, and bread.

Why do you not add steak? Because it was not commanded! You would not add something different, because it is not commanded.

The same goes for musical instruments, in my understanding. Specifically, we see singing commanded over and over. No instruments are mentioned. Therefore, to an an instrument would be like adding steak to the Lord's table.

If you don't agree, I understand. But I hope this helps make it clear to you why we worship as we do.

God bless!

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 03:41 PM
You see, the justification you use is that Jesus specifically commanded two things in remembrance: fruit of the vine, and bread.

Why do you not add steak? Because it was not commanded! You would not add something different, because it is not commanded.

The same goes for musical instruments, in my understanding. Specifically, we see singing commanded over and over. No instruments are mentioned. Therefore, to an an instrument would be like adding steak to the Lord's table.

If you don't agree, I understand. But I hope this helps make it clear to you why we worship as we do.

God bless!

Again, that is incorrect and irrelevant. And I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying.

Jesus - and Paul - were explicit and specific in what was to constitute the Lord's Supper.

There is absolutely nothing of the sort, in Scripture, when it comes to the use of instruments.

Matt14
Oct 16th 2007, 03:54 PM
You've again refused to answer my questions...

I did indeed answer your question, although beforehand and in a previous post. The answer, as posted to Hburgpreacher, is this: http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1411189&postcount=51

However, I will answer each item here, to be thorough.

First, as I told Hburgpreacher, there is a big difference between a command and an expedient. For instance, in the Great Commission Jesus said to "go into all the world." That is the command. How we go would be matters of expedience. For instance, I may "go" by car, bus, train, plain, walking, etc. These are allowable in order to fulfill the command. That being said, the groundwork is laid for all these items you point to:


1. Please provide me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we are to gather on Sunday mornings for worship. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

We have clear examples of Christians gathering on the Lord's day, Sunday, first day of the week. They met to partake of the Lord's supper (Acts 20:7) and to give of their means (1 Cor. 16:2). Because this was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, etc.), the disciples worshipped on this day, even calling it "the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10). The early Christian writers attest to Sunday as being the day the early church met to worship. Also, since the first day was the day Christians met for the Lord's supper, it is highly likely that in Hebrews 10:25 the command to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together was in reference to worship times on Sunday.


2. Please provide for me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we are to have hired preachers. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

We don't really "hire" preachers, we support them. The command is to teach. The expedient is to have a man who is not working fulltime who can dedicate himself to teaching. A preacher of the gospel has the right to be supported by the church:

1Co 9:14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.


3. Please provide for me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we should use hymnals during worship. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

The command is to sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). How can one sing, if one does not know the words? A hymnal is an expedient towards fulfilling that command. Singing is the type of music to be offered, and hymnals are an aid towards that end.


4. Please provide for me a NT Scripture that explicitly says we are to PA systems in worship. If you cannot provide the Scripture, why do you do it?

Just as above, PA's are an expedient. They do not change the command at all, singing is still being offered, with no addition of other types of music.


All these elements, #1-#4, are in the exact same category as the use of instruments in worship. All these elements, #1-#4, are directly related to worship. If you cannot provide Scriptural authorization for them, why are you using/doing them?

No, they are not just the same. All these examples have to do with things that are expedients, but do not alter the command. In the command to "go," we do not add anything by using a car.

In the command to "sing," however, adding an instrument causes one to "sing AND play." This adds to the command.

Thanks, and God bless you.

-

Matt14
Oct 16th 2007, 03:58 PM
Again, that is incorrect and irrelevant. And I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying.

Jesus - and Paul - were explicit and specific in what was to constitute the Lord's Supper.

There is absolutely nothing of the sort, in Scripture, when it comes to the use of instruments.

You can say it is incorrect and irrelavent. But the Christian Church has tried to overcome this truth of scripture for a long time, and has failed.

The command in the New Testament is to sing. It is explicit and specific. There is no command to play. To add musical instruments is the same as adding steak.

Please tell me why Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Hebrews 13:15; and James 5:13 are not specific and explicit?

Matt14
Oct 16th 2007, 04:02 PM
Painting a picture? Perhaps, depending on what the picture was, and the context. I've actually seen that specific thing done during a Christmas worship service, and it was very well done. It was wonderful, and called attention to the Christ-child who was born to be our Savior.

Dancing? Perhaps, depending on if it was a God-honoring dance, such as those the saints of old often engaged in. Would I make it the focus of a Sunday morning worship service? Nope.

Ping Pong? Nope - because ping pong is a sport, not an act of worship. On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem with having a ping-pong table in the church somewhere, and having people use it.

I don't know jeffreys, there are a lot of people who think they can paint and dance "to the Lord" in a worship service, as an act of worship. But it is found nowhere in scripture as a thing that would be considered "spirit and truth."

All these things make man the focus. A painter painting a picture becomes the focus for his talents. A dancer's grace becomes the focal point, even causing people to applaud just like they were at a play, instead of a worship to Almighty God.

Musical instruments came in much the same way.

Matt14
Oct 16th 2007, 04:05 PM
So you honestly believe God will send millions of baptized, committed, faithful Christians to hell for playing a guitar in worship (or being involved in worship services with instrumental accompaniment) - even though God never said not to play an instrument in worship?

I find that sad indeed. I really do.

Just a minor point, but where are the "millions of baptized, committed, faithful Christians" you are talking about? How many people are members of the Christian Church? Baptism outside of the churches of Christ and the Christian Church, for the most part, is done as "a witness to salvation," not for the remission of sins.

Also, remember what Jesus said in Matt. 7:13-14.

Also, rememeber that the denominations will criticize you in just the same way for your beliefs in the necessity of baptism. "How can you say that millions of dedicated, faithful "born again" Christians will be sent to hell for not being baptized?"

What would you say to that question?

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 04:17 PM
I did indeed answer your question, although beforehand and in a previous post. The answer, as posted to Hburgpreacher, is this: http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1411189&postcount=51

However, I will answer each item here, to be thorough.

First, as I told Hburgpreacher, there is a big difference between a command and an expedient. For instance, in the Great Commission Jesus said to "go into all the world." That is the command. How we go would be matters of expedience. For instance, I may "go" by car, bus, train, plain, walking, etc. These are allowable in order to fulfill the command. That being said, the groundwork is laid for all these items you point to:



We have clear examples of Christians gathering on the Lord's day, Sunday, first day of the week. They met to partake of the Lord's supper (Acts 20:7) and to give of their means (1 Cor. 16:2). Because this was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, etc.), the disciples worshipped on this day, even calling it "the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10). The early Christian writers attest to Sunday as being the day the early church met to worship. Also, since the first day was the day Christians met for the Lord's supper, it is highly likely that in Hebrews 10:25 the command to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together was in reference to worship times on Sunday.
Do any of these Scriptures you cite say anything about singing during worship? Acts 20:7 refers to communion. 1 Corinthians 16:2 does not speak of meeting together for worship. It speaks of setting aside a sum of money in keeping with income. Revelation 1:10 does not speak of meeting for worship on Sunday.


We don't really "hire" preachers, we support them. The command is to teach. The expedient is to have a man who is not working fulltime who can dedicate himself to teaching. A preacher of the gospel has the right to be supported by the church:
1Co 9:14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.
Oh come on... You know that it's one and the same thing!
The point is that Scripture does NOT authorize you to "hire and pay" or "hire and support" a preacher. But you do it anyway.



The command is to sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). How can one sing, if one does not know the words? A hymnal is an expedient towards fulfilling that command. Singing is the type of music to be offered, and hymnals are an aid towards that end.
First of all, to assert that Ephesians 5:19 refers to "singing in an assembly" is to take it completely out of context. In addition, the word psallo is there used, which has as a primary meaning, "a song accompanied by a stringed instrument." Also, Colossians 3:16 does not explicitly speak of singing in an assembly. In addition, you need to be very careful with that verse, because it explicitly mentions a Psalm (in addition to a hymn), further affirming the presence of OT Psalms, which were songs accompanied by stringed instruments!

I sing songs, all the time, from heart - because they're in my memory. I do not need a hymnal for that.

But most important, you're not admitting that there is no NT authorization for hymnals yet you use them. This is no different than the use of instruments.



Just as above, PA's are an expedient. They do not change the command at all, singing is still being offered, with no addition of other types of music.
PA systems are an addition to a worship service, that is NOT authorized in Scripture. That is the point.

In that regard, PA systems are absolutely no different than instruments. Neither changes the singing. Neither is authorized in Scripture. But you justify the use of one, while condemning the use of the other.


No, they are not just the same. All these examples have to do with things that are expedients, but do not alter the command. In the command to "go," we do not add anything by using a car.

In the command to "sing," however, adding an instrument causes one to "sing AND play." This adds to the command.
Actually Matt, they are exactly the same. And my point is made.

*As a side note, when I'm involved in our worship services, I am NOT "singing AND playing". I'm simply singing. So should we enter into a debate as to whether or not I'm sinning and going to hell, or whether it's just the instrumentalists who are sinning and going to hell?

But again, the point that has been well proven is that non-instrumentalists engage is many non-authorized practices, during worship. There are many things you do, in worship, that you have absolutely no Scriptural authorization for. And I find you justifying those practices, while obsessively condemning one non-authorized (the use of instruments) practice.


Thanks, and God bless you.

-
Matt;

The point is that we BOTH regularly engage in "non-authorized" practices during worship. I believe that honesty would necessitate BOTH of us admitting that.

The only real question is this. Are non-authorized practices automatically condemned and forbidden?

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 04:29 PM
Just a minor point, but where are the "millions of baptized, committed, faithful Christians" you are talking about? How many people are members of the Christian Church? Baptism outside of the churches of Christ and the Christian Church, for the most part, is done as "a witness to salvation," not for the remission of sins.

Also, remember what Jesus said in Matt. 7:13-14.

Also, rememeber that the denominations will criticize you in just the same way for your beliefs in the necessity of baptism. "How can you say that millions of dedicated, faithful "born again" Christians will be sent to hell for not being baptized?"

What would you say to that question?

Concerning the fine point of "millions of baptized, committed, faithful Christians", I will again assert that there are at least that many. Are you aware of just how large the "independent Christian Churches" brotherhood now is? And that's not counting all the saints throughout history, nor is it including the countless other Christians, of other churches, who practice immersion "for the right reasons".


But here's the point that I am repeatedly making, and you seem to be repeatedly ignoring: Baptism is a command. It is clear and explicit. There is absolutely no such thing regarding the use of instruments in worship.

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 04:32 PM
You can say it is incorrect and irrelavent. But the Christian Church has tried to overcome this truth of scripture for a long time, and has failed.

The command in the New Testament is to sing. It is explicit and specific. There is no command to play. To add musical instruments is the same as adding steak.

Please tell me why Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Hebrews 13:15; and James 5:13 are not specific and explicit?

Once again, you're not making a fair comparison.

And once again, I'm going to point out to you that the primary definition of psallo (used in Ephesians 5:19) is a song that is sung, accompanied by a stringed instrument.

I've addressed Colossians 3:16 elsewhere.

Neither the Hebrews nor the James passage explicitly speak of singing in any kind of worship assembly.


And just as a point of clarification, could you explain this sentence you wrote? I hope you're not saying what it seems like you're saying... "But the Christian Church has tried to overcome this truth of scripture for a long time, and has failed."

jeffreys
Oct 16th 2007, 04:35 PM
I don't know jeffreys, there are a lot of people who think they can paint and dance "to the Lord" in a worship service, as an act of worship. But it is found nowhere in scripture as a thing that would be considered "spirit and truth."

All these things make man the focus. A painter painting a picture becomes the focus for his talents. A dancer's grace becomes the focal point, even causing people to applaud just like they were at a play, instead of a worship to Almighty God.

Musical instruments came in much the same way.

In like manner, a preacher can become the focus for his talents. A song leader can become the focus for his talents. A Sunday School teacher can become the focus for his/her talents.

But again, you add many things to worship services that are not authorized in the New Testament. Why are those things justifiable, while the use of instruments is not?

Flutecrafter
Oct 16th 2007, 04:54 PM
The command in the New Testament is to sing. It is explicit and specific. There is no command to play. To add musical instruments is the same as adding steak.
there is also no command whatsoever to forgo the use of instruments in worship during these times.

Matt14
Oct 16th 2007, 04:56 PM
Matt14 :)

1. then what does mean sing-with-instruments in Greek?
Critically you missed my question "if psallo doesn't mean psallo what does mean psallo?" If you're saying that the word doesn't mean "make melody" then what word is left in Greek that does. Are we saying that it was impossible for the Greeks to say "sing with instruments" because the word didn't exist? Please address this question - please suggest which Greek word does mean "sing with instruments" :)

2. "with the heart"
Maybe pictures will help us move beyond this question.
Repeat previous question.

This is a literal heart okay - goes with literal hands, throat. :)
- when Pavarotti "sings with his heart" does he sing from his lungs or his heart?
- when classical guitarist Julian Bream does a guitar solo, does that come from his heart or hands?
- when a singer-songwriter like the Cranberry girl (unplugged below) "psallos from the heart" does it come from her lungs-and-guitar or from her heart?

So, can we now move on from this objection that "with the heart" can only be a cappella? Please :)


3. Vine vs. the lexicons

Okay, so a CoC writer, Wayne Jackson has marshalled
1. a Darbyite (W.E. Vine) in support of Darby's "sing and chant" against "sing and make melody (KJV)
2. a teacher at NTS, a Wesleyan-Arminian seminary, a certain Ralph Earle (whom I've never heard of)
3. a single line out of Kittel TDNT, which I'm sure is out of context - (not that TDNT is as objective as a classical lexicon, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt till I see the full entry)
4. an unreferenced claim that Danker had private doubts about the entry in BAGD, which then were'nt reflected when BAGD was revised.

And that still leaves all the big guns (Thayer, Liddell Scott, Bauer (auf Deutsch), Arndt, Gingrich Danker, Robinson) pointing firmly in the direction of psallo not excluding instrumental plucking. Not a single one supports Darby/Vine's claim.

4. The links
I've provided all the links to LSJ, psallo in Josephus, psallo in NT, psallo in a dozen pagan texts, psallo in LXX. All anyone who wants to prove that psallo doesn't allow instrumental accompaniment, plucking with a plectrum originally, has to do is simply click and read them.

The evidence is in front of us. Where is the Greek text where psallo doesn't mean what the big lexicons says it means? If it exists why doesn't W.E. Vine quote it as evidence. I'm almost tempted to offer a Paypal reward for an a-cappella psallo verse.
God bless :)
Steven

Hello Steven, first of all, because of my ministry work, I do not have time to plow through tons of sources to answer your post piecemeal. There is so much work on the ground to do, I basically have to post straight from my own feeble mind.

Second of all, no one has said that psallo cannot mean to play on an instrument. What I have said is that is can be either or. In fact, the New Testament usage is without.

Why do I say that? First, the Liddell and Scott that you keep referring to is a Classical Greek lexicon. The usage in Classical Greek is not the same as in the New Testament in all cases, although you will disagree. However, I'm inclined to agree with myriad professors and scholars who hold the view that there is a difference.

Liddell and Scott may be your reference for Homer, it is not the definitive source for the New Testament (though it contains a section on it).

Instead, most Bible scholars see A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Third Edition) as a more definitive source for the New Testament period.

Now, all your questions about psallo that you presented to me can be answered by BAGD's entry on the word. I do not have the resource in a format to cut and paste from (they do not offer such a premere resource free online), so I will quote from the entry below. I'm sure you have a copy, you can review the entry in its fullness on your own. I don't have time to type it all!

BAGD
(in reference to ψάλλω)
to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment, sing, sing praise

So you see, the word in the NT does not demand instrumental accompaniment.

In specific reference to Eph. 5:19, BAGD talks about the appearance of psallo with ᾄδω:

...and the question arises whether a constrast between the two words is intended. The original meaning of psallo was "pluck," "play" (a stringed instrument); this persisted at least until the time of Lucian.

The time of Lucian was, of course, around AD 125-180. This shows that some people were still using psallo to mean playing. But the shifting meaning was evident.

BAGD says the use of psallo in the LXX was mostly non-singing.

The focus on singing in the word psallo continued until finally, in modern Greek, it means singing only.

BAGD says that in the Ephesians passage, the word likely means "make melody" and not "play."

BAGD says in reference to Liddell and Scott's mention:

Those who favor "play" (e.g. L-S-J-M; ASouter, Pocket Lexicon, 1920; JMoffat, transl.1913) may be relying too much on the earliest meaning of psallo.

Now, sadly I do not have time to bandy about sources on this issue. But since BAGD is the definitive scholarly work for New Testament Greek, I'm willing to stop here and move on with other things.

There is no warrant to say psallo demands playing, because that would be unfair. It is singing or playing, depending on context. In the New Testament context, it appears to be singing only.

God bless!

BrianW
Oct 16th 2007, 05:00 PM
With such things mens hearts are divided and troubles arise. Love God. Glorify God and do not judge others because they worship differently than you. Do they praise God? Then let them.

Galatians 2:17

17 “If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a law breaker. 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be obtained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

Matt14
Oct 16th 2007, 05:02 PM
Gotta get back to my work. Will post more when time allows.

God bless!

Steven3
Oct 17th 2007, 01:15 AM
Hi Matt :)
Just to make it clear - I have no intention to persuade you to change your mind. You are welcome to continue to believe the NT condemns musical accompaniment. You are welcome to continue to believe and say that those who believe "sing and make melody" entitles them to do so are in the wrong, or sinners, or even will be judged for doing as they believe Paul says. The purpose of these posts is to reassure others that they are doing nothing wrong and that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is on the side of allowing muscial accompaniment.


Hello Steven, first of all, because of my ministry work, I do not have time to plow through tons of sources to answer your post piecemeal. There is so much work on the ground to do, I basically have to post straight from my own feeble mind.It wouldn't be that much work to click on the 10 psallo links in Josephus I provided. But be that as it may, I hope at least others will click them.


Second of all, no one has said that psallo cannot mean to play on an instrument. What I have said is that is can be either or. In fact, the New Testament usage is without.Which is it? The first line or the third? You still need to provide a Greek text as evidence that psallo can mean sing a capella.


Why do I say that? First, the Liddell and Scott that you keep referring to is a Classical Greek lexicon. The usage in Classical Greek is not the same as in the New Testament in all cases, although you will disagree. However, I'm inclined to agree with myriad professors and scholars who hold the view that there is a difference.I think you are being slightly confused by the difference between Attic (before Alexander the Great) and Koine (3rdC BC - 5thC AD) [*gross simplification]. Yes there is a difference between Homer (Attic) and Herodotus (Koine), but there is no noticable difference between Strabo or Luke (Gentile Koine Greek writers) and Paul, Josephus or Philo (Jewish Koine Greek writers). Beyond the fact that the NT inevitably contains a small number of Semitisms derived from the Septuagint (Greek OT).


Liddell and Scott may be your reference for Homer, it is not the definitive source for the New Testament (though it contains a section on it). Sorry, but who told you this? LSJ distinguishes carefully between Attic and Koine - as it would since, eg, the majority of texts on the Cambridge A-level syllabus are Hellenistic/Koine. If you check the links in the LSJ entry on psallo you'll see most are to Koine texts.

In particular I linked 10 uses of psallo from Josephus who is (a) a Pharisee (b) 20 years later than Paul.


Instead, most Bible scholars see A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Third Edition) as a more definitive source for the New Testament period.

Now, all your questions about psallo that you presented to me can be answered by BAGD's entry on the word. I do not have the resource in a format to cut and paste from (they do not offer such a premere resource free online), so I will quote from the entry below. I'm sure you have a copy, you can review the entry in its fullness on your own. I don't have time to type it all!No one is asking that you do, but if you can use BAGD you can quote for me the reference to the specific Greek text where instrumental accompaniment is excluded? You have BAGD, BAGD has excellent references, so which specific Greek text is the evidence :)

God bless
Steven

Steven3
Oct 17th 2007, 01:50 AM
Repost - the 8 Josephus and 10 pagan texts featured for psallo on the Perseus database. There would be more on TLG.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=ya%2Fllw&lang=greek&group=bilevel

Just to take the first of those 8 passages cited from Josephus, here is the Greek text from Antiquities VI, and Whiston's translation, into which I've inserted Niese's Greek verse numbers:


[166] Kai Samouêlos men apallassetai tauta parainesas, pros de ton Dabidên metabainei to theion katalipon Saoulon. kai ho men prophêteuein êrxato tou theiou pneumatos eis auton metoikisamenou, ton Saoulon de periêrcheto pathê tina kai daimonia pnigmous autôi kai strangalas epipheronta, hôs tous iatrous allên men autôi therapeian mê epinoein, ei de tis estin exaidein dunamenos kai psallein epi kinurai touton ekeleusan zêtêsantas, hopotan autôi prosiêi ta daimonia kai tarattêi, poiein huper kephalês stanta psallein te kai tous humnous epilegein. [167] ho de ouk êmelêsen, alla zêteisthai prosetaxe toiouton anthrôpon: phêsantos de tinos autôi tôn parontôn en Bêthleemêi polei tetheasthai Iessaiou men huion, eti [de] paida tên hêlikian, euprepê de kai kalon ta te alla spoudês axion kai dê kai psallein eidota kai aidein humnous kai polemistên akron, pempsas pros ton Iessaion ekeleusen apostellein autôi ton Dabidên tôn poimniôn apospasanta: boulesthai gar auton idein peri tês eumorphias kai tês andreias akousas tou neaniskou. [168] ho de Iessaios pempei ton huion kai xenia dous komisai tôi Saoulôi. elthonti de hêsthê kai poiêsas hoplophoron dia pasês êge timês: exêideto gar hup' autou kai pros tên apo tôn daimoniôn tarachên, hopote autôi tauta proselthoi, monos iatros ên legôn te tous humnous kai psallôn en têi kinurai kai poiôn heautou ginesthai ton Saoulon. [169] pempei toinun pros ton patera tou paidos Iessaion easai par' autôi ton Dabidên keleuôn: hêdesthai gar autôi blepomenôi kai paronti: ton d' ouk anteipein tôi Saoulôi, sunchôrêsai de katechein.

[166] So Samuel, when he had given him these admonitions, went away. But the Divine Power departed from Saul, and removed to David; who, upon this removal of the Divine Spirit to him, began to prophesy. But as for Saul, some strange and demoniacal disorders came upon him, and brought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him; for which the physicians could find no other remedy but this, That if any person could charm those passions by singing (ado), and playing (psallo) upon the harp, they advised them to inquire for such a one, and to observe when these demons came upon him and disturbed him, and to take care that such a person might stand over him, and play (psallo) upon the harp, and recite (lego) hymns to him. Accordingly Saul did not delay, but commanded them to seek out such a man. [167] And when a certain stander-by said that he had seen in the city of Bethlehem a son of Jesse, who was yet no more than a child in age, but comely and beautiful, and in other respects one that was deserving of great regard, who was skillful in playing (psallo) on the harp, and in singing (ado) of hymns, [and an excellent soldier in war,] he sent to Jesse, and desired him to take David away from the flocks, and send him to him, for he had a mind to see him, as having heard an advantageous character of his comeliness and his valor. [168] So Jesse sent his son, and gave him presents to carry to Saul. And when he was come, Saul was pleased with him, and made him his armor-bearer, and had him in very great esteem; for he charmed his passion, and was the only physician against the trouble he had from the demons, whensoever it was that it came upon him, and this by reciting (lego) of hymns, and playing (psallo) upon the harp, and bringing Saul to his right mind again. [169] However, he sent to Jesse, the father of the child, and desired him to permit David to stay with him, for that he was delighted with his sight and company; which stay, that he might not contradict Saul, he granted.

Conclusion

As we can see, we have a text from an ex-Pharisee (like Paul had been), writing 20 years after Paul (therefore in the same Koine Greek as Paul), writing to a predominantly Gentile audience (like Paul to the Ephesians), and what do we see? That 'sing' (ado) and 'make melody' (psallo) are clearly distinguished. The Ephesians 5:19 verse is a direct parallel to Josephus' description of David singing and accompanying himself on the lyre.

The other 7 Josephus examples follow a similar pattern.
God bless
Steven

Matt14
Oct 18th 2007, 03:31 PM
I think you are being slightly confused by the difference between Attic (before Alexander the Great) and Koine (3rdC BC - 5thC AD) [*gross simplification]. Yes there is a difference between Homer (Attic) and Herodotus (Koine), but there is no noticable difference between Strabo or Luke (Gentile Koine Greek writers) and Paul, Josephus or Philo (Jewish Koine Greek writers). Beyond the fact that the NT inevitably contains a small number of Semitisms derived from the Septuagint (Greek OT).

Sorry, but who told you this? LSJ distinguishes carefully between Attic and Koine - as it would since, eg, the majority of texts on the Cambridge A-level syllabus are Hellenistic/Koine. If you check the links in the LSJ entry on psallo you'll see most are to Koine texts.

Thanks Steven, but I'll stick with the bulk of biblical scholarship that says there is a difference. :)


In particular I linked 10 uses of psallo from Josephus who is (a) a Pharisee (b) 20 years later than Paul.

I'll try to get to them when I can.


No one is asking that you do, but if you can use BAGD you can quote for me the reference to the specific Greek text where instrumental accompaniment is excluded? You have BAGD, BAGD has excellent references, so which specific Greek text is the evidence :)

Actually, I did post from BAGD in reference to Eph. 5:19. BAGD says the more likely meaning of psallo in this passage is "make melody," and not "play." It's right there in my post.

BAGD says those who think the usage should me "play" in most cases in the NT may be relying too heavily on the earlier use of the word.

Ultimately, the NT usage is demonstrated by practice. If "playing" is the command, Steven, then the early church ignored the command, and Christians in general ignored it for more than 600 years. History backs up the meaning of the word.

Either that, or there were no Christians obedient to Eph. 5:19 for 600 years!

Another thing that needs to be pointing out is that in Paul's letter to the Colossians, which parallels so much of Ephesians, Paul does not use psallo. The parallels are:

singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord -- Eph. 5:19

and...

singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord -- Col. 3:16

Did Paul only command "playing" to the Ephesians? Doubtful, as Paul teaches the same things in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17).

When all is said and done, in my understanding, we have these things:

1. No specific command to use instruments, or an indication of what instruments to use, or even a suggestion to play upon an instrument.

2. Why would God want us to honor Him with man-made instruments, instead of the instrument He created (our voices)?

3. One can make good use of the thousands of dollars it takes to purchase, maintain, tune, etc., musical instruments. Seems a better use of the Lord's money to use it for benevolence and evangelism.

Since there is no command to use instruments, and most who use instruments say they are "optional," who benefits from the use of instruments? Is it God?

Or is it man?

Thanks, and God bless.

Matt14
Oct 18th 2007, 04:02 PM
4. The links
I've provided all the links to LSJ, psallo in Josephus, psallo in NT, psallo in a dozen pagan texts, psallo in LXX. All anyone who wants to prove that psallo doesn't allow instrumental accompaniment, plucking with a plectrum originally, has to do is simply click and read them.

First, let's be clear. I did not say "psallo does not allow instrumental accompaniment." This was not a statement I made. Nor did I say that the word did not originally mean "plucking with a plectrum." Please be sure not to distort what I have said.

Second, in regard to usages of psallo in extra-biblical writings that seem to keep the older meaning of psallo (playing an instrument, or singing with instruments), David Pyle has this to say about Liddell and Scott:

Of course, the transition from one form of Greek to another was gradual, and varying in degree from one place to the other. Further, there were some Greek authors who imitated the Greek of former eras. Such factors must be taken into account when ascertaining the etymology of Greek words. In the Preface (pg vi) of the acclaimed lexicon of Liddell and Scott, the following remarks are made concerning these facts:


It will be understood, however, that the age of a word does not wholly depend on that of its author. For, first, many Greek books have been lost; secondly, a word of Attic stamp, first occurring in Lucian, Alciphron, or later imitators of Attic Greek, may be considered as virtually older than those found in the vernacular writers of the Alexandrian age. Further, the language changed differently in different places at the same time; as in the cases of Demosthenes and Aristotle, whom we have been compelled to place in different Epochs. And even at the same place, as at Athens, there were naturally two parties, one clinging to old usages, the other fond of what was new. The Greek of Thucydides and Lysias may be compared in illustration of this remark.

Hence, Liddell and Scott observe that certain Greek authors wrote using a noncontemporary form of their language. Sophocles, in recognition of these same considerations, did not cite such authors as Josephus, Plutarch, and Lucian, who, though living within the time frame of his lexicon, wrote using classical Greek rather than koine Greek. This fact partly accounts for his conclusion that psallo and psalmos had no reference to musical instruments in the era he examined. There were indeed some instances where Greek authors living in the time frame of his work used these terms in such a way as to imply or admit instrumentation, but their writings were conisdered as imitating the older classical Greek, which differs significantly from the koine Greek of the New Testament.

So Steven, the people still using psallo to include instruments were likely imitating an older style of writing, a "high" style of writing. This accounts for most of your extra-biblical instances of the use of psallo to meaning singing with instruments.

Also, David Pyle's article (http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/psallo.html) references A.T. Robertson:

In his comments on 1Cor 14:15, A.T. Robertson, one of the most highly acclaimed Greek scholars, explains the meaning of psallo thus: "...originally meant to play on strings, then to sing with an accompaniment, and here apparently to sing without regard to an instrument." Hence, Robertson is of the opinion that the word does not imply instrumental music in the New Testament. He explains that the meaning of the word changed through time.

All authorities seem to agree that the earliest meaning of the word, hundreds of years before the New Testament era, was to "pluck, twitch or twang," as in "pluck" a hair, or "twang" a bowstring, or "twitch" a carpenter's line. At this early stage, the word had no special association with musical instruments. Then, as Roberston explains, the word evolved so that its meaning became to touch or play the strings of a musical instrument. Afterward, it meant to sing in accompaniment with such an instrument. But yet later, in the common Greek of the New Testament period, Robertson and other authorities affirm that the idea of an instrument had been dropped, so that the word simply meant to sing a hymn or to sing praises. The commonalty in all definitions is the idea of vibrating a string or cord. Since the human voice is also created by such vibration, it is possible that the meaning of the term was transferred to the voice along these lines. Whatever the explanation of its etymology, there is absolutely no doubt that the term has experienced the indicated changes.

Now, where is the Greek text with psallo not referring to instruments?

I maintain that Eph. 5:19 is that text. But also I Corinthians 14:15:

1Co 14:15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.
1Co 14:16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?

It is clear that Paul is referring in this passage to vocal prayer and praise. He uses the word psallo, but is referring to the spoken or sung word that can be understood. He's not speaking about instruments.

Matt14
Oct 18th 2007, 04:10 PM
Interested in non-church of Christ scholars who believe instrumental music is not authorized?
Here are some links:

Primitive Baptist:http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/psallo.html

Presbyterian:http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/music1.html

Christian Reformed:
John Price -- Old Light On New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881095010/104-0057865-5239926

Matt14
Oct 18th 2007, 05:05 PM
1. then what does mean sing-with-instruments in Greek?
Critically you missed my question "if psallo doesn't mean psallo what does mean psallo?" If you're saying that the word doesn't mean "make melody" then what word is left in Greek that does. Are we saying that it was impossible for the Greeks to say "sing with instruments" because the word didn't exist? Please address this question - please suggest which Greek word does mean "sing with instruments" :)

Sorry I missed this. Psallo may have meant in earlier ages "play upon an instrument," but the NT usage it not the same.

What word DOES mean play an instrument? How about:

Rev 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps.

Here the word for playing is the Greek word:

G2789
κιθαρίζω
kitharizō
kith-ar-id'-zo
From G2788; to play on a lyre: - harp.
(Strong's)

Or perhaps:

Mat 11:17 and say3004, 'We played832 the flute832 for you, and you did not dance3738; we sang2354 a dirge2354, and you did not mourn2875.'

Where the word for "played" is:

G832
αὐλέω
auleō
ow-leh'-o
From G836; to play the flute: - pipe.

or perhaps:

1Co 14:7 Yet3676 even lifeless895 things895, either1535a flute836 or1535a harp2788, in producing1325 a sound5456, if1437 they do not produce1325 a distinction1293 in the tones5353, how4459 will it be known1097 what is played832 on the flute832 or2228 on the harp2789?

where the word is also:

G832
αὐλέω
auleō
ow-leh'-o
From G836; to play the flute: - pipe.

or perhaps:

Mat 6:2 "So3767 when3752 you give4160 to the poor, do not sound4537 a trumpet4537 before1715 you, as the hypocrites5273 do4160 in the synagogues4864 and in the streets4505, so3767 that they may be honored1392 by men444. Truly281 I say3004 to you, they have568 their reward3408 in full568.

"Sound" a trumpet is how Jesus talked about playing a trumpet. The Greek is:

G4537
σαλπίζω
salpizō
sal-pid'-zo
From G4536; to trumpet, that is, sound a blast (literally or figuratively): - (which are yet to) sound (a trumpet).

All these words were at Paul's disposal. Paul himself used them to speak of playing flutes or harps. BUT, he didn't use psallo in these places.

Wonder why?

Matt14
Oct 18th 2007, 05:20 PM
Jeffreys, I hope you are not becoming angry. Your tone seems to indicate I may have said or done something to upset you. I hope this is not the case.

I cannot respond to every comment this past post to you, nor do I think your post really refuted anything I posted. but I do want to respond specifically to this part:


First of all, to assert that Ephesians 5:19 refers to "singing in an assembly" is to take it completely out of context. In addition, the word psallo is there used, which has as a primary meaning, "a song accompanied by a stringed instrument." Also, Colossians 3:16 does not explicitly speak of singing in an assembly.

The context warrants it. Paul says:

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

And he says:

Col 3:16 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.

How can you speak to one another, teach and admonish one another, if you are not together? Answer this question, and I could certainly come closer to seeing your point.


In addition, you need to be very careful with that verse, because it explicitly mentions a Psalm (in addition to a hymn), further affirming the presence of OT Psalms, which were songs accompanied by stringed instruments!

Not necessarily ALWAYS accompanied by stringed instruments, in the first place. Second, just because it was so under the Old Covenant, does not make it warranted in the New. Third, the teaching of the psalm is the important thing, else Paul would have made sure we knew how and with what instrument to use. The teaching is the focus. Instruments are not even considered by Paul.


I sing songs, all the time, from heart - because they're in my memory. I do not need a hymnal for that.

I'm glad, and you should continue! But, where did you learn the words? Some people have to read them to remember. That's why hymnals are an expedient.

Besides that, you argue against yourself, seeing as how the Psalms were writen down. :)


But most important, you're not admitting that there is no NT authorization for hymnals yet you use them. This is no different than the use of instruments.

The Bible says nothing of hymnals, but you are overlooking the idea of commands and expedients that I tried to present. If you cannot accept that there are commands and allowable expedients, we really can't go much further in our discussions.


Matt;

The point is that we BOTH regularly engage in "non-authorized" practices during worship. I believe that honesty would necessitate BOTH of us admitting that.

I would not admit to engaging in ANY non-authorized worship. Praying, teaching, singing, giving and partaking of the Lord's supper are all authorized by the New Testament. And that's all we do.


The only real question is this. Are non-authorized practices automatically condemned and forbidden?

When it comes to the worship service, yes.

Matt14
Oct 18th 2007, 05:24 PM
Concerning the fine point of "millions of baptized, committed, faithful Christians", I will again assert that there are at least that many. Are you aware of just how large the "independent Christian Churches" brotherhood now is? And that's not counting all the saints throughout history, nor is it including the countless other Christians, of other churches, who practice immersion "for the right reasons".

How many "millions" are in your brotherhood? And are numbers really what we should look for in the practice of Christianity (Matt. 7:13-14)?


But here's the point that I am repeatedly making, and you seem to be repeatedly ignoring: Baptism is a command. It is clear and explicit. There is absolutely no such thing regarding the use of instruments in worship.


Singing is commanded. It is clear and explicit (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; James 5:13; Hebrews 13:5). There is no mention of instruments, or a command to use them.

And since you admit that there is no explicit command for instruments, do you see that you are proceeding without authorization?

jeffreys
Oct 18th 2007, 09:17 PM
How can you speak to one another, teach and admonish one another, if you are not together? Answer this question, and I could certainly come closer to seeing your point.

That's easy.

An example: We have an elders' breakfast every Wednesday at 7:00 AM. We are together, but we are not together at a worship service.

jeffreys
Oct 18th 2007, 09:20 PM
The Bible says nothing of hymnals, but you are overlooking the idea of commands and expedients that I tried to present. If you cannot accept that there are commands and allowable expedients, we really can't go much further in our discussions.

Thank you for expressing my sentiments exactly!

YOU are arbitrarily determining what is a "command" and what is an "allowable expedient".

That is my point exactly. You're spinning in circles to justify using hymnals in worship, then spinning in the exact opposite direction to condemn and prohibit using instruments in worship.

jeffreys
Oct 18th 2007, 09:23 PM
How many "millions" are in your brotherhood? And are numbers really what we should look for in the practice of Christianity (Matt. 7:13-14)?

Singing is commanded. It is clear and explicit (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; James 5:13; Hebrews 13:5). There is no mention of instruments, or a command to use them.

And since you admit that there is no explicit command for instruments, do you see that you are proceeding without authorization?

The number "in my brotherhood" is not the point. And I'm not so closed-minded as to believe that only members in good standing "in my brotherhood" will be in heaven.


Now... until you're willing to admit that psallo - used in Ephesians 5:19 and elsewhere - includes stringed instruments just as much as it includes singing, there is really no point in arguing the same thing over and over and over and over.

And I think you ought to ponder seriously whether God is going to condemn people to Hell for doing something He never said was wrong.


Honestly Matt, I see absolutely no point in continuing this dance. It's rather silly, isn't it?

jeffreys
Oct 18th 2007, 09:26 PM
I would not admit to engaging in ANY non-authorized worship. Praying, teaching, singing, giving and partaking of the Lord's supper are all authorized by the New Testament. And that's all we do.

That's my point. You won't admit to it.

But that doesn't mean you're not doing it without admitting it.

I will give you a 100% guarantee that if I joined you in worship on a Sunday morning, I could provide for you a page full of unauthorized things you do in your worship service. And while you would excuse them by calling them "expedient", they are still unauthorized.

Matt14
Oct 19th 2007, 01:38 AM
The number "in my brotherhood" is not the point. And I'm not so closed-minded as to believe that only members in good standing "in my brotherhood" will be in heaven.

You brought the point up, my friend. :)


Now... until you're willing to admit that psallo - used in Ephesians 5:19 and elsewhere - includes stringed instruments just as much as it includes singing, there is really no point in arguing the same thing over and over and over and over.

The majority of scholars and the BAGD seem to indicate singing is what is meant, especially since it parallels Col. 3:16.


And I think you ought to ponder seriously whether God is going to condemn people to Hell for doing something He never said was wrong.

Believe me, I have. I would suggest you ponder the effects of what you teach upon others.


Honestly Matt, I see absolutely no point in continuing this dance. It's rather silly, isn't it?

First of all, I didn't start this thread. Second, no, it is not silly. Contending for the faith is never silly. I'm sorry that you see it that way.

Matt14
Oct 19th 2007, 01:42 AM
That's my point. You won't admit to it.

But that doesn't mean you're not doing it without admitting it.

I will give you a 100% guarantee that if I joined you in worship on a Sunday morning, I could provide for you a page full of unauthorized things you do in your worship service. And while you would excuse them by calling them "expedient", they are still unauthorized.

Jeffreys, do you go to worship each week, intending to worship in an unauthorized manner, and go ahead with it anyway?

This argument you are making is basically, "You do unauthorized things in worship, so that makes my unauthorized practice okay!"

Even if I did unauthorized things in worship, woudl that excuse the unauthorized use of instruments?

Matt14
Oct 19th 2007, 01:44 AM
That's easy.

An example: We have an elders' breakfast every Wednesday at 7:00 AM. We are together, but we are not together at a worship service.

If you sing together, you are together! Whenever you are together, there you are! Do you see?

jeffreys
Oct 19th 2007, 02:05 AM
If you sing together, you are together! Whenever you are together, there you are! Do you see?

Is Ephesians 5:19 - the verse that includes the word psallo - referring to a congregate worship service? Only if you're stretching it.

jeffreys
Oct 19th 2007, 02:10 AM
Jeffreys, do you go to worship each week, intending to worship in an unauthorized manner, and go ahead with it anyway?

This argument you are making is basically, "You do unauthorized things in worship, so that makes my unauthorized practice okay!"

Even if I did unauthorized things in worship, woudl that excuse the unauthorized use of instruments?

Yep. Absolutely.

- Like you, we meet together in a church building - something unauthorized in the New Testament.
- Like you, we sing from hymnals some Sundays - something unauthorized in the New Testament.
- Like you, we have a hired preacher/pastor - something unauthorized in the New Testament.
- Like you, we have Sunday School - something unauthorized in the New Testament.
- Like you, we have a PA system in our church building - a device in a building, neither of which are authorized in the New Testament.
- Like you, we have communion set up on a table - something unauthorized in the New Testament.
- Like you, we read from a Holy Bible - something not only unauthorized, but not even heard of in the New Testament.


It looks to me, friend, like we're both going straight to hell for using things in worship that are not authorized in the New Testament! After all, doing something in worship that is unauthorized is willingly condemning yourself to eternal damnation, right?

jeffreys
Oct 19th 2007, 02:14 AM
The majority of scholars and the BAGD seem to indicate singing is what is meant, especially since it parallels Col. 3:16.
Let me amend that comment to make it more accurate...
The majority of scholars that YOU agree with seem to indicate that singing is what is meant in Ephesians 5:19. You're simply choosing to ignore all the others, even though the weight of their scholarship is equal to, or greater than, the ones you agree with.


First of all, I didn't start this thread. Second, no, it is not silly. Contending for the faith is never silly. I'm sorry that you see it that way.
Matt, you are not "contending for the faith". You are speaking where the Bible does not speak. You are condemning as sinful something the Bible does not condemn as sinful. You are condemning people to hell for something God never said was wrong.


.....................................

Hburgpreacher
Oct 19th 2007, 02:29 AM
I have read many of your explanations, Matt, as to the non-instrumental rationale for forbidding instruments in worship. I have gained an insight into why you guys make such a big deal out of musical instruments. That was my purpose in starting this thread -- to gain a greater understanding. Therefore, I thank you for defending your doctrine with such passion and eloquence.

To me, the whole issue boils down to one question. Does the fact that the Bible doesn't mention something mean that God forbids it? If we're going to make that assumption, then that opens up a whole bunch of issues for which people could, as you contend, lose their salvation.

One of the premises of the Restoration movement was that we "speak where the scriptures speak and that we remain silent where the scriptures are silent." I personally believe that, if the use of instruments in worship was a big deal to God, He would have spoken about it directly in His word. The non-use of instruments is a doctrine based solely upon a man-made implication that is just not adequately supported in scripture. With all due respect, I think it borders on creating law where the Bible does not speak.

Furthermore, I cannot help but be hurt and offended to think that our brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ feel that we are going to Hell because we use instruments to sing praises from our hearts to the Lord. The determiner of our salvation is whether or not we have repented of our sins, professed Jesus as Lord, and been baptized into the new covenant of grace. Whether I sing acapella or praise the Lord using a symphony of the most beautiful instruments on earth as the background for my praise is not a matter that determines the salvation of man. This is the kind of legalism that Paul was addressing in the book of Romans because it harmed the unity of the diverse brotherhood of believers.

Steven3
Oct 19th 2007, 04:48 AM
Matt14
I'm sorry but I've posted Josephus, a Pharisee writer 20 years after Paul, using ado and psallo to mean "sing and make melody" in a way that contradicts your teaching, and your response is to give me references of the quality of the below?


Interested in non-church of Christ scholars who believe instrumental music is not authorized? Honestly? No, not in the least.;)


Here are some links:

Primitive Baptist:http://www.pb.org/pbdocs/psallo.html

Presbyterian:http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/music1.html

Christian Reformed:
John Price -- Old Light On New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881095010/104-0057865-5239926

These sources are not worth tuppence, because we know that there's a suspension of objectivity marring this area already. So why does anyone need to go to web page of someone who (the first two websites given) can't even read Greek to read their theories when we have the real thing - the Greek texts themselves? What's happening here is that a sectarian dogma, a theology, is wagging the whole corpus of extant Greek texts by the tail.

Please show me a Greek text that supports your church's claim - not someone's opinion - You still need to provide a concrete Greek text that differs from Josephus etc.

There may be one for all I know. But I'm beginning to suspect there isn't because if there was it'd be exactly where it isn't - in these articles.
Cheers! :)
Steven


PS - you still didn't answer the psallo question, if psallo doesn't mean "sing with accompaniment" what does? Kitharizo means to play without singing, so that's the opposite of ado, sing without playing, what we need to know is what verb (if not psallo) means sing-and-play.

Steven3
Oct 19th 2007, 05:09 AM
... continuing...
Thanks Steven, but I'll stick with the bulk of biblical scholarship that says there is a difference. :)I'm sorry Matthew but I consider that that statement smacks of either dishonesty or bias. So far we've only found one credible scholar - Vine. Vine was not a lexicographer or a linguist but he is credible. However, as I said Vine was a Darbyite, so it isn't too amazing that he agrees with Darby. But I would expect that Vine would provide an example. So perhaps you'd like to please check Vine for me (or someone can) to see if he's given a Greek text as evidence. Because if there's a Greek text which Vine offers as proof you don't need to stick with anything except facts ;).


Actually, I did post from BAGD in reference to Eph. 5:19. BAGD says the more likely meaning of psallo in this passage is "make melody," and not "play." It's right there in my post. Right. In other words BAGD takes it as sing-and-play. Not sing, not play, but both.
Ultimately, the NT usage is demonstrated by practice. If "playing" is the command, Steven, then the early church ignored the command, and Christians in general ignored it for more than 600 years. History backs up the meaning of the word.Firstly I'm not going to allow you to move the goalposts - "make melody", psallo, probably means sing-and-play, not sing, not play. Secondly - church history, sorry, but I really could care less - Christianity was rotten to the core within two generations of Timothy and Clement. Besides if we can't trust anti-music writers to be objective with the LXX and Josephus why would they be honest / objective with Patristic texts?


Another thing that needs to be pointing out is that in Paul's letter to the Colossians, which parallels so much of Ephesians, Paul does not use psallo. The parallels are:

singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord -- Eph. 5:19

and...

singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord -- Col. 3:16

Did Paul only command "playing" to the Ephesians? Doubtful, as Paul teaches the same things in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17).That's out of context use of 1Co4:17. Paul did not teach exactly the same in all the churches, he was sensitive to local issues. Maybe Colossae was CoC, maybe they couldn't afford an organ, maybe Ephesus had a band and Colossae didn't. Who knows.


When all is said and done, in my understanding, we have these things:

1. No specific command to use instruments, or an indication of what instruments to use, or even a suggestion to play upon an instrument.Contradicted by LSJ, BAGD, Josephus, Septuagint.
2. Why would God want us to honor Him with man-made instruments, instead of the instrument He created (our voices)?Contradicted by God in the OT - who doesn't change.
3. One can make good use of the thousands of dollars it takes to purchase, maintain, tune, etc., musical instruments. Seems a better use of the Lord's money to use it for benevolence and evangelism.Getting desperate ;) Paul could have said that to Corinth.
Since there is no command to use instruments, and most who use instruments say they are "optional," who benefits from the use of instruments? Is it God? No it's the Ephesians. See next verse.

be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

God bless
Steven

Steven3
Oct 19th 2007, 05:47 AM
Matt14
First, sorry, more bad news. You above refer to Christian History - I think we're all aware that Clement of Alexandria AD190 was against musical instruments and many writers after this date agreed with him. This prompted me to hunt for how Lampe (Lexicon of Patristic Greek) defined psallo. Wait for it - Lampe has gone back to the Euripedes era meaning of playing, not even sing-and-play, and certainly not sing. Now I can only assume (without sighting Lampe, which I don't have access to) that Lampe's reason is the marked opposition to instruments from Clement of Alexandria onwards. So they were against psallo, they didn't redefine it as Vine and Darby did.

However, finally some good news, I've been looking for something that might help you and found this in Herodotus (English by A.D. Godley)

Histories I.CLV/155.1 . When Cyrus heard of this on his journey, he said to Croesus, “What end to this business, Croesus? It seems that the Lydians will never stop making trouble for me and for themselves. It occurs to me that it may be best to make slaves of them; for it seems I have acted like one who slays the father and spares the children. [2] So likewise I have taken with me you who were more than a father to the Lydians, and handed the city over to the Lydians themselves; and then indeed I marvel that they revolt!” So Cyrus uttered his thought; but Croesus feared that he would destroy Sardis, and answered him thus: [3] “O King, what you say is reasonable. But do not ever yield to anger, or destroy an ancient city that is innocent both of the former and of the present offense. For the former I am responsible, and bear the punishment on my head; while Pactyes, in whose charge you left Sardis, does this present wrong; let him, then, pay the penalty. [4] But pardon the Lydians, and give them this command so that they not revolt or pose a danger to you: send and forbid them to possess weapons of war, and order them to wear tunics under their cloaks and knee-boots on their feet, and to teach their sons lyre-playing (kitharizo) and song-and-dance (psallo) and shop-keeping. And quickly, O king, you shall see them become women instead of men, so that you need not fear them, that they might revolt.”There you go there's lyre-playing and song-and-dance distinguished. That somewhat festive English translation is Godley's inference of course but given that Croesus considers psallo effeminizing it's legitimate.

But it doesn't count for much against Josephus, a Pharisee 20 years after Paul, using the same verbs ado and psallo as Paul uses.

Third, back to more bad news: There was also a text which I couldn't check in Greek because my Greek copy is back at home. This is a charismatic Disapora Jewish text from the Therapeutae sect in Alexandria around the time of Christ, which retells Job's story as if he was a member of their sect.
Testament of Job 12:5 But after three days Job saw the holy angels come for his soul, and instantly he rose and took the cithara and gave it to his daughter Jemimah. 6 And to Kassia he gave a censer, and to Amalthea he gave a timbrel in order that they might bless the holy angels who came for his soul. 7 And they took these, and sang, and played on the psaltery and praised and glorified God in the holy dialect.Apart from giving the lie to the bogus historical 'fact' that Jews didn't use musical instruments when singing in the NT period, I'm pretty certain that at least one of the verbs in this text (probably not in this verse but in one of the others) is psallo, but unfortunately it'll be some time before I have access to the Greek again. In the meantime 'sang and played on the psaltery' is still relevant. Particularly as this group seems to have had some influence on Apollos in Corinth.

And finally, lets end with Plutarch - 50 years after Paul

Lives, Pericles 1:5 Therefore it was a fine saying of Antisthenes, when he heard that Ismenias was an excellent piper: “But he's a worthless man,” said he, “otherwise he wouldn't be so good a piper.” And so Philip once said to his son, who, as the wine went round, plucked-the-strings (psallo) charmingly and skilfully, “Art not ashamed to pluck- the-strings (psallo) so well?” It is enough, surely, if a king have leisure to hear others pluck-the-strings (psallo) , and he pays great deference to the Muses if he be but a spectator of such contests.And maybe we'll never hear again this "psallo used to mean pluck, but not in Paul's day" claim?

God bless
Steven

Matt14
Oct 19th 2007, 06:27 PM
Will definitely be responding to all of your kind comments, but personal ministry must be first! Lord willing, by Monday I will rejoin this thread.

Thanks!

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 02:47 PM
Hi guys, sorry I'm just now getting back. Lots of work to do here in my ministry, but I'm off today, so I will try to respond. I hope this thread won't continue to degrade in respect and tone, but it appears to be headed in that direction.



[166] So Samuel, when he had given him these admonitions, went away. But the Divine Power departed from Saul, and removed to David; who, upon this removal of the Divine Spirit to him, began to prophesy. But as for Saul, some strange and demoniacal disorders came upon him, and brought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him; for which the physicians could find no other remedy but this, That if any person could charm those passions by singing (ado), and playing (psallo) upon the harp, they advised them to inquire for such a one, and to observe when these demons came upon him and disturbed him, and to take care that such a person might stand over him, and play (psallo) upon the harp, and recite (lego) hymns to him. Accordingly Saul did not delay, but commanded them to seek out such a man. [167] And when a certain stander-by said that he had seen in the city of Bethlehem a son of Jesse, who was yet no more than a child in age, but comely and beautiful, and in other respects one that was deserving of great regard, who was skillful in playing (psallo) on the harp, and in singing (ado) of hymns, [and an excellent soldier in war,] he sent to Jesse, and desired him to take David away from the flocks, and send him to him, for he had a mind to see him, as having heard an advantageous character of his comeliness and his valor. [168] So Jesse sent his son, and gave him presents to carry to Saul. And when he was come, Saul was pleased with him, and made him his armor-bearer, and had him in very great esteem; for he charmed his passion, and was the only physician against the trouble he had from the demons, whensoever it was that it came upon him, and this by reciting (lego) of hymns, and playing (psallo) upon the harp, and bringing Saul to his right mind again. [169] However, he sent to Jesse, the father of the child, and desired him to permit David to stay with him, for that he was delighted with his sight and company; which stay, that he might not contradict Saul, he granted.

What do you notice here about Josephus' use of psallo, Steven? Do you notice that with every use, Josephus points to the object that is "psalloed?" notice it is always "psallo" upon the harp.

What does that tell you when Paul says to psallo with the heart? Is he not pointing to the object of psalloing, just as Josephus is?


Conclusion

As we can see, we have a text from an ex-Pharisee (like Paul had been), writing 20 years after Paul (therefore in the same Koine Greek as Paul), writing to a predominantly Gentile audience (like Paul to the Ephesians),

Just because he is an "ex-Pharisee" does not mean he used the same words in the same way as Paul. Only context can distinguish such things, Steven.

Do you know where and how Jospehus learned to write Greek? He says in Antiquities that he wasn't comfortable with pronouncing Greek. Don't you think it likely he relied upon the Septuagint and Greek lexicons of the day, both of which would not have had the current common usages?



and what do we see? That 'sing' (ado) and 'make melody' (psallo) are clearly distinguished. The Ephesians 5:19 verse is a direct parallel to Josephus' description of David singing and accompanying himself on the lyre.


So, what do you make of the fact the the same constructions are used?

Josephus says, "psalloing upon the harp:"

psallôn en têi kinurai

Paul says "making melody with the heart:"

ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ

Interesting, isn't it, how the instrument in nearly all uses of psallo is defined following psallo?

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:01 PM
Is Ephesians 5:19 - the verse that includes the word psallo - referring to a congregate worship service? Only if you're stretching it.

We've gone over this answer a few times, but we'll look at it again. :)

Ephesians 5:19 necessarily includes Christians being together because the passage instructs to "speak to one another" in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. How can Christians speak to one another in these things if they are not together?

At the very least it includes at least two Christians together. It certainly does not rule out a congregation, does it? What do you think?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:07 PM
We've gone over this answer a few times, but we'll look at it again. :)

Ephesians 5:19 necessarily includes Christians being together because the passage instructs to "speak to one another" in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. How can Christians speak to one another in these things if they are not together?

At the very least it includes at least two Christians together. It certainly does not rule out a congregation, does it? What do you think?

In the proper contextual setting, it makes absolutely no mention of a congregate worship setting. None whatsoever. Christians gather all the time for reasons other than corporate worship.

Ephesians 5:19 is simply not saying what you're trying to force it to say.

This, to me, is clear evidence that the "prohibition because of lack of authorization" argument - regarding instruments in worship, is simply not biblical.


God is not going to condemn people to hell for doing something He never said was wrong.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:10 PM
Jeffreys, do you go to worship each week, intending to worship in an unauthorized manner, and go ahead with it anyway?


Yep. Absolutely.

I really don't know where to go with an answer like this. You see things as unauthorized, and you are willing to perform them as worship anyway?


- Like you, we meet together in a church building - something unauthorized in the New Testament.

The command is to meet (Heb. 10:25). The place is an expedient.


- Like you, we sing from hymnals some Sundays - something unauthorized in the New Testament.

The command is to sing (Eph. 5:19), hymnals are an expedient to performing the command.


- Like you, we have a hired preacher/pastor - something unauthorized in the New Testament.

Teaching is the command, and those who live by the gospel are worthy to be support by the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14).


- Like you, we have Sunday School - something unauthorized in the New Testament.

Teaching is the command, Sunday schools is an expedient. It alters the command in no way, it is an expedient to carrying out teaching.


- Like you, we have a PA system in our church building - a device in a building, neither of which are authorized in the New Testament.

Teaching is the command, PA's make the voice louder to carry teaching further. It does not change the command, so it is an expedient.


- Like you, we have communion set up on a table - something unauthorized in the New Testament.

The command is to remember the Lord with the Lord's supper, fruit of the vine and bread (Matt. 26:26-29). The container for fruit of the vine and bread matters not. Another expedient.


- Like you, we read from a Holy Bible - something not only unauthorized, but not even heard of in the New Testament.

What? The Word of God is unauthorized? You'll have to explain what you mean here.


It looks to me, friend, like we're both going straight to hell for using things in worship that are not authorized in the New Testament! After all, doing something in worship that is unauthorized is willingly condemning yourself to eternal damnation, right?

If you know something is unauthorized in worship to God, and you do it anyway, I would say yes, you are gambling with your soul.

Now, do you think musical instruments are unauthorized? Because you seem to be admitting that there is no authorization in the NT for instruments.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:13 PM
I really don't know where to go with an answer like this. You see things as unauthorized, and you are willing to perform them as worship anyway?

The difference between you and me, Matt, is that I'm being HONEST about the FACT that we BOTH engage in countless "unauthorized" practices every Sunday.

You're trying to justify what you do, while condemn what I do. You're spinning out of control Matt. You're condemning what I do as "unauthorized" while excusing what you do as "expedient". How can you NOT see that? :hmm:

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:14 PM
Let me amend that comment to make it more accurate...
The majority of scholars that YOU agree with seem to indicate that singing is what is meant in Ephesians 5:19. You're simply choosing to ignore all the others, even though the weight of their scholarship is equal to, or greater than, the ones you agree with.

Please show me the scholars who say Eph. 5:19 is referring to musical instruments. And I'm talking about scholarly commentaries or lexicons, and not devotional materials.


Matt, you are not "contending for the faith". You are speaking where the Bible does not speak. You are condemning as sinful something the Bible does not condemn as sinful. You are condemning people to hell for something God never said was wrong.

Actually, it would appear that you are speaking where the Bible does not speak. If the Bible does not command instruments for worship, by saying it is allowable you are adding an element to worship that was not commanded, and thus speaking where the Bible is silent.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:16 PM
In the proper contextual setting, it makes absolutely no mention of a congregate worship setting. None whatsoever. Christians gather all the time for reasons other than corporate worship.

Is worship a gathering that would be addressed by Eph. 5:19? If not, you have absolutely no authority to sing OR play instruments in worship.

Will you really deny 99 percent of biblical scholarship and say Eph. 5:19 cannot refer to congregational settings?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:19 PM
The command is to meet (Heb. 10:25). The place is an expedient.
The Bible does NOT authorize the use/ownership of church buildings - therefore, by YOUR standards, you are PROHIBITED from owning and/or meeting in a church building.

The command is to sing (Eph. 5:19), hymnals are an expedient to performing the command.
The Bible does NOT authorize the use of hymnals - therefore, by YOUR standards, you are PROHIBITED from using hymnals.


Teaching is the command, and those who live by the gospel are worthy to be support by the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14).
The Bible does NOT authorize having hired ministers - therefore, by YOUR standards, you are PROHIBITED from hiring ministers.


Teaching is the command, Sunday schools is an expedient. It alters the command in no way, it is an expedient to carrying out teaching.
The Bible does NOT authorize Sunday School - therefore, by YOUR standards, you are PROHIBITED from having Sunday School.


Teaching is the command, PA's make the voice louder to carry teaching further. It does not change the command, so it is an expedient.
The Bible does NOT authorize the use of PA Systems - therefore, by YOUR standards, you are PROHIBITED from using PA Systems.


The command is to remember the Lord with the Lord's supper, fruit of the vine and bread (Matt. 26:26-29). The container for fruit of the vine and bread matters not. Another expedient.
The Bible does NOT authorize the use of communion cups or tables - therefore, by YOUR standards, you are PROHIBITED from using communion cups or tables.


What? The Word of God is unauthorized? You'll have to explain what you mean here.
Nowhere, in the New Testament, is there any mention - let alone authorization for - the "Holy Bible". Yet every Sunday (I assume), you hold this unauthorized instrument in your hands.


If you know something is unauthorized in worship to God, and you do it anyway, I would say yes, you are gambling with your soul.
Right back at you, Matt.

Now, do you think musical instruments are unauthorized? Because you seem to be admitting that there is no authorization in the NT for instruments.
There is no more, or less, authorization for instruments than for all of these things YOU USE yet EXCUSE USING because you hide behind the word "expedient".



Let me be bluntly honest for a moment Matt. You're examining the speck in other's eyes, while refusing to look at the plank in your own. How can you NOT see that? :hmm:

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:21 PM
The difference between you and me, Matt, is that I'm being HONEST about the FACT that we BOTH engage in countless "unauthorized" practices every Sunday.

You're trying to justify what you do, while condemn what I do. You're spinning out of control Matt. You're condemning what I do as "unauthorized" while excusing what you do as "expedient". How can you NOT see that? :hmm:

Brother, I see by your "non-answer" to the question, that you understand what I am saying. Accusing me of dishonesty will not alleviate your responsibility (or mine) toward God.

The expedients, if you will examine them, do not change the commands.

We are commanded to sing. Singing and playing instruments are two different kinds of music. To add instruments is to add a different type of music to the command, therefore it is not an expedient.

I did not start this thread, nor participate in it, to "condemn" anyone. Only God can do that. Instead, I am standing up for what I believe is the biblical truth. But, I suppose you will hate me for this. It's okay. I just pray you are not leading your people down a wrong path.

Do you think musical instruments are commanded, or optional?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:22 PM
Please show me the scholars who say Eph. 5:19 is referring to musical instruments. And I'm talking about scholarly commentaries or lexicons, and not devotional materials.

Please show me the scholars who say Ephesians 5:19 is referring to congregate worship. And I'm talking about scholarly commentaries that are by other than anti-instrumentalist authors.

You really need to drop the Ephesians 5:19 argument, Matt. It has been thoroughly and repeatedly destroyed. You refusing to see that does not change it.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:25 PM
Let me be bluntly honest for a moment Matt. You're examining the speck in other's eyes, while refusing to look at the plank in your own. How can you NOT see that? :hmm:
I do not want to anger you, jeffreys, so I think we'd better put this off to another time.

The fact is, if everything we both are doing was unauthorized, it still would not excuse the use of instruments of music in worship. Do you see what I mean?

God bless!

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:25 PM
Brother, I see by your "non-answer" to the question, that you understand what I am saying. Accusing me of dishonesty will not alleviate your responsibility (or mine) toward God.

The expedients, if you will examine them, do not change the commands.

We are commanded to sing. Singing and playing instruments are two different kinds of music. To add instruments is to add a different type of music to the command, therefore it is not an expedient.

I did not start this thread, nor participate in it, to "condemn" anyone. Only God can do that. Instead, I am standing up for what I believe is the biblical truth. But, I suppose you will hate me for this. It's okay. I just pray you are not leading your people down a wrong path.

Do you think musical instruments are commanded, or optional?

Matt, you're belligerently refusing to admit any duplicity here. You are repeatedly condemning me for engaging in all these "unauthorized" practices, yet I point out that you too are engaged in countless "unauthorized" practices. But rather than be honest enough to say, "Yes Jeff, I too engage in unauthorized practices", you do this little semantic dance and excuse yourself by saying, "What we do is expedient". I'm simply calling you on the duplicity of that.

Instrumental accompaniment is OPTIONAL - just as are the countless other OPTIONAL practices you engage in. How can you NOT see that?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:27 PM
I do not want to anger you, jeffreys, so I think we'd better put this off to another time.

The fact is, if everything we both are doing was unauthorized, it still would not excuse the use of instruments of music in worship. Do you see what I mean?

God bless!

Yes, I see EXACTLY what you mean. You're hung-up on your hatred of instruments, to the point where you cannot see anything else.

Can you admit that you engage in all manner of practices, in worship, that are not authorized in Scripture? Please answer that question with a simple YES or NO.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:27 PM
Nowhere, in the New Testament, is there any mention - let alone authorization for - the "Holy Bible". Yet every Sunday (I assume), you hold this unauthorized instrument in your hands

I'm sorry, I suppose I am a little dense. But what are you saying?

Do you believe the Bible is the wholly inspired, inerrant Word of God? If you do not, we are spinning our wheels, here.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:28 PM
I'm sorry, I suppose I am a little dense. But what are you saying?

Do you believe the Bible is the wholly inspired, inerrant Word of God? If you do not, we are spinning our wheels, here.

Find me one instance, in the New Testament, where "HOLY BIBLE" is mentioned/authorized. One verse.

If you cannot cite that verse, verbatim, you need to admit that the HOLY BIBLE is - by your standards - unauthorized.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:32 PM
Yes, I see EXACTLY what you mean. You're hung-up on your hatred of instruments, to the point where you cannot see anything else.

This is another personal attack, and it's really out of line. Hatred of instruments is far from a descriptor of my personality!

I have a degree in music theory, classical piano minor. I play guitar, all keyboards, bass, some drums, practically any other instrument I can get my hands on. I compose, and have even written some country songs that agents have looked at. To say I hate instruments it laughable!

However, I have realized their place in God's worship.


Can you admit that you engage in all manner of practices, in worship, that are not authorized in Scripture? Please answer that question with a simple YES or NO.

That sounds a lot like the old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" :rofl: There is no acceptable answer.

I do not admit that I worship in an unauthorized way, no. By examining the scriptures, and practicing only what is commanded, and nothing that is not, I do not believe I am worshipping in an unauthorized way.

Simple answer: NO.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:45 PM
Please show me the scholars who say Ephesians 5:19 is referring to congregate worship. And I'm talking about scholarly commentaries that are by other than anti-instrumentalist authors.

Since I am not in my office (this is my day off), I cannot give you an exhaustive list. But I know the Expositor's Bble Commentary says Paul is most likely referring to an assembly setting. Here is Albert Barnes (Presbyterian) and John Gill, neither of which are "anti-instrumentalists."

Albert Barnes
Eph 5:19 -
Speaking to yourselves - Speaking among yourselves, that is, endeavoring to edify one another, and to promote purity of heart, by songs of praise. This has the force of a command, and it is a matter of obligation on Christians. From the beginning, praise was an important part of public worship, and is designed to be to the end of the world; see the notes on 1Co_14:15. Nothing is more clear than that it was practiced by the Saviour himself and the apostles (see Mat_26:30), and by the primitive church, as well as by the great body of Christians in all ages.




John Gil
it sems to be the intention of the apostle, that these should be sung in Gospel churches; for so he explains speaking to themselves in them, in the next clause:

I'll have to get you more references tomorrow, Lord willing.


I'm sure that you know denominational leaders of the past, such as Luther, Adam Clarke, Calvin, John Wesley and many, many others said there is no authorization for instruments in worship. Instruments were not present in the worship of the church for at least 400 years after Christ, and they were rejected by the Reformers for the same reason the churches of Christ do today.


You really need to drop the Ephesians 5:19 argument, Matt. It has been thoroughly and repeatedly destroyed. You refusing to see that does not change it.

Really? Destroyed? When, and by whom?

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:51 PM
Matt, you're belligerently refusing to admit any duplicity here. You are repeatedly condemning me for engaging in all these "unauthorized" practices, yet I point out that you too are engaged in countless "unauthorized" practices. But rather than be honest enough to say, "Yes Jeff, I too engage in unauthorized practices", you do this little semantic dance and excuse yourself by saying, "What we do is expedient". I'm simply calling you on the duplicity of that.

Jeffreys, where have I been "belligerent?"

As I said before, even if I did "admit to engaging in unauthorized practices," would that make the unauthorized practice of using musical instruments right?

Can you say Catholics are wrong for praying the rosary, or venerating Mary? Why or why not? The Bible does not specifically outlaw these things!


Instrumental accompaniment is OPTIONAL - just as are the countless other OPTIONAL practices you engage in. How can you NOT see that?

Okay, so you see instruments as optional. Are optional practices worth dividing the body of Christ over?

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:53 PM
Find me one instance, in the New Testament, where "HOLY BIBLE" is mentioned/authorized. One verse.

If you cannot cite that verse, verbatim, you need to admit that the HOLY BIBLE is - by your standards - unauthorized.

Well, the I don't have any copies that say "Holy Bible." [EDIT -- Strike that, my old KJV does.] But just because someone tacked a name one God's word, does that mean the Bible itself is unauthorized?

You really need to tell me whether you believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God or not. We don't have time to waste.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:55 PM
That sounds a lot like the old question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" :rofl: There is no acceptable answer.

I do not admit that I worship in an unauthorized way, no. By examining the scriptures, and practicing only what is commanded, and nothing that is not, I do not believe I am worshipping in an unauthorized way.

Simple answer: NO.

You engage in all sorts of unauthorized practices in your Sunday Morning Worship Services (that itself being unauthorized), yet you simply will not admit it. But your refusal to admit it does not mean you're not doing it.

"Practicing only what is commanded"... Does that include PA Systems and hymnals? I assume so, but where is the NT Verse that commands these things?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:57 PM
This is another personal attack, and it's really out of line. Hatred of instruments is far from a descriptor of my personality!

I have a degree in music theory, classical piano minor. I play guitar, all keyboards, bass, some drums, practically any other instrument I can get my hands on. I compose, and have even written some country songs that agents have looked at. To say I hate instruments it laughable!

However, I have realized their place in God's worship.

I find this to be extremely ironic.

So anything is permissible, so long as you don't do it in the church building (another unauthorized thing you have)? I believe I've just looked at a very, very slippery slope.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:59 PM
Okay, so you see instruments as optional. Are optional practices worth dividing the body of Christ over?

No. So why are YOU doing it?

Just 3 weeks ago we had an accappella service. Why? Because the use of instruments is neither condemned nor authorized. Their use is OPTIONAL.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:00 PM
I have read many of your explanations, Matt, as to the non-instrumental rationale for forbidding instruments in worship. I have gained an insight into why you guys make such a big deal out of musical instruments. That was my purpose in starting this thread -- to gain a greater understanding. Therefore, I thank you for defending your doctrine with such passion and eloquence.

To me, the whole issue boils down to one question. Does the fact that the Bible doesn't mention something mean that God forbids it? If we're going to make that assumption, then that opens up a whole bunch of issues for which people could, as you contend, lose their salvation.

One of the premises of the Restoration movement was that we "speak where the scriptures speak and that we remain silent where the scriptures are silent." I personally believe that, if the use of instruments in worship was a big deal to God, He would have spoken about it directly in His word. The non-use of instruments is a doctrine based solely upon a man-made implication that is just not adequately supported in scripture. With all due respect, I think it borders on creating law where the Bible does not speak.

I appreciate your calm and measured response. I know you did not start this thread to bash the church of Christ (I am pretty positive on this), but some have degraded the beliefs we hold, and thus my passionate response. God's word to man is the most important thing we can focus on, because it is there that He has outlined for us how we can serve and honor Him, and how we can be saved.

Tell me, since rosary beads, confession to priests and venerating Mary is not specifically prohibited in the Bible, would you accept such practices in your congregation? Why or why not?


Furthermore, I cannot help but be hurt and offended to think that our brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ feel that we are going to Hell because we use instruments to sing praises from our hearts to the Lord. The determiner of our salvation is whether or not we have repented of our sins, professed Jesus as Lord, and been baptized into the new covenant of grace. Whether I sing acapella or praise the Lord using a symphony of the most beautiful instruments on earth as the background for my praise is not a matter that determines the salvation of man. This is the kind of legalism that Paul was addressing in the book of Romans because it harmed the unity of the diverse brotherhood of believers.

I'm sorry you feel hurt, but whether I am offended, or you are offended, does not change what the scriptures say. It is our duty to learn His will, and perform it to the best of our abilities enabled by His word and His Spirit. Legalism would be binding things from a different covenant, or from will worship, upon Christians today. I don't think obeying only what is found in the NT could be considered legalism.

God bless!

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:01 PM
Well, the I don't have any copies that say "Holy Bible." [EDIT -- Strike that, my old KJV does.] But just because someone tacked a name one God's word, does that mean the Bible itself is unauthorized?

You really need to tell me whether you believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God or not. We don't have time to waste.
Actually, this entire circular debate about instruments is a waste of time.

Why not just admit that nowhere, in the New Testament, is the use of a "Bible" or "Holy Bible" authorized. Its authorization is simply NOT there - yet you use a Holy Bible (or, if you prefer, a Bible).

You need to be consistent, Matt.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:06 PM
I find this to be extremely ironic.

So anything is permissible, so long as you don't do it in the church building (another unauthorized thing you have)? I believe I've just looked at a very, very slippery slope.

Ironic indeed, that a lover of music and instruments would foresake them for God?

Why a slippery slope? Instruments are not sinful in and of themselves, anymore than cottage cheese is sinful. But to put instruments of music into the worship would be like adding cottage cheese to the Lord's supper.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:09 PM
Ironic indeed, that a lover of music and instruments would foresake them for God?

Why a slippery slope? Instruments are not sinful in and of themselves, anymore than cottage cheese is sinful. But to put instruments of music into the worship would be like adding cottage cheese to the Lord's supper.

I'm sorry Matt, but this is no more relevant than Steak for Communion, or the point about Rosaries & Venerating Mary.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:14 PM
Actually, this entire circular debate about instruments is a waste of time.

You are free to leave this thread at any time!


Why not just admit that nowhere, in the New Testament, is the use of a "Bible" or "Holy Bible" authorized.

I never said it was. "Bible" is a word from the Latin biblia, akin to the Greek bibla or biblion. It is a word affixed to some copies of the scriptures.

Are you seriously contending for the idea that a name stamped on the cover of the Bible means the Bible (the actual contents) should be tossed out?


Its authorization is simply NOT there - yet you use a Holy Bible (or, if you prefer, a Bible).

The Word of God is wholly authorized. The scriptures were God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), and the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13).

It's the contents that matter.

Now, are you going to tell me whether you believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:18 PM
No. So why are YOU doing it?

Just 3 weeks ago we had an accappella service. Why? Because the use of instruments is neither condemned nor authorized. Their use is OPTIONAL.

The body has not been divided. The church of Christ has caused no division. It was the disciples of Christ and the Independent Christian Church that split off from the church of Christ, because they wanted to ADD musical instruments to the worship.

About 100 years ago, your group believed the same thing we believed. Why did they change and add the instrument, jeffreys?

In light of this, who is causing division?

And if instruments are optional, why not drop them altogether so we can be united once again?

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:34 PM
Matt14
I'm sorry but I've posted Josephus, a Pharisee writer 20 years after Paul, using ado and psallo to mean "sing and make melody" in a way that contradicts your teaching, and your response is to give me references of the quality of the below?

Steven, these links weren't for you. I would appreciate it, if you want to continue to have dialogue, not not stoop to insulting language.

Evidence was posted that Josephus and many others wrote and used old meanings of Greek words. If Josephus could not speak Greek (he said he could not), then it is doubtful that he knew all the current usages, and instead used lexicons available to him. What would those have been, Steven?


[/B]Honestly? No, not in the least.;)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]

That's okay, these weren't for you.


These sources are not worth tuppence, because we know that there's a suspension of objectivity marring this area already.

Those sources were quoting the same sources you are quoting. Not worth anything?


So why does anyone need to go to web page of someone who (the first two websites given) can't even read Greek

How do you know they cannot read Greek?


to read their theories when we have the real thing - [B]the Greek texts themselves? What's happening here is that a sectarian dogma, a theology, is wagging the whole corpus of extant Greek texts by the tail.

Their comments are just as good as yours, my friend. :)


Please show me a Greek text that supports your church's claim

I don't have a church. :D Jesus does, though.


- not someone's opinion - You still need to provide a concrete Greek text that differs from Josephus etc.

As posted earlier, Josephus may not be the best indication of first-century usage. After all, he uses psallo to mean playing only, not "singing AND playing." His usage is the very, very early one, playing only. Do you agree?


There may be one for all I know. But I'm beginning to suspect there isn't because if there was it'd be exactly where it isn't - in these articles.

Yes, and I don't have time to pile-dive at libraries. But New Testament scholarship is pretty united on the fact that by Paul's time, the common usage of psallo was about singing. Today in modern Greek there is no connotation of playing at all, just as in the beginning there was no connotation of singing at all. The word has morphed, and by Paul's day the context tells all.


PS - you still didn't answer the psallo question, if psallo doesn't mean "sing with accompaniment" what does? Kitharizo means to play without singing, so that's the opposite of ado, sing without playing, what we need to know is what verb (if not psallo) means sing-and-play.

This argument is a red herring, because you are saying there HAS to be a word that means "singing and playing." There doesn't HAVE to be such a word, does there?

What's the English word that means "playing and singing?"

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:37 PM
I'm sorry Matt, but this is no more relevant than Steak for Communion, or the point about Rosaries & Venerating Mary.

And so, you'll ignore the questions?

Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or not?

Do you believe praying the rosary would be acceptable in your congregation? What about praying to Mary?

Why are these important questions not worth answering? This is the third or fourth time I ask the question about the inspiration of scriptures.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:44 PM
Now, are you going to tell me whether you believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?

The answer to your leading question is, Yes Matt, the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

But here's something that would scare me spit-less if I were you: You are speaking where God has not spoken, and condemning as sin what God has not condemned as sin.

Why are you adding commands to the Bible?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:46 PM
The body has not been divided. The church of Christ has caused no division. It was the disciples of Christ and the Independent Christian Church that split off from the church of Christ, because they wanted to ADD musical instruments to the worship.

About 100 years ago, your group believed the same thing we believed. Why did they change and add the instrument, jeffreys?

In light of this, who is causing division?

And if instruments are optional, why not drop them altogether so we can be united once again?

You REALLY need to do some serious reading outside your denominational literature, Matt. And you need to SERIOUSLY do some research concerning the impact of the Civil War on this issue.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:55 PM
And so, you'll ignore the questions?

Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or not?

Do you believe praying the rosary would be acceptable in your congregation? What about praying to Mary?

Why are these important questions not worth answering? This is the third or fourth time I ask the question about the inspiration of scriptures.

I've already answered them Matt.

Yes, the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and YOU are adding commands and prohibitions to it. I would think you'd be terrified!

And again, praying to something other than God is no more relevant to this discussion than the old "steak on the communion table" argument. Praying to something/somebody other than God is idolatry.


So tell me, is using a pitch-pipe okay in your church, or just some of the non-instrumental churches?

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:55 PM
The answer to your leading question is, Yes Matt, the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

But here's something that would scare me spit-less if I were you: You are speaking where God has not spoken, and condemning as sin what God has not condemned as sin.

Why are you adding commands to the Bible?

The same reason you would not pray the rosary before your congregation, is the same reason I can say musical instruments should not be used in worship.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:56 PM
You REALLY need to do some serious reading outside your denominational literature, Matt. And you need to SERIOUSLY do some research concerning the impact of the Civil War on this issue.

Look, I've addressed what can be addressed. I've studied the history.

You've failed to respond to most of my questions. If you will not follow the line of reasoning, I don't see any reason to continue this.

May god bless you in all things according to His will.

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:57 PM
The same reason you would not pray the rosary before your congregation, is the same reason I can say musical instruments should not be used in worship.

...and that would be a faulty reason and argument. As I've elsewhere pointed out, praying to something/somebody other than God is idolatry. Can we agree on that?

Condemning the use of instruments in worship - and saying that those who do so are going to hell - is speaking for God where God has not spoken, and adding commandments that God has not added. Can we agree on that?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:59 PM
Look, I've addressed what can be addressed. I've studied the history.

You've failed to respond to most of my questions. If you will not follow the line of reasoning, I don't see any reason to continue this.

May god bless you in all things according to His will.

So you're NOT aware of the FACT that - virtually without fail - the non-instrumental churches of Christ were in Confederate States? You're NOT aware of the impact of all that on this discussion?

I'm sorry to know that, because I think you'd find it VERY enlightening.


...and for the record, if you'll actually read my posts, you'll find that I've answered every one of your questions, and done so repeatedly.

nagwalk
Oct 22nd 2007, 05:02 PM
You guys talk too much..LOL

Prezken
Oct 22nd 2007, 07:21 PM
The same reason you would not pray the rosary before your congregation, is the same reason I can say musical instruments should not be used in worship.

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that Jesus partook in the biblical feasts which involve singing, dancing, and music....lots of it.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 08:46 PM
Again, you keep ignoring the fact that Jesus partook in the biblical feasts which involve singing, dancing, and music....lots of it.
Does that mean we should also perform animal sacrifices?

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 08:48 PM
You guys talk too much..LOL
How polite and respectful! Good to meet you to.

Matt14
Oct 22nd 2007, 08:49 PM
So you're NOT aware of the FACT that - virtually without fail - the non-instrumental churches of Christ were in Confederate States? You're NOT aware of the impact of all that on this discussion?

I'm sorry to know that, because I think you'd find it VERY enlightening.


...and for the record, if you'll actually read my posts, you'll find that I've answered every one of your questions, and done so repeatedly.

Yes, I've read all about that. Has nothing to do with what the Bible says, though.

Do you deny that your particular group split off from the churches of Christ? That you once did not use the instrument?

jeffreys
Oct 22nd 2007, 09:47 PM
Yes, I've read all about that. Has nothing to do with what the Bible says, though.

Do you deny that your particular group split off from the churches of Christ? That you once did not use the instrument?

So you're admitting that, having been called on the carpet about your view of this split, the views you set forth are not historically accurate. Thank you.

But mostly Matt, some church splits NEED to happen.

When there are people who are speaking where God has not spoken, condemning as sin something God never condemned as sin, sitting in the judgment seat of Jesus and judging people to hell for something God never judged people to hell over, there NEEDS to be a parting of ways.


Said parting of ways - or whatever you would like to call it - was really not just about instruments in worship. It was really about speaking where the Bible does NOT speak - something that clearly flies in the face of the Restoration Plea. Who departed from the Restoration principles and pleas? Not the people who consider instruments optional. We're choosing not to speak where the Bible does not speak. We are taking the Biblical approach.

Steven3
Oct 23rd 2007, 02:57 AM
Hi Matt14


Matt14
I'm sorry but I've posted Josephus, a Pharisee writer 20 years after Paul, using ado and psallo to mean "sing and make melody" in a way that contradicts your teaching, and your response is to give me references of the quality of the below?Steven, these links weren't for you. I would appreciate it, if you want to continue to have dialogue, not not stoop to insulting language.

Well I'm sorry that you think you've been offended but to me it's merely objective - Fact, you have been provided with a number of Greek sources, together with English translations, all the work has been done for you, or anyone who wants to click the links and read the texts provided. To this a response with web pages that are tertiary at best, and appear to be written by people with no linguistic qualifications, and unable or unwilling to actually read the 1st Century Greek texts, ...despite that they are confidently contradicting the big Greek lexicons. And what's more they consider their Greek better than Flavius Josephus, and presumably better than Petrarch and Herodotus as well. When someone who cannot even read Greek considers they know more Greek than the major Paul-era writers I give up.
:giveup:



This argument is a red herring, because you are saying there HAS to be a word that means "singing and playing." There doesn't HAVE to be such a word, does there?There generally should be a word with a semantic range including any common activity. Linguistics 101, if people can do it, there's normally a word for it. When Springsteen or Sting "plays" or "performs" for a stadium audience we know from context that "play" and "perform" includes both singing and playing the guitar. In like context it's clear that some of the 1st Century sources, eg Herodotus, include singing-and-playing, some like Petrarch & Josephus probably only indicate plucking on a lyre or lute with a plectrum, strumming. Contrarywise when someone says "there is no word in Greek (or Hebrew etc) for what I disagree with, hence no one can ever approve it", that's a circular argument of the most fallible sort.

If I sound as though my patience is being tested, then what I object to is the combination of laziness and dogmatism involved in these anti-instrumentalist websites. They can't be bothered to do the hard sweat involved, the 1000s of hours it takes to master a language, or even in this case objectively research a few texts, but that doesn't in any way dent the dogmatism of challenging not other people's theology but classical lexicons and even ancient Greek writers themselves.

But that aside, Matt, I realise you're sincere - I just wish you'd realise the shakiness of your condemnation of others.
God bless
Steven


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21F33WQ7CZL._AA115_.jpg (http://www.amazon.de/Vines-Expository-Dictionary-Testament-Nelsons/dp/0785250549/ref=sr_1_3/028-8599673-0697326?ie=UTF8&s=books-intl-de&qid=1193108381&sr=8-3)
PS I've made one specific request which I'd like someone who has a copy of Vine to help me with please. I cannot believe that Vine, even as a Darbyite, would be so confident on his view of psallo without at least one Greek text to back him up. Can someone who has Vine on their shelves please do us the favour of checking if their is a text proof given? Many thanks.
God bless all
Steven

jeffweeder
Oct 23rd 2007, 08:24 AM
IS 38

"For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.


19 "It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.


20 "The LORD will surely save me;
So we will play my songs on stringed instruments
All the days of our life at the house of the LORD."


Psalm 150

A Psalm of Praise.

1 Praise the LORD!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.


2 Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.



3 Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.


4 Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.


5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.


6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD! .................................................. .....

Steven3
Oct 23rd 2007, 03:03 PM
IS 38


Ps150

Thanks Jeff
A welcome reminder to us all that one of the 4 NT uses of psallo is Romans 5:19 quoting Psalm 18. No reservation from Paul in assuming that psalms not only still applied, but that the Gentiles (Psalm 18:49) would henceforth psallo God as Jews had been doing in the OT. Concrete proof that OT musical worship was to continue into the NT era. Otherwise what is Paul doing quoting it as prophetical of NT era praise?
God bless
Steven

Matt14
Oct 23rd 2007, 05:32 PM
and to teach their sons lyre-playing (kitharizo) and song-and-dance (psallo) and shop-keeping.

Steven, I am examining some texts, and will be for a while. But in the meantime, do you know why the editor translated psallo in this Herodotus passage as "song and dance?" Why did he not translate it as singing and playing?

koscheiman
Oct 23rd 2007, 10:32 PM
Let me preface this thread with a love-filled introduction. I have a deep respect for my brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ (non-instrumental). We have way more in common doctrinally than we do in contrast. I am a member of the Indepedent Christian church. I am not raising this question to attack anyone, but merely to open a dialogue of understanding in regards to beliefs.

I've often thought it to be a shame that it seems to me that the major difference keeping the Independent Christian church and the Church of Christ divided is the issue of instruments in worship. I understand the Church of Christ reasoning that they will not do anything that they cannot find authority given for in the scripture.

However, I also think of the example of David, a man after God's own heart, who wrote music, played instruments, and even danced before the Lord in worship. If we can agree that all scripture is God-breathed and given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, help me understand how instrumentation in worship is forbidden in light of Psalm 150 which reads:

Psalm 150, "Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
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. 6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD."

I know this is an Old Testament passage and the Church of Christ looks for authority in the New Testament. However, the line of reasoning that says, "if the Bible doesn't mention it happening in the New Testament then we won't do it either" eliminates a lot of things.

I believe that the use of instruments in worship was established in the Old Testament by men of God and, although Jesus didn't specifically say that we should use instruments in worship, it is never stated that it was inappropriate.

Again, please do not take this as an attack. I simply want to gain an increased understanding of Church of Christ beliefs.

I do not believe you have aythinhing personally about my faith but it is a matter of "speak where the Scriptures speak silent where they do not" w/in the New Testament there is no direct command, applied command, or apostolic example of instruments being used in Christian worship. The limitation is God's not ours.

jeffreys
Oct 23rd 2007, 11:24 PM
I do not believe you have aythinhing personally about my faith but it is a matter of "speak where the Scriptures speak silent where they do not" w/in the New Testament there is no direct command, applied command, or apostolic example of instruments being used in Christian worship. The limitation is God's not ours.

As I've said to Matt14 several times, if you truly believe and practice that, you will be silent - as is the New Testament - on the issue of instruments in worship.

Steven3
Oct 24th 2007, 01:44 AM
Hi Matt14 :)
Steven, I am examining some texts, and will be for a while.Good luck with finding some evidence for Vine's opinion. A Greek text may indeed be out there somewhere that the big lexicons have missed, despite the fact that nothing prior to 400AD seems to support it so far...
But in the meantime, do you know why the editor translated psallo in this Herodotus passage as "song and dance?" Why did he not translate it as singing and playing?
I thought you might ask that:

Histories I.CLV/155.1 .but Croesus feared that he would destroy Sardis, and answered him thus: [3] “O King, what you say is reasonable. But do not ever yield to anger, or destroy an ancient city that is innocent both of the former and of the present offense. For the former I am responsible, and bear the punishment on my head; while Pactyes, in whose charge you left Sardis, does this present wrong; let him, then, pay the penalty. [4] But pardon the Lydians, and give them this command so that they not revolt or pose a danger to you: send and forbid them to possess weapons of war, and order them to wear tunics under their cloaks and knee-boots on their feet, and to teach their sons lyre-playing (kitharizo) and song-and-dance (psallo) and shop-keeping. And quickly, O king, you shall see them become women instead of men, so that you need not fear them, that they might revolt.”

Because it was in a pagan celebratory context, and I think A.D. Godley has given a good translation even though it's slightly outside of strict LSJ definition. But please don't read Godley's "sing and dance" as "sing and dance without instruments" because that clearly wouldn't be what either Herodotus, or Croesus or Godley meant by psallo, as every Greek text or illustration of singing and dancing from this period always shows or assumes some instrumental accompaniment.
http://www.carnaval.com/greece/dance/greek-dance5.jpg
A.D. Godley's translation "sing and dance", illustrates a very important part of psallo even in Jewish (and therefore since Paul quotes psallo from Psalm 18:49 as applying to Gentiles, also Christian context). That of celebrating, letting-your-hair-down, and yes in the OT even dancing. And having a multitude of worship styles, as Paul says, "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs".

Today in the Greek Orthodox Church that is interpreted as three virtually indistinguishable a capella, voice-only, styles. But that's letting Clement of Alexandria rather than the rest of the Bible interpret Paul - Paul clearly wanted a variety, diversity, of worship styles. Provided it didn't get out of control as at Corinth "I will psallo with my spirit, but I will also psallo with my mind" 1Co14. But Eph5:19 still doesn't say "no psallo, only ado", he says "ado and psallo", the same terms as his fellow ex-Pharisee Flavius Josephus of David singing and playing for Saul. Sorry for repetition but until Vine's evidence turns up, the only evidence is all against the non-instrumental rule, it bears repeating.
God bless
Steven

Prezken
Oct 25th 2007, 03:21 PM
Does that mean we should also perform animal sacrifices?

Are you serious? Christ was the ultimate blood sacrifice, there is no need for any further blood sacrifice. This argument is silly. Christ partook of the feasts with music and dance. Are you saying Christ death on the cross did away with musical instruments and dancing?

Toolman
Oct 31st 2007, 01:51 PM
No, it is certainly not irrelavant. Please humor me with an answer.

Why NOT add steak to the Lord's supper? On what grounds do you prohibit steak on the Lord's table?

When you answer this, then we will see why the churches of Christ refuse to use instruments of music in worship.

I know I'm kind of late to this party :) but I did want to point out that the Churches of Christ do exactly that when they replaced wine with grape juice caving into the wordly temperance movement of the late 19th century.

Prior to Welch inventing grape juice in 1869 all of Christian Churches (RC, protestant, anabaptist) used wine in communion and had for almost 2000 years. Church history clearly supports that wine is what Christ instituted as the element to be used in the Lord's supper.

Where does the NT authorize the replacement of wine with non-alcoholic grape juice? It doesn't. Christ drank alcoholic wine at the last supper for a purpose, declared it as His blood and there is no biblical reason to change what He established.

Yet man, in his wisdom, has purposed to change that which Christ established.

Jubal
Oct 31st 2007, 06:31 PM
I know I'm kind of late to this party :) but I did want to point out that the Churches of Christ do exactly that when they replaced wine with grape juice caving into the wordly temperance movement of the late 19th century.

Prior to Welch inventing grape juice in 1869 all of Christian Churches (RC, protestant, anabaptist) used wine in communion and had for almost 2000 years. Church history clearly supports that wine is what Christ instituted as the element to be used in the Lord's supper.

Where does the NT authorize the replacement of wine with non-alcoholic grape juice? It doesn't. Christ drank alcoholic wine at the last supper for a purpose, declared it as His blood and there is no biblical reason to change what He established.

Yet man, in his wisdom, has purposed to change that which Christ established.
It's never called wine in the Greek. It's called produce of the vine. For all we now it was fresh grape juice. And remember it takes yeast (also know as leaven) to make wine. And since it was the feast of unleavened bread, maybe the grape juice was unleavened too.

jeffreys
Oct 31st 2007, 06:39 PM
It's never called wine in the Greek. It's called produce of the vine. For all we now it was fresh grape juice. And remember it takes yeast (also know as leaven) to make wine. And since it was the feast of unleavened bread, maybe the grape juice was unleavened too.

I'm not going to disagree with you, because we simply don't know.

However, I don't believe yeast is required to naturally ferment juice into wine. And also, they likely had wine, in wine-skins, on hand.

I know it's nit-picky, but I'm not sure we can draw fail-safe conclusions from that argument.

Toolman
Oct 31st 2007, 06:40 PM
It's never called wine in the Greek. It's called produce of the vine. For all we now it was fresh grape juice. And remember it takes yeast (also know as leaven) to make wine. And since it was the feast of unleavened bread, maybe the grape juice was unleavened too.

Wine is a produce of the vine.

1 Cor. 11 describes the Corinthians getting drunk on the wine of the Lord's supper.

Grape juice was not invented until 1859 by Thomas Welch. Until that time every church in all of history had used wine for communion.

Yeast is not required to naturally ferment wine..

Jewish tradition is 4 cups of wine with the passover meal. That is what Jesus was partaking of:
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_passover_4cups.htm

Jubal
Oct 31st 2007, 09:08 PM
I'm not going to disagree with you, because we simply don't know.

However, I don't believe yeast is required to naturally ferment juice into wine. Yeast is always involved in the alcohol making process. Either wild and natural, or man made.

jeffreys
Oct 31st 2007, 09:15 PM
Yeast is always involved in the alcohol making process. Either wild and natural, or man made.

Gotcha. Thanks!

I guess I'm just not up on my wine-making! :D

Jubal
Oct 31st 2007, 09:28 PM
Wine is a produce of the vine.

1 Cor. 11 describes the Corinthians getting drunk on the wine of the Lord's supper.

Grape juice was not invented until 1859 by Thomas Welch. Until that time every church in all of history had used wine for communion.

Yeast is not required to naturally ferment wine..


Grape juice has been around since the grape has been around. And Jesus turned the water into wine (Greek oinos) at the marriage feast in Cana. But the last supper's 'fruit of the vine' is not described as oinos. And yes they could drink fresh grape juice from time to time before they fermented the remainder. Back then excess grape juice was turned into wine and vinegar to preserve it because they didn't have refrigeration. And telling people that they have to drink real wine for holy communion is wrong.

Toolman
Oct 31st 2007, 09:45 PM
Grape juice has been around since the grape has been around. And Jesus turned the water into wine (Greek oinos) at the marriage feast in Cana. But the last supper's 'fruit of the vine' is not described as oinos. And yes they could drink fresh grape juice from time to time before they fermented the remainder. Back then excess grape juice was turned into wine and vinegar to preserve it because they didn't have refrigeration. And telling people that they have to drink real wine for holy communion is wrong.

The time between harvest and passover would have been a 7 month period. The only fruit of the vine that would be available at passover would be wine. They did not have a ready supply of grapes at the local grocery store.

1 Cor. 11 clearly points out that alcoholic wine was what was in the cup. The corinthians were charged by Paul of partaking of the cup unworthily because some were getting drunk on it.

Church history and the early fathers clearly showed that the Church always, 100% of the time, used wine for the Lord's supper until 1859 when Welch invented grape juice pasteurization.

And I don't tell people that they have to drink wine for holy communion. I simply point out the facts and let people decide for themselves what was in the cup and what scripture and Church history teaches us and whether we should listen to man-made wisdom or God's leading.

uric3
Nov 1st 2007, 01:17 AM
I know we are kinda getting off topic here however I figured I would post a few things about the wine. Oinos doesn't off the bat mean that its fermented at all, it can mean either, and imo I don't think Christ would have made wine like that...

In biblical times there was more than one way of preserving grapes juice in roman and other historical documents most people didn't like the taste of bitter(fermented) wine. However that was one way it was preserved for later use. They could also boil the juice and make it into a thick stick substance sort of like our concentrate today and just add water to it later. This type of preserving made it so it wasn't fermented because there was no sugar in liquid to start the fermenting process. Also they could store it in large containers in caves to keep it cool to slow down the process so it would last longer. So granted it didn't have to be fermented.

Also 1st Cor 11 was mentioned but note those people wasn't partaking of the Lords Supper in a right manner they was bring that from home, and eating to get a full tummy. Paul ask them if they didn't have homes to eat in... that obviously wasn't how it was to be taken because because of taking it for food and strong drink was causing many to be asleep spiritually.

jeffreys
Nov 1st 2007, 01:44 AM
I know we are kinda getting off topic here however I figured I would post a few things about the wine. Oinos doesn't off the bat mean that its fermented at all, it can mean either, and imo I don't think Christ would have made wine like that...

In biblical times there was more than one way of preserving grapes juice in roman and other historical documents most people didn't like the taste of bitter(fermented) wine. However that was one way it was preserved for later use. They could also boil the juice and make it into a thick stick substance sort of like our concentrate today and just add water to it later. This type of preserving made it so it wasn't fermented because there was no sugar in liquid to start the fermenting process. Also they could store it in large containers in caves to keep it cool to slow down the process so it would last longer. So granted it didn't have to be fermented.

Also 1st Cor 11 was mentioned but note those people wasn't partaking of the Lords Supper in a right manner they was bring that from home, and eating to get a full tummy. Paul ask them if they didn't have homes to eat in... that obviously wasn't how it was to be taken because because of taking it for food and strong drink was causing many to be asleep spiritually.

So really, the bottom line is that it could be either wine or grape juice (or cranberry juice?).

I prefer the juice.

Toolman
Nov 1st 2007, 04:02 AM
I know we are kinda getting off topic here however I figured I would post a few things about the wine. Oinos doesn't off the bat mean that its fermented at all, it can mean either, and imo I don't think Christ would have made wine like that...

That is simply temperance movement cultural speak. Because before 1859 you will not find a single Christian church that used anything but wine for communion for almost 2000 years, until the wisdom of man decided to exchange what God had established as the symbol of His blood.

Not trying to be legalistic here but let's be honest.


In biblical times there was more than one way of preserving grapes juice in roman and other historical documents most people didn't like the taste of bitter(fermented) wine.

Rome was known for their wine and their many variations and types of wine. They even had a god of wine, Baccus. If the wine wasn't wine in biblical times then all the warnings against drunkenness of wine makes absolutely no sense.


However that was one way it was preserved for later use. They could also boil the juice and make it into a thick stick substance sort of like our concentrate today and just add water to it later.

Temperance movement propaganda. Wine was wine and jewish history of passover verifies what was in the cup of Christ's last supper, the passover.


This type of preserving made it so it wasn't fermented because there was no sugar in liquid to start the fermenting process. Also they could store it in large containers in caves to keep it cool to slow down the process so it would last longer. So granted it didn't have to be fermented.

Simply not the case and history does not support this.


Also 1st Cor 11 was mentioned but note those people wasn't partaking of the Lords Supper in a right manner they was bring that from home, and eating to get a full tummy. Paul ask them if they didn't have homes to eat in...

Paul makes it clear that they were getting drunk on what was provided for the Lord's supper. The unworhiness was eating and drinking in excess before others could partake.


that obviously wasn't how it was to be taken because because of taking it for food and strong drink was causing many to be asleep spiritually.

Drinking in excess was the cause. But the cup was still wine and was for almost 2000 years before 1859. There is absolutely no historical evidence that the early Church used grape juice for the Lord's suppper.

Toolman
Nov 1st 2007, 04:04 AM
So really, the bottom line is that it could be either wine or grape juice (or cranberry juice?).

I prefer the juice.

I disagree. Cranberry juice was not used ever.

The Lord saw fit to use alcoholic wine as the emblem of His blood and in rememberance of Him. His ways are not the worlds ways and His thoughts are higher than ours.

Once again, not trying to be legalistic but lets be honest.

jeffreys
Nov 1st 2007, 04:06 AM
I disagree. Cranberry juice was not used ever.

The Lord saw fit to use alcoholic wine as the emblem of His blood and in rememberance of Him. His ways are not the worlds ways and His thoughts are higher than ours.

Once again, not trying to be legalistic but lets be honest.

I mentioned cranberry juice half in jest. Sorry.

What is in the cup - be it grape juice or fermented wine - is secondary in importance to the remembrance.

Toolman
Nov 1st 2007, 04:47 AM
I mentioned cranberry juice half in jest. Sorry.

What is in the cup - be it grape juice or fermented wine - is secondary in importance to the remembrance.

I agree but just as we wouldn't use pickle juice for baptism instead of water we shouldn't be willing to compromise what Christ established for rememberance of His sacrifice.

The rememberance is what was important, no doubt, but He chose wine for a purpose.

And back to the OP the COC is dogmatic on the issue of instrumentation and to be consistent should be the same on this issue, but are not.

Which was my point :)

jeffreys
Nov 1st 2007, 04:55 AM
I agree but just as we wouldn't use pickle juice for baptism instead of water we shouldn't be willing to compromise what Christ established for rememberance of His sacrifice.

The rememberance is what was important, no doubt, but He chose wine for a purpose.

And back to the OP the COC is dogmatic on the issue of instrumentation and to be consistent should be the same on this issue, but are not.

Which was my point :)

There are a lot of things the non-instrumentalists are not consistent on.

Part of the "problem" I have with being too picky about wine at communion is the question of how far we want to run with it? The wine that's available today is probably not much like the wine of Jesus' day - all things considered. And couldn't we also get into arguments about what brand of wine is right, and which one is wrong? And should it be wine made from grapes grown in the Holy Land?

We could easily major in minors, and completely miss the whole point of communion.

Steven3
Nov 1st 2007, 05:02 AM
Uric3
Oinos doesn't off the bat mean that its fermented at all, it can mean eitherCan I ask who told you this? Without meaning to be impolite, have you checked this in a dictionary?
Cheers
Steven

jeffreys
Nov 1st 2007, 05:09 AM
Uric3Can I ask, who told you this?
Cheers
Steven

Are there any instances - particularly in the New Testament - when Oinos was not wine? I may be missing something obvious, but I'm not aware of any. And I suppose one could get ultra-legalistic and say that Jesus' statement, recorded in Matthew 9:17, about putting "new wine (oinos)" into old wineskins could prove a point, but that'd be a case of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

uric3
Nov 1st 2007, 11:13 AM
Toolman,

This link below goes into some detail about how Jews and Romans etc knew more about preserving grapes and grape juice that what people gave them credit for. Also they had a episode on the history channel about this a few weeks back... as to how they have found several new documents talking about these processes also they have found caves etc that had some boiled grapes etc still in them etc...

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html

uric3
Nov 1st 2007, 11:17 AM
Uric3Can I ask who told you this? Without meaning to be impolite, have you checked this in a dictionary?
Cheers
Steven


The above sampling of definitions of "wine" from older English dictionaries suggests that when the King James Version of the Bible was produced (1604-1611) its translators must have understood "wine" to refer to both fermented and unfermented wine. In view of this fact, the King James Version’s uniform translation of the Hebrew yayin and Greek onios as "wine" was an acceptable translation at that time, since in those days the term could mean either fermented or unfermented wine, just as the words it translates (yayin or oinos) can mean either. Today, however, when "wine" has assumed the sole meaning of fermented grape juice, modern translations of the Bible should indicate whether the text is dealing with fermented or unfermented grape juice. By failing to provide this clarification, uninformed Bible readers are misled into believing that all references to "wine" in the Bible refer to fermented grape juice.

same site I gave toolman also I have books at home that point that it can mean both... I'm currently stuck at the airport missed my fight so I don't have anything handy.

Steven3
Nov 1st 2007, 12:10 PM
Hi Uric3

I'm currently stuck at the airport missed my fight so I don't have anything handy.Great typo ;) Well have a good time in the airport lounge. Take a little wine for your stomach's sake maybe.

But when you get home check those sources - because juice in Greek is CUMOS (eg STAFULIWN, of grapes) or simply Χυμός σταφύλι in a Corfu supermarket...

For OINOS not to mean "wine":

1. all the OT and NT verses which warn about excess wine (excess grape juice?) would be wrong wouldn't they? Again, a lot of those Victorian "Word Studies" and commentaries are simply not reliable. Theology and linguistics don't mix.

2. we'd need a classical Greek text showing OINOS being used for grape juice. I grant you that that reference to Plutarch, Symposiacs 8, 7 is interesting, here is the whole chapter. But this "weak wine" is still wine. It's not alcohol free.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plutarch/symposiacs/chapter8.html

3. we'd also need evidence of food technology in the ancient world that prevents grape juice fermenting. I don't think people realise how quickly it happens - try it with some grapes and taste it after a week. (Samuele Bacchiocchi is not a food technologist, he's just another teetotaler Christian. If he'd actually done it and documented the results it'd be more convincing)

God bless
Steven

Toolman
Nov 1st 2007, 01:56 PM
There are a lot of things the non-instrumentalists are not consistent on.

Part of the "problem" I have with being too picky about wine at communion is the question of how far we want to run with it? The wine that's available today is probably not much like the wine of Jesus' day - all things considered.

I actually don't think there is much difference. Some of the Roman wines were very high in alcohol content, up to 16% by volume and some were more like our table wines, about 4-5% by volume.

http://www.unrv.com/economy/wine-chart.php


And couldn't we also get into arguments about what brand of wine is right, and which one is wrong? And should it be wine made from grapes grown in the Holy Land?

We could easily major in minors, and completely miss the whole point of communion.

I agree.

Steven3
Nov 2nd 2007, 03:48 AM
It's worth noting that Paul did (1Tim4:4) say people would start to reject things which were meant to be received with thanksgiving. And I'm sorry to say that wine would probably be one of those things. OT-music would be another.

Besides which the musical accompaniment in the Hellenistic period would be very modest. These two cheap CDs on Amazon give us an idea of what we're talking about:

Music of Ancient Greece (Paniagua)
www.amazon.com/Musique-Grece-Antique-Greek/dp/B00004TVG7 (http://www.amazon.com/Musique-Grece-Antique-Greek/dp/B00004TVG7)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/21S2Z98DDTL.jpg

Music of the Bible revealed (Haik-Ventoura).
http://www.amazon.com/Musique-BIBLE-revelee-Suzanne-Haik-Vantoura/dp/B00004TVH6

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/3131SAN378L.jpg

* both these CDs contain English notes, don't be scared off by the French cover... ;)

Jubal
Nov 2nd 2007, 05:24 AM
The Lord saw fit to use alcoholic wine as the emblem of His blood and in rememberance of Him. His ways are not the worlds ways and His thoughts are higher than ours.

He didn't call it wine. He called it fruit of the vine. So it could have been grape juice. So using grape juice at holy communion is fine.

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 12:49 PM
He didn't call it wine. He called it fruit of the vine. So it could have been grape juice. So using grape juice at holy communion is fine.

Fruit of the vine was a common term for wine.

Scripture and Church history show that it was wine. Grape juice was not used for communion by any Church until 1859.

So, while we, in our "wisdom", may deem it ok to change the element of communion, I am not so quick to stamp it "fine".

uric3
Nov 2nd 2007, 01:10 PM
Fruit of the vine was a common term for wine.

Scripture and Church history show that it was wine. Grape juice was not used for communion by any Church until 1859.

So, while we, in our "wisdom", may deem it ok to change the element of communion, I am not so quick to stamp it "fine".


It could have been juice from the grapes, granted "grape juice" wasn't made till much later however they drunk the juice from freshly squeezed grapes as well, also if you read the info on the link I posted earlier it was possible and done by Jews and Romans to preserve the grapes with no fermentation taking place.

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 01:27 PM
It could have been juice from the grapes, granted "grape juice" wasn't made till much later however they drunk the juice from freshly squeezed grapes as well, also if you read the info on the link I posted earlier it was possible and done by Jews and Romans to preserve the grapes with no fermentation taking place.

4 cups of wine were used with the passover Seder and Temperance movement propaganda and revisionist history will not change the fact that no Church before 1859 used grape juice as the emblem of Christ's blood and scripture reveals the 1st century Church using wine for communion.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_passover4cups.htm

jeffreys
Nov 2nd 2007, 03:14 PM
4 cups of wine were used with the passover Seder and Temperance movement propaganda and revisionist history will not change the fact that no Church before 1859 used grape juice as the emblem of Christ's blood and scripture reveals the 1st century Church using wine for communion.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_passover4cups.htm


ToolDude;

I agree with you, and greatly appreciate your insight into the 4 cups that were used during the Seder meal. I have studied the Seder more closely this past year, and have really been blessed by some of the presentations from the Jews for Jesus in recent years. A deeper understanding of the Passover/Seder "connection" has been profound in my life - even though I don't much care for "bitter root"!

The only thing I would question - though not necessarily disagree with - is your blanket statement that "no church before 1859" ever used anything but wine. Sometimes we can take silence for more than it is.

By the way, out of curiosity, what kind of wine do you use at your church?

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 04:23 PM
The only thing I would question - though not necessarily disagree with - is your blanket statement that "no church before 1859" ever used anything but wine. Sometimes we can take silence for more than it is.

My point is that is if one does an honest study of Church history you will find no occurrence of any Church using anything but wine (alcoholic) prior to 1859, be it ante-nicene, nicene, roman catholic, eastern orthodox, protestant or anabaptist.


By the way, out of curiosity, what kind of wine do you use at your church?

I have attended, as a regular member, various types of Churches, mostly evangelical and unfortunately most of these churches have been greatly influenced by the temperance movement.

But I am all for reforming the Church and I see "deeper roots" in this issue than just the surface issue.

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 04:25 PM
It could have been juice from the grapes, granted "grape juice" wasn't made till much later however they drunk the juice from freshly squeezed grapes as well, also if you read the info on the link I posted earlier it was possible and done by Jews and Romans to preserve the grapes with no fermentation taking place.

I read the link and have heard the arguments before. They use historical data to advance a political position that does not have historical backing.

Here is a great link (very lengthy) discussing the weakness in the argument:
http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/

jeffreys
Nov 2nd 2007, 04:26 PM
My point is that is if one does an honest study of Church history you will find no occurrence of any Church using anything but wine (alcoholic) prior to 1859, be it ante-nicene, nicene, roman catholic, eastern orthodox, protestant or anabaptist.



I have attended, as a regular member, various types of Churches, mostly evangelical and unfortunately most of these churches have been greatly influenced by the temperance movement.

But I am all for reforming the Church and I see "deeper roots" in this issue than just the surface issue.
So what you're really saying is that you want booze at church, right?!?!?! :)

Okay, on a serious note...
What are these "deeper roots" to which you refer?

Start a new thread on it, if you will. I'd love to hear your thoughts and learn what you're talking about. Thanks!

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 04:32 PM
What are these "deeper roots" to which you refer?

Start a new thread on it, if you will. I'd love to hear your thoughts and learn what you're talking about. Thanks!

Probably don't need a new thread since the issues are somewhat what this thread is about.

I think there is a tendency for man to add to the scripture. I think the temperance movement is a man-made, legalistic, false humility movement.

Nowhere does scripture call for abstinence of alcohol. The believer is at liberty to partake or abstain with clear conscience.

Regarding the Lord's supper it is clear that Christ chose wine as the representation of His blood. I believe there are christological reasons why the alcohol should be present. I believe it represents something that grape juice alone does not. I'll post a christology of wine in a bit. I'll have to find it :)

So, I'm all for being silent where scripture is silent. I don't believe it is silent here, I believe it speaks loud and clear.

Again, I'm not trying to be legalistic but obedient to the scripture and cause people to think through what they are saying.

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 05:57 PM
Jeffreys,

Unfortunately I cannot find an online link to the article on the Christology of wine. I thought I had posted the full thing here before but to no avail :(

The full text is contained in the book "Drinking with Calvin and Luther: A history of alcohol in the Church" by Pastor Jim West, if you are interested in giving it a read.

Teke
Nov 2nd 2007, 09:01 PM
Probably don't need a new thread since the issues are somewhat what this thread is about.

I think there is a tendency for man to add to the scripture. I think the temperance movement is a man-made, legalistic, false humility movement.

Nowhere does scripture call for abstinence of alcohol. The believer is at liberty to partake or abstain with clear conscience.

Regarding the Lord's supper it is clear that Christ chose wine as the representation of His blood. I believe there are christological reasons why the alcohol should be present. I believe it represents something that grape juice alone does not. I'll post a christology of wine in a bit. I'll have to find it :)

So, I'm all for being silent where scripture is silent. I don't believe it is silent here, I believe it speaks loud and clear.

Again, I'm not trying to be legalistic but obedient to the scripture and cause people to think through what they are saying.

Indeed there are Christological issues why wine. :)
Cyprian taught (Epistle 62) in opposition to those who used water in the Lords cup rather than wine. This is not to say he opposed water being infused into the wine, as we are the water. But it was not to be water only, which recalls baptism. As Isaiah said, ""Remember not, the former things, and consider not the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing, which shall now spring forth; and you shall know it."

Scripture recalls types such as Jesus turning water to wine, and Noahs inebriation. Also, Proverbs 9 as Wisdom speaks, "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine [which] I have mingled."


n the Douay-Rheims Bible:
Psalm 22

A psalm for David. The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing. 2 He hath set me in a place of pasture. He hath brought me up, on the water of refreshment: 3 He hath converted my soul. He hath led me on the paths of justice, for his own name's sake. 4 For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for thou art with me. Thy rod and thy staff, they have comforted me. 5 Thou hast prepared a table before me against them that afflict me. Thou hast anointed my head with oil; and my chalice which inebriateth me, how goodly is it! 6 And thy mercy will follow me all the days of my life. And that I may dwell in the house of the Lord unto length of days.


Ambrose By Boniface Ramsey also phrases Psalm 23 (KJV) "....chalice which inebriateth me."

jeffreys
Nov 2nd 2007, 09:10 PM
Jeffreys,

Unfortunately I cannot find an online link to the article on the Christology of wine. I thought I had posted the full thing here before but to no avail :(

The full text is contained in the book "Drinking with Calvin and Luther: A history of alcohol in the Church" by Pastor Jim West, if you are interested in giving it a read.

Shoot. I was looking forward to seeing it.

Perhaps I'll look up that book and try to read it. I find your statement of "christology of the wine" to be very thought-provoking.

Jubal
Nov 2nd 2007, 10:48 PM
4 cups of wine were used with the passover Seder and Temperance movement propaganda and revisionist history will not change the fact that no Church before 1859 used grape juice as the emblem of Christ's blood and scripture reveals the 1st century Church using wine for communion.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_passover4cups.htm
Real wine may have been used for most church services through the centuries. But fruit of the wine was used at the last supper.

And four cups of wine? That would tend to make some people inebriated.

Pleroo
Nov 2nd 2007, 10:52 PM
Shoot. I was looking forward to seeing it.

Perhaps I'll look up that book and try to read it. I find your statement of "christology of the wine" to be very thought-provoking.

Me too!

I found a series of essays online on the use of wine in Communion as I was searching this out, and thought I'd post them here for anyone who is interested. :)


Wine and the Scripture (http://www.cccjacksontn.com/Site/Wine%20in%20Communion%20Pt.%201.html)

Wine as a Symbol (http://www.cccjacksontn.com/Site/Wine%20in%20Communion%20Pt.%202.html)

Wine as Worship (http://www.cccjacksontn.com/Site/Wine%20in%20Communion%20Pt.%203.html)

Jubal
Nov 2nd 2007, 10:58 PM
...I did want to point out that the Churches of Christ do exactly that when they replaced wine with grape juice caving into the wordly temperance movement of the late 19th century.

The temperance movement began about two thousand years ago with the apostle Paul...

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; - Ephesians 5:18

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 11:03 PM
The temperance movement began about two thousand years ago with the apostle Paul...

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; - Ephesians 5:18

Jubal,

I have no problem with what the scripture teaches, which is true moderation and giving of thanks to God for all things.

I have a problem with a man-made movement that demands abstinence (not true temperance) and uses man-made ways (Law) to bring about change. It doesn't work.

Paul didn't have to use the temperance movement, he directed people to what they should be directed to for self-control... the Holy Spirit.

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 11:06 PM
Real wine may have been used for most church services through the centuries. But fruit of the wine was used at the last supper.

And four cups of wine? That would tend to make some people inebriated.

Once again, it is a 20th century culture that tries to make it appear that something besides wine was in the cup.

Four cups of wine for passover was a tradition long before Christ's time.

He made alot more wine than that at His first miracle, so obviously not an issue with volume.

Toolman
Nov 2nd 2007, 11:06 PM
Shoot. I was looking forward to seeing it.

Perhaps I'll look up that book and try to read it. I find your statement of "christology of the wine" to be very thought-provoking.

I'll give it the old college try this weekend and see if I can dig it up. I know it was online at one time but I couldn't find it this afternoon.

Steven3
Nov 3rd 2007, 01:43 AM
Hi Jubal :)

The temperance movement began about two thousand years ago with the apostle Paul...

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; - Ephesians 5:18No, it began as a church-sponsored movement in the U.S. in the early 19th century. Though I don't doubt it had it's predecessors in 2nd or 3rd Century Christianity (1Tim4:1-4 again)

We can prove that the Bible teaches to drink alcohol in moderation is perfectly okay:

1. Eph 5:18 is actually in favour of moderate drinking. There is a difference between "be not drunk" and "do not drink", the difference is true in English and Greek.

2. Christ came "eating and drinking" = he drank alcohol, otherwise he would have been teetotal/Nazarite like John the Baptist.

3. Paul recommended alcohol to Timothy for his stomach.

4. Paul required bishops and deacons not be much given to drink, not teetotal.

5. Plus every other verse about "wine" in the NT.

6. Romans 14:21 also proves that Paul was a moderate drinker "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble". He can hardly say "don't drink when it makes others stumble" if he is against drinking under all circumstances.

7. Judges 7:13 But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’;)

Sorry but teetotalism is as against God's word as drunkenness - both are extremes. This also relates to one Christian judging another, and more general NT principles.
God bless
Steven

Steven3
Nov 3rd 2007, 01:56 AM
Uric3

It could have been juice from the grapes, Time for my favourite quote from Cervantes again : "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." Have you tried it? :P

Have you tried making your own grape juice by the methods Samuele Bacchiocchi asserts the Greeks and Romans might have used? (I consider his evidence is misreading the texts, but whatever)

Because I have seen fresh grape juice used as a substitute for wine by churches in the developing world, and it can't be stored.

Surely if you're going to be this confident you should try it yourself.
God bless
Steven

PS Hi Toolman
My point is that is if one does an honest study of Church history you will find no occurrence of any Church using anything but wine (alcoholic) prior to 1859, be it ante-nicene, nicene, roman catholic, eastern orthodox, protestant or anabaptist. As far as I know you're absolutely correct about the communion wine issue, because even Clement of Alexandria (yes the same who was the main mover against musical instruments) allowed wine for communion, even if he advocated teetotalism for the young (Instructor II:2)

Jubal
Nov 4th 2007, 01:18 AM
Hi Jubal :)
No, it began as a church-sponsored movement in the U.S. in the early 19th century. Though I don't doubt it had it's predecessors in 2nd or 3rd Century Christianity (1Tim4:1-4 again)

We can prove that the Bible teaches to drink alcohol in moderation is perfectly okay:

1. Eph 5:18 is actually in favour of moderate drinking. There is a difference between "be not drunk" and "do not drink", the difference is true in English and Greek.

2. Christ came "eating and drinking" = he drank alcohol, otherwise he would have been teetotal/Nazarite like John the Baptist.

3. Paul recommended alcohol to Timothy for his stomach.

4. Paul required bishops and deacons not be much given to drink, not teetotal.

5. Plus every other verse about "wine" in the NT.

6. Romans 14:21 also proves that Paul was a moderate drinker "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble". He can hardly say "don't drink when it makes others stumble" if he is against drinking under all circumstances.

7. Judges 7:13 But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’;)

Sorry but teetotalism is as against God's word as drunkenness - both are extremes. This also relates to one Christian judging another, and more general NT principles.
God bless
StevenI never once said that people should never drink. What I'm saying is that christians do not have to drink real wine at holy communion. Grape juice is as good if not better. And...

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
- Titus 2:11-12
One of the best ways to live soberly is to avoid alcohol at all times.
Also ...

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. - John 15:1

Jesus refered to himself as the true vine not the true wine. Grape juice is fine at holy communion.

Steven3
Nov 4th 2007, 10:58 AM
Hi Jubal :)
I never once said that people should never drink. What I'm saying is that christians do not have to drink real wine at holy communion. Grape juice is as good if not better. No one is saying they "have to", because some are alcoholics or have allergies. Fine. But for those who don't, grape juice is not as good, because it's introducing other issues - the shadow of temperance for example, into what should be focussed on the death of the son of God.


Titus 2:11-12

One of the best ways to live soberly is to avoid alcohol at all times.
Also ... In Shakespeare's day "sober" didn't mean teetotal. The Greek says:

Titus 2:12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,

I actually don't believe that grape juice will help Christians live "sober" (in the sense that Paul wrote the Greek, "self-controlled") lives, it may encourage to extremes in more important matters. A little bit of wine is an example of self-control in practice.


I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. - John 15:1

Jesus refered to himself as the true vine not the true wine. Grape juice is fine at holy communion.Well, to be honest, it is ~ the whole thing is only symbolic. One could use Coca-Cola if there was nothing else available. But that's not the point, the point is that generally objections are not coming for practical (and sincere) reasons - allergies, the AA member, etc, but more usually with a whole lot of baggage including dishonest, IMHO, juggling with the word of God to get puritan or temperance agendas advanced.

I'd rather drink alcoholic "fruit of the vine", not for historical veracity per se, but because the fact that it has alcohol in it guards the congregation against the puritan instinct.
God bless
Steven

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 01:04 PM
No offense intended, but I was rather enjoying reading the anti-instrumental discussion. Even though it was stated earlier that this current wine discussion was related to the other, it seems to me to now be so deep and involved as to deserve treatment in a separate thread.

So.... If you will allow me to return to inconsistencies in expediencies.... :D

I appreciated the listings of the various expediencies. It does seem that the anti-instrumental position Matt was defending allows one expediency while forbidding another.

Matt gets around this by arguing that there is a scripturally-defined realm of worship called "music," and within this realm are sub-categories of vocal music and instrumental music. Matt makes the point that the Bible authorizes the vocal by mentioning it, and prohibits the instrumental by keeping silent about it.

Where is this logical "music" construction delineated in any text? It seems to spring entirely from human reason. God didn't say to "engage in that category of music which is vocal, and by extension that category of music which is instrumental is disallowed".... He just said to sing! A thing which BOTH sides of this issue DO! :)

Likewise, even assuming Matt's correct that psallo had dropped its 'accompanied singing' meaning as it evolved into the Koine form, and that the entire NT record is absolutely silent when it comes to instruments, it is likewise silent when it comes to a THIRD category of music -- PRINTED! Do we not all refer to sheet "music," the bound form of which would be a hymnal?

To think of this issue even in those terms of categories of music is to cherish human reasoning and invite will worship. Sometimes you arrive at a certain answer by the way you frame the question.... ;)

Singing that is accompanied is, quite simply, singing! The fact that you are using the instrument as an aid to worship does not mean you are offering Nadab and Abihu's strange fire, anymore than departing from the Lord's example of one cup in favor of the more hygienic communion set is an unauthorized substitution.

Matt, brother, what I hope you can at least entertain as a possibility is that there is no difference whatsoever between finding the pitch with a pitch pipe or a tuning fork, and maintaining it with a piano. Many writers of your position have used the illustration that instrumental accompaniment is tantamount to Noah spurning gopher wood in favor or pine or oak. To which I would ask, "Might he have been allowed to use a hickory hammer handle?"

Matt, the use of musical instruments is not the same as an oak ark. Instead, it is the equivalent of a cedar toolshed to facilitate building the gopher wood ark! It is an aid to worship, just like the hymnal, the communion set, and the church-owned building.

Truly, my brother, it is nothing more! :)

Peace be unto you!

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 01:16 PM
Sometimes you arrive at a certain answer by the way you frame the question.... ;)

Well said!

And, of course, you know that every one of us is guilty of that to some degree. We all bring our biases and preferences to the table, whether we think so or not.

Thanks for a well-though-out post.

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 01:34 PM
Well said!

And, of course, you know that every one of us is guilty of that to some degree. We all bring our biases and preferences to the table, whether we think so or not.

Thanks for a well-though-out post.

Thank you for pulling out that particular quote! I've always thought that one of the mainstays of the "anti-fillintheblank" slippery slope was in how the issue was framed. Within the anti-instrument fellowship, there have sprung up divisions over hymnals, standing in prayer, teaching in age-appropriate classes ("divides the church"), one cup vs. communion sets, having a church-owned building, whether to have a kitchen in the building, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.... Once you start down the slippery slope of anti-ism, it becomes ever easier to find issues over which to disfellowship your fellow Christians.

I believe Brother Matt does have it right when he says to rely only on the scriptures for all authority. But where is his authority for the instrumental proscription? A perceived silence, which is like logically trying to prove a negative, combined with a categorization of types of music that is born entirely from human reasoning.

God said "sing." Those who forbid a piano do that.

So do those who allow one....

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 01:55 PM
Thank you for pulling out that particular quote! I've always thought that one of the mainstays of the "anti-fillintheblank" slippery slope was in how the issue was framed. Within the anti-instrument fellowship, there have sprung up divisions over hymnals, standing in prayer, teaching in age-appropriate classes ("divides the church"), one cup vs. communion sets, having a church-owned building, whether to have a kitchen in the building, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.... Once you start down the slippery slope of anti-ism, it becomes ever easier to find issues over which to disfellowship your fellow Christians.

I believe Brother Matt does have it right when he says to rely only on the scriptures for all authority. But where is his authority for the instrumental proscription? A perceived silence, which is like logically trying to prove a negative, combined with a categorization of types of music that is born entirely from human reasoning.

God said "sing." Those who forbid a piano do that.

So do those who allow one....

You're right. The non-instrumentalists have a strong love for, and adherence to, the Scriptures. But there can also be an ultra-legalistic approach that borders on the insane.

I've been reading - and re-reading - the Gospels lately, and am more convinced than ever that we often miss out on the pure love and Spirit of Jesus. All too often we insist that people be "this or that" before they can be saved, and it's just not at all like what Jesus did.

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 02:25 PM
You're right. The non-instrumentalists have a strong love for, and adherence to, the Scriptures. But there can also be an ultra-legalistic approach that borders on the insane.

I've been reading - and re-reading - the Gospels lately, and am more convinced than ever that we often miss out on the pure love and Spirit of Jesus. All too often we insist that people be "this or that" before they can be saved, and it's just not at all like what Jesus did.

Well, I don't believe I would go quite as far as I believe you are (and if I'm wrong about your position, I apologize!). Loving God and thy neighbor are indeed the greatest commandments, but they are not the only ones.

Matt's actually not that far off, IMO. It's just that those he feels comfortable fellowshipping have repeated that business about strange fire and gopher wood so often among themselves, the sheer weight and tradition of it prevents them from seeing the instrument as just another aid, similar to their pitch pipe or PA system.

I could make a similar case against "mechanical instruments of amplification," and frame the debate in such a way that utilizing any amplifier other than the one God created in my throat is an unscriptural addition. And I would, right properly, be laughed out of any discussion with anyone from that persuasion.

The tragedy is that they simply do not see that their unscriptural prohibition against using an instrument as an aid and expediency, calling it instead an addition and substitution of God's will, has exactly those same faulty logical underpinnings as that PA analogy.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 02:29 PM
Well, I don't believe I would go quite as far as I believe you are (and if I'm wrong about your position, I apologize!). Loving God and thy neighbor are indeed the greatest commandments, but they are not the only ones.

Matt's actually not that far off, IMO. It's just that those he feels comfortable fellowshipping have repeated that business about strange fire and gopher wood so often among themselves, the sheer weight and tradition of it prevents them from seeing the instrument as just another aid, similar to their pitch pipe or PA system.

I could make a similar case against "mechanical instruments of amplification," and frame the debate in such a way that utilizing any amplifier other than the one God created in my throat is an unscriptural addition. And I would, right properly, be laughed out of any discussion with anyone from that persuasion.

The tragedy is that they simply do not see that their unscriptural prohibition against using an instrument as an aid and expediency, calling it instead an addition and substitution of God's will, has exactly those same faulty logical underpinnings as that PA analogy.

That's correct, yes.

Unfortunately, it leads to such extremes as (and this happened on an earlier thread) saying that people who use instruments are in danger of going to hell.

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 02:35 PM
That's correct, yes.

Unfortunately, it leads to such extremes as (and this happened on an earlier thread) saying that people who use instruments are in danger of going to hell.
If there were something more explicitly prohibiting it in the Bible, something more compelling than Matt's specious Greek renderings and his subsequent arguing from silence, I might say the same thing. If God forbids a thing, how do I dare allow it?

The problem for those in Matt's position is, God didn't forbid it. They do.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 03:02 PM
If there were something more explicitly prohibiting it in the Bible, something more compelling than Matt's specious Greek renderings and his subsequent arguing from silence, I might say the same thing. If God forbids a thing, how do I dare allow it?

The problem for those in Matt's position is, God didn't forbid it. They do.

To depart from Matt14 for a moment: This is one of the main things I fear, as a pastor/preacher. I dare not speak where God has not spoken!

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 03:28 PM
To depart from Matt14 for a moment: This is one of the main things I fear, as a pastor/preacher. I dare not speak where God has not spoken!
This is true! And it brings to mind something I noticed in the earlier discussion.

Much was made about how absolutely saturated Jewish worship was with instruments. The record is replete with instrumental use all through the Mosaic period and earlier. On the day of Pentecost, 3,000 Jews were converted to Christ, and it took Peter 10 YEARS to find his way into the Gentile Cornelius' house.

The question that would nag at me, I believe, if I subscribed to the anti-instrumental notion is this: Where in all the record of the Scriptures were those Jews told to stop their playing? Are we really prepared to say that a people who had praised the Lord with instrumental music from their youth, and all down through the ages of their history, arose from the water on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and somehow knew to start singing a capella only?

Because even granting that Greek-based silence argument (which I don't), how much weight are we prepared to hang from that silence? God didn't tell us to do it. So it's a sin if we do. So the first Christians somehow knew to stop doing it. Which means an apostle or an inspired preacher taught the prohibition, and God decided to omit that teaching from the inspired record. And we are to avoid fellowship with those who practice it. AND even those who allow the instrument, and who would forgo practicing it in order to attend with the non-instrumentalists, are debarred for the very belief in their heart that it's optional!

That's a LOT of supposition to hang from an inference built on a supposed silence!

In Paul's discussion with the church at Rome about the old covenant, he states axiomatically, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression!"

What law is it that defines the transgression of accompanied singing? A law of silence? An attempt to prove a negative?

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 03:46 PM
Well, there is a good point to be made - in behalf of the non-instrumentalists - concerning the early Christians.

For some of the early Christians, it would have made sense to separate themselves, as much as possible, from the pagan rituals & orgies of the Gentile believers - most of which would have included some pretty feisty music. It would have made sense for the early Christians, in Corinth for instance, to NOT have the music at their worship services sound like a pagan orgy.

But that's simply not the case today.

Toolman
Nov 5th 2007, 03:50 PM
It would have made sense for the early Christians, in Corinth for instance, to NOT have the music at their worship services sound like a pagan orgy..

Heh... they were too busy eating up the bread and getting drunk on the wine to worry about music :lol:

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 03:51 PM
Heh... they were too busy eating up the bread and getting drunk on the wine to worry about music :lol:

Another reason to NOT HAVE WINE AT COMMUNION!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Toolman
Nov 5th 2007, 03:54 PM
Another reason to NOT HAVE WINE AT COMMUNION!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Better get rid of that bread too... we wouldn't want to give opportunity to gluttony ;)

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 04:03 PM
Well, there is a good point to be made - in behalf of the non-instrumentalists - concerning the early Christians.

For some of the early Christians, it would have made sense to separate themselves, as much as possible, from the pagan rituals & orgies of the Gentile believers - most of which would have included some pretty feisty music. It would have made sense for the early Christians, in Corinth for instance, to NOT have the music at their worship services sound like a pagan orgy.

But that's simply not the case today.
They could have done so. I'm not aware of a record of such, but I see the logic. As with any acceptable aid, it's optional. If they wanted to separate themselves from pagan revelry, they may well have avoided it.

Likewise with the later persecutions, they may have wished to avoid the unique sound of instruments carrying up from the catacombs and other secret places of assembly.

Which things only underscore its optional nature. Just as God didn't command a pitchpipe to establish the pitch, He didn't command OR prohibit an instrument to maintain the proper pitch. As with any acceptable aid, we have the option of using it or not.

And again, my point about the early Jewish converts was the opposite. How did they, who had practiced it all their lives in praise to God, know to stop it? From apostolic silence? So those early Jewish converts in all likelihood DID use it.

This "unauthorized argument" falls under its own weight. With no other aid is this reasoning employed.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 04:13 PM
And again, my point about the early Jewish converts was the opposite. How did they, who had practiced it all their lives in praise to God, know to stop it? From apostolic silence? So those early Jewish converts in all likelihood DID use it.

This "unauthorized argument" falls under its own weight. With no other aid is this reasoning employed.

That's a very good and solid point.

Paul goes to great lengths, especially in his letter to the Romans, to the Christians there (many of whom were of Jewish descent) what was, and was not, applicable from the OT Law. If instrumental accompaniment was supposed to stop - as a command from God - why wasn't that made clear, or at least mentioned?

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 04:30 PM
That's a very good and solid point.

Paul goes to great lengths, especially in his letter to the Romans, to the Christians there (many of whom were of Jewish descent) what was, and was not, applicable from the OT Law. If instrumental accompaniment was supposed to stop - as a command from God - why wasn't that made clear, or at least mentioned?
Exactly so. And I don't have a problem with the concept that God sometimes teaches us His will implicitly. I know I won't always find explicit commands in the Scriptures for every point. But to draw from this supposed silence (assuming the Greek is silent as they say, which it isn't, but making allowance for us non-Greek-scholar wayfaring fools out there... :)), HOW can we say that silence taught THEM to stop doing it?! Not to mention that those who practice it are endangering their souls, and are to be "marked and avoided" by the faithful!

Too much has to depend from that silence for it to be an adequate argument, like hanging a great weight from a slender tree branch. And there can be few greater weights than a subversion of the very unity our Lord prayed for in John 17!

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 05:06 PM
Exactly so. And I don't have a problem with the concept that God sometimes teaches us His will implicitly. I know I won't always find explicit commands in the Scriptures for every point. But to draw from this supposed silence (assuming the Greek is silent as they say, which it isn't, but making allowance for us non-Greek-scholar wayfaring fools out there... :)), HOW can we say that silence taught THEM to stop doing it?! Not to mention that those who practice it are endangering their souls, and are to be "marked and avoided" by the faithful!

Too much has to depend from that silence for it to be an adequate argument, like hanging a great weight from a slender tree branch. And there can be few greater weights than a subversion of the very unity our Lord prayed for in John 17!

Silence never taught me to stop doing anything - unless, of course, you count the silent stares from my wife, with her hands firmly on her hips, that made it perfectly clear that what I just did should NEVER be repeated! :lol:

Rock48
Nov 5th 2007, 05:10 PM
Silence never taught me to stop doing anything - unless, of course, you count the silent stares from my wife, with her hands firmly on her hips, that made it perfectly clear that what I just did should NEVER be repeated! :lol:
Wait, don't tell me... Like getting drunk on Toolman's communion wine? :bounce:


And with that, I really must get on with my day. Great discussion! I hope Matt, or someone likeminded, makes his way back here. I'd really like to see his response to those Jews somehow knowing to stop doing it, and the comparison that it doesn't constitute a mixed-wood ark, but merely a hickory hammer handle.

Blessings to you! :D

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 05:41 PM
Wait, don't tell me... Like getting drunk on Toolman's communion wine? :bounce:

Blessings to you! :D

Don't tell anybody, but I heard from a "reliable source" that Toolman actually uses Vodka for communion. But that's just what I heard, and I certainly wouldn't want it to go any further than that! :lol:

Toolman
Nov 5th 2007, 05:45 PM
Don't tell anybody, but I heard from a "reliable source" that Toolman actually uses Vodka for communion. But that's just what I heard, and I certainly wouldn't want it to go any further than that! :lol:

I'm a beer man... I don't touch that distilled stuff :)

Stop the rumor mill :rofl:

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 05:46 PM
I'm a beer man... I don't touch that distilled stuff :)

Stop the rumor mill :rofl:

What rumor mill? That was a private discussion between me & rock48. It's not like I said anything on a public forum! :lol:




...on a serious note... I've been doing some thinking & pondering, concerning this whole "wine thing" in regards to communion. Interesting stuff. Perhaps I'll PM you with some thoughts.

Toolman
Nov 5th 2007, 05:48 PM
What rumor mill? That was a private discussion between me & rock48. It's not like I said anything on a public forum! :lol:

That's a pastor for ya... tell him something in confidence and next thing you know it's all over the web! :D



...on a serious note... I've been doing some thinking & pondering, concerning this whole "wine thing" in regards to communion. Interesting stuff. Perhaps I'll PM you with some thoughts.

on a serious note... I look forward to it.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 05:51 PM
That's a pastor for ya... tell him something in confidence and next thing you know it's all over the web! :D

"From the pulpit" is the preferred method of spreading gossip & rumors. But we always - and I mean ALWAYS - call such things "prayer requests." :D

Toolman
Nov 5th 2007, 05:52 PM
"From the pulpit" is the preferred method of spreading gossip & rumors. But we always - and I mean ALWAYS - call such things "prayer requests." :D

Absolutely hilarious!!

Teke
Nov 5th 2007, 06:20 PM
That's a very good and solid point.

Paul goes to great lengths, especially in his letter to the Romans, to the Christians there (many of whom were of Jewish descent) what was, and was not, applicable from the OT Law. If instrumental accompaniment was supposed to stop - as a command from God - why wasn't that made clear, or at least mentioned?

The Jews were aware that instrumental accompaniment was not part of their worship. According to their tradition, only the Levite priests played instruments and they were only played when the sacrifice was made (more as a signal to everyone else of what was going on), not throughout the whole ceremony.

Their worship consisted of the scriptures being chanted with all their inflections and Psalms being sung or chanted. The sounds produced by the instrument of their body was all they used in formal worship.

Eastern Christians continue in this tradition. Scripture is chanted, psalms are sung and no instruments or PA systems are used in worship. There is the exception of bells, which announce a particular part of the service (which is also what the Levitical priests used instruments for), but they are not used for singing in worship.

Now if some are following traditional Jewish form of worship with sacrifice, then there might be some use of instruments.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 06:23 PM
The Jews were aware that instrumental accompaniment was not part of their worship. According to their tradition, only the Levite priests played instruments and they were only played when the sacrifice was made (more as a signal to everyone else of what was going on), not throughout the whole ceremony.

Their worship consisted of the scriptures being chanted with all their inflections and Psalms being sung or chanted. The sounds produced by the instrument of their body was all they used in formal worship.

Eastern Christians continue in this tradition. Scripture is chanted, psalms are sung and no instruments or PA systems are used in worship. There is the exception of bells, which announce a particular part of the service (which is also what the Levitical priests used instruments for), but they are not used for singing in worship.

Now if some are following traditional Jewish form of worship with sacrifice, then there might be some use of instruments.

I'd like some verification of those opinions.

Are you going to try to tell me that only the Levites knew how to, or were allowed to, play harps, lyres, etc.?

Also, what do you make of the irrefutable fact that Psalms - certainly those in the Old Testament - were "sung with stringed instrument accompaniment"?

Teke
Nov 5th 2007, 07:04 PM
I'd like some verification of those opinions.

Are you going to try to tell me that only the Levites knew how to, or were allowed to, play harps, lyres, etc.?

Also, what do you make of the irrefutable fact that Psalms - certainly those in the Old Testament - were "sung with stringed instrument accompaniment"?

For "verification" read in the OT.
King David (the one who wrote most of the Psalms) gave specific instructions for instruments used by the Levite priests of the temple.

I do not feel the need to refute anything from the Psalms.
The most prominent feature of discontinuity (NT, Hebrews 5:6,10, 7:11) is the replacement of the Levitical priesthood and temple ordinances.

The burden lies with those who believe the old order to still be in effect.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 07:38 PM
For "verification" read in the OT.
King David (the one who wrote most of the Psalms) gave specific instructions for instruments used by the Levite priests of the temple.

I do not feel the need to refute anything from the Psalms.
The most prominent feature of discontinuity (NT, Hebrews 5:6,10, 7:11) is the replacement of the Levitical priesthood and temple ordinances.

The burden lies with those who believe the old order to still be in effect.

I'm sorry, but saying, "Read the Old Testament" is rather a cop-out.

In addition, to say that only the priests were allowed to play instruments in worship is actually commanding us to play them now. 1 Peter 2:9 says, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." Therefore, if only the priests played musical instruments, it should still be so today!

And when we mention "the burden", I believe you're correct. But I believe the burden lies with those who are speaking where God has not spoken.

Teke
Nov 5th 2007, 08:07 PM
I'm sorry, but saying, "Read the Old Testament" is rather a cop-out.

What do you want, me to post all of 1 and 2 Chronicles. It's pretty common knowledge of any bible student that David set up the order of the temple. But here is piece to get you started, "the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with the instruments of music of the Lord, which David the king had made to praise the Lord" (2 Chron. 5:12-14; 7:6).


In addition, to say that only the priests were allowed to play instruments in worship is actually commanding us to play them now. 1 Peter 2:9 says, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." Therefore, if only the priests played musical instruments, it should still be so today!

I knew you would say this. So you mean to tell me that you believe your part of the Levitical priesthood. And if so, then you are required to play only those instruments given by King David for that purpose.

I seriously doubt your a Levite or that you have that temple to do such as the courses of the priesthood of the Levites did.


And when we mention "the burden", I believe you're correct. But I believe the burden lies with those who are speaking where God has not spoken.

Either you believe scripture, in that there is a new priesthood, or you don't. God has clearly spoken and revealed worship in Jesus Christ. And He is not a musical instrument.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 08:22 PM
I knew you would say this. So you mean to tell me that you believe your part of the Levitical priesthood. And if so, then you are required to play only those instruments given by King David for that purpose.

I seriously doubt your a Levite or that you have that temple to do such as the courses of the priesthood of the Levites did.

No. I mean to tell you that I - as a Christian - am a part of the royal priesthood, the priesthood of believers with Jesus being the High Priest (Hebrews 3:11; 4:14; 9:11). Either that, or Peter (and the author of Hebrews) was lying.

2 Chronicles 5:12-14 speaks of, if you will, professional musicians - the best of the best - brought together for the bringing of the Ark to the Temple. That was not a rank & file worship service, nor is there any indication that only priests were ever allowed to play instruments.

The point is that this supposed "only the priests could play instruments in worship" argument falls completely flat on its face.


By the way, who was the "director of music" mentioned before Psalm 4? Was he a priest? And does that psalm, or any of the others, say anything about being accompanied - by priests - on stringed instruments?

Teke
Nov 5th 2007, 09:02 PM
No. I mean to tell you that I - as a Christian - am a part of the royal priesthood, the priesthood of believers with Jesus being the High Priest (Hebrews 3:11; 4:14; 9:11). Either that, or Peter (and the author of Hebrews) was lying.

Nor do they call you a Levite.


2 Chronicles 5:12-14 speaks of, if you will, professional musicians - the best of the best - brought together for the bringing of the Ark to the Temple. That was not a rank & file worship service, nor is there any indication that only priests were ever allowed to play instruments.

Let's read on friend. 2 Chron. 29:25,26 "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. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets"


The point is that this supposed "only the priests could play instruments in worship" argument falls completely flat on its face.




It is indisputable that these musicians were part of the Levitical priesthood. They ministered near the ark of the covenant, the meeting-place between God and his people.

jeffreys
Nov 5th 2007, 09:08 PM
Nor do they call you a Levite.

Let's read on friend. 2 Chron. 29:25,26 "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. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets"

It is indisputable that these musicians were part of the Levitical priesthood. They ministered near the ark of the covenant, the meeting-place between God and his people.

First of all, yes I am a priest - not because of some wonderful thing I've done, but because I've been adopted into God's family through faith in the grace of God made manifest in Jesus. So yes, I'm the equivalent of an OT priest, in that regard.

And you're right, it is indisputable that those musicians, mentioned in 2 Chronicles, were part of the Levitical priesthood. But that still adds nothing to the anti-instrumentalists' argument, because that was a one-time occasion. In addition, we see the presence of - not the absence of - instruments in worship, in the Old Testament. See my previous reference to Psalm 4.

Thanks!

Steven3
Nov 6th 2007, 06:02 AM
Hi Teke
As Peter says, all Christians are priests now, and as Paul says in Ro5:19, Psalm 18 style worship (temple music) is how the "Gentiles" are to praise God.


The Jews were aware that instrumental accompaniment was not part of their worship. We are Christians, not Orthodox Jews, so this is not greatly more relevant than the muslim ban on instruments in mosques.

Yes it is true that the Babylonian Talmud (c500AD) is against the uses of instruments in the Synagogue on the Sabbath (in case they broke, and had to be fixed on the Sabbath according to Beitza 36b). Nevertheless the Talmud is not authoratative for most Jews.

And there are sources older than this, the 1st Century 'Testament of Job' for example, that shows guitars and other instruments etc being used for worship by Therapeutae congregations in Alexandria - which was the largest Jewish community in the 1st C, having a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem.

During the muslim era Jews also reintroduced musical instruments into some worship occasions. Sergio Paniagua has recorded several CDs featuring spiritual songs in Hebrew from 12C Andalusia, using Arab instruments of course.

http://www.ctv.es/USERS/pneuma/imag/sefarad.jpg

Nearer our own time, the following CD by Joel Cohen has a selection of Jewish mixed (voice and instruments) from 1650s Venice, some of it for worship. The Jewish Venetian composer Salamone Rossi even composed a Kaddish for violin and voices sung in Hebrew.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/3138QS7DHEL.jpg



Eastern Christians continue in this tradition. Scripture is chanted, psalms are sung and no instruments or PA systems are used in worship. There is the exception of bells, which announce a particular part of the service (which is also what the Levitical priests used instruments for), but they are not used for singing in worship. That is continuing Clement of Alexandria's tradition, not the words of God in the Tanakh. Clement was a Stoic philosopher converted to Christianity, and who seems to know little or nothing about Judaism.

Seeing as Clement of Alexandria subverted and contradicted Paul's teaching in many areas, his prejudice against instruments is the least of concerns about taking him as any kind of authority.

We have Paul telling Gentile Christians to use instruments and "sing and make melody". Paul counts for 1000 Clements. :)
God bless
Steven

Rock48
Nov 6th 2007, 07:30 AM
Teke, I have been engaging in discussions with anti-instrument brethren for some 30 years now, and I must say I have not heard your particular take. It seems you would seek to remove instrumental music from NT worship by eliminating it from the record of OT worship. That is, to say the least, a novel approach to the issue.

However, I would like to hear your reasoning on the subject of instrumental music as it relates to the topic of acceptable aids to worship. Would you so kindly indulge me?

The hymnal is "written music," and with very few exceptions is widely regarded by anti-instrumentalists as an acceptable aid. Also, some have a problem with the pitchpipe, but the majority believe its use to be acceptable, as long as a respectable pause is maintained between its use and the actual singing. Microphones and amplifiers are also used to increase the "reach" of the song leader's voice, and even this is widely accepted as a perfectly fine aid, even though it could be said that the song leader's voice is being given preeminence through a mechanical instrument of amplification.....

Could you please tell me, assuming you find aids like these acceptable, upon what basis would you exclude instrumental music as an aid (non-pitchpipe instrumental music that is -- instruments played during the singing instead of before)? If the command is to sing, do not those who have instrumental music also sing?

Why is an instrument that is used not just to find the pitch, but to maintain both pitch and tempo, an un-acceptable aid?

Teke
Nov 6th 2007, 04:01 PM
Hi Teke
As Peter says, all Christians are priests now, and as Paul says in Ro5:19, Psalm 18 style worship (temple music) is how the "Gentiles" are to praise God.

???? Romans 5:19 is on obedience and disobedience of man. :confused


We are Christians, not Orthodox Jews,

Exactly my point.




Yes it is true that the Babylonian Talmud (c500AD) is against the uses of instruments in the Synagogue on the Sabbath (in case they broke, and had to be fixed on the Sabbath according to Beitza 36b). Nevertheless the Talmud is not authoratative for most Jews.

And there are sources older than this, the 1st Century 'Testament of Job' for example, that shows guitars and other instruments etc being used for worship by Therapeutae congregations in Alexandria - which was the largest Jewish community in the 1st C, having a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem.

During the muslim era Jews also reintroduced musical instruments into some worship occasions. Sergio Paniagua has recorded several CDs featuring spiritual songs in Hebrew from 12C Andalusia, using Arab instruments of course.

http://www.ctv.es/USERS/pneuma/imag/sefarad.jpg

Nearer our own time, the following CD by Joel Cohen has a selection of Jewish mixed (voice and instruments) from 1650s Venice, some of it for worship. The Jewish Venetian composer Salamone Rossi even composed a Kaddish for violin and voices sung in Hebrew.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/3138QS7DHEL.jpg


That is continuing Clement of Alexandria's tradition, not the words of God in the Tanakh. Clement was a Stoic philosopher converted to Christianity, and who seems to know little or nothing about Judaism.

Seeing as Clement of Alexandria subverted and contradicted Paul's teaching in many areas, his prejudice against instruments is the least of concerns about taking him as any kind of authority.

We have Paul telling Gentile Christians to use instruments and "sing and make melody". Paul counts for 1000 Clements. :)
God bless
Steven

Sorry I'm not following your reasoning on this subject. Are you arguing in favor of Jewish style worship?

Teke
Nov 6th 2007, 04:40 PM
Teke, I have been engaging in discussions with anti-instrument brethren for some 30 years now, and I must say I have not heard your particular take. It seems you would seek to remove instrumental music from NT worship by eliminating it from the record of OT worship. That is, to say the least, a novel approach to the issue.

I do not see how I have "eliminated it from the record of OT worship". I gave scripture and background history on the subject as it relates to Jewish temple worship and its establishment.

However if you want to continue to follow history on Jewish worship, the Jews used no instruments for worship outside the temple. ie. synagogue worship


However, I would like to hear your reasoning on the subject of instrumental music as it relates to the topic of acceptable aids to worship. Would you so kindly indulge me?

Sure, but the only aid to "acceptable worship" is Jesus Christ. He is the icon of perfect worship.
But then I am an eastern Christian and the highest ascent of worship is silence, aka hesychasm (stillness, quiet).

Psa 4:4 Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.

Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I [am] God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.




The hymnal is "written music," and with very few exceptions is widely regarded by anti-instrumentalists as an acceptable aid. Also, some have a problem with the pitchpipe, but the majority believe its use to be acceptable, as long as a respectable pause is maintained between its use and the actual singing. Microphones and amplifiers are also used to increase the "reach" of the song leader's voice, and even this is widely accepted as a perfectly fine aid, even though it could be said that the song leader's voice is being given preeminence through a mechanical instrument of amplification.....

Could you please tell me, assuming you find aids like these acceptable, upon what basis would you exclude instrumental music as an aid (non-pitchpipe instrumental music that is -- instruments played during the singing instead of before)? If the command is to sing, do not those who have instrumental music also sing?

Why is an instrument that is used not just to find the pitch, but to maintain both pitch and tempo, an un-acceptable aid?

Why would those who have the gift of God need any other aid. Such beauty in worship is of Him.

Psa 29:2 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

While there may be aids used in practicing tones for worship, such practice does not go on during worship. One is to be already prepared for worship upon entering the church, as they have entered heaven and left the world.

If an instrument can be demonstrated to have the qualities associated with heavenly things, such as incense does with prayer, or candles as light, or icons of saints depicting the heavenly host we worship with, I'm open to hear the comparison.

IOW explain the Christology of instruments to me. How do they enable us to be still and hear God only, or exemplify the perfect worship of Christ.

I do not see how following any Jewish praxis will lead us to the perfect worship found in Christ. Not to mention that instruments could also impede our posture of worship (standing, kneeling, bowing, prostrating oneself). Pews are not present in eastern churches either for this reason.

Jubal
Nov 7th 2007, 01:59 AM
Once again, it is a 20th century culture that tries to make it appear that something besides wine was in the cup. Fruit of the vine was in the cup. He said it in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Not once did He say wine. I believe what they had at the last supper was pure fresh grape juice.


Four cups of wine for passover was a tradition long before Christ's time. We're Christian not Jewish. And what you are describing is one quarter gallon of wine. A little extreme don't you think?

Toolman
Nov 7th 2007, 02:14 AM
Fruit of the vine was in the cup. He said it in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Not once did He say wine. I believe what they had at the last supper was pure fresh grape juice.

Fruit of the vine was a 1st century expression for wine. Nothing more and nothing less. Its only 20th century Christians who have ever even attempted to make this claim. You will not find this type of claim within Christian history until the 20th century. It's agenda based.

Saying fruit of the vine in the 1st century would be simliar to us saying "hair of the dog" or "liquid bread", these are just terms that our contemporaries would quickly recognize.


We're Christian not Jewish.

Jesus was a Jew :rolleyes:


And what you are describing is one quarter gallon of wine. A little extreme don't you think?

I guess you think the amount of wine Jesus created at His first miracle was a little extreme?

You are ignoring history simply to promote an agenda. Which is fine if you want to do that but I will continue to point out what history and scripture clearly point out.

Steven3
Nov 8th 2007, 12:35 AM
Hi Teke :)

As Peter says, all Christians are priests now, and as Paul says in Ro5:19, Psalm 18 style worship (temple music) is how the "Gentiles" are to praise God.???? Romans 5:19 is on obedience and disobedience of man. :confused Slip of the keyboard, 15:9, probably the most important verse on this thread. One we should all have underlined if we think Paul did not encourage OT worship (zamar/psallo) for Gentiles.

Rom 15:9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and make melody (Heb. zamar/ Gk. psallo) to your name.” [Psalm 18:49]

God bless
Steven

Steven3
Nov 8th 2007, 12:52 AM
Hello Jubal
Fruit of the vine was in the cup. He said it in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Not once did He say wine.

1. But we've just seen, above, Josephus describing "fruit of the vine" (exact same Greek phrase) as "wine" which Joseph's pharaoh used for making pledges.


I believe what they had at the last supper was pure fresh grape juice.

2. If you truly believe that with confidence ;) then be my guest, try it. Try making "pure fresh grape juice" (which would be in August-September) and then storing it 9 months till Passover in February-March.


And what you are describing is one quarter gallon of wine. A little extreme don't you think?

3. That's only a litre.:pp Besides which that's inference upon inference, including inferring back into the last supper, which may or may not have been "the passover of the Jews" John 11:55, since the last supper was the evening before, and therefore part of, "preparation day" John 19:14

God bless
Steven

Teke
Nov 8th 2007, 02:45 PM
Hi Teke :)Slip of the keyboard, 15:9, probably the most important verse on this thread. One we should all have underlined if we think Paul did not encourage OT worship (zamar/psallo) for Gentiles.

Rom 15:9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and make melody (Heb. zamar/ Gk. psallo) to your name.” [Psalm 18:49]

God bless
Steven

Psalms are carried over into the NT, they are biblical hymnody. ie. singing psalms
Our example is Jesus and the Apostles, who after celebrating the eucharist, "sung a hymn" (Matt. 26:30, Mark 14:26).

BTW, there is no precedence in the NT to depart from biblical hymnody and make up or add to existing psalms, any new songs. ;)

Steven3
Nov 10th 2007, 06:45 AM
Hi Teke

Psalms are carried over into the NT, they are biblical hymnody. ie. singing psalms..with instruments, Heb.zamar/Gk.psallo, the same as in Psalm 18:49 = Rom 15:9


BTW, there is no precedence in the NT to depart from biblical hymnody and make up or add to existing psalms, any new songs. Not true:

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart,


Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Besides, if that were true, and Eph 5:19 and other verses weren't in the NT, then all singing would be wrong since we have no notation for the 150 Hebrew temple psalms, and Russian and Greek Orthodox churches - who generally don't sing psalms at all - would be especially and constantly wrong in every service.


Our example is Jesus and the Apostles, who after celebrating the eucharist, "sung a hymn" (Matt. 26:30, Mark 14:26).Isn't Paul an apostle too?. In any case the verb here isn't psallo but hymneo, so Matt 26:30 isn't an example of what psallo means in Rom 15:9 & Eph 5:19. The NT teaches

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart


Not: addressing one another in psalms-and-psalms-and-psalms, singing-and-singing to the Lord with your heart. God has approved both a diversity of musical forms and the use of instruments for Gentiles.
God bless
Steven

Teke
Nov 10th 2007, 06:50 PM
Hi Teke
..with instruments, Heb.zamar/Gk.psallo, the same as in Psalm 18:49 = Rom 15:9

Not true:

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart,


Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Besides, if that were true, and Eph 5:19 and other verses weren't in the NT, then all singing would be wrong since we have no notation for the 150 Hebrew temple psalms, and Russian and Greek Orthodox churches - who generally don't sing psalms at all - would be especially and constantly wrong in every service.

Isn't Paul an apostle too?. In any case the verb here isn't psallo but hymneo, so Matt 26:30 isn't an example of what psallo means in Rom 15:9 & Eph 5:19. The NT teaches

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart


Not: addressing one another in psalms-and-psalms-and-psalms, singing-and-singing to the Lord with your heart. God has approved both a diversity of musical forms and the use of instruments for Gentiles.
God bless
Steven

Steven, I believe you know better (I've seen you post quotes from concordances and lexicons) than the argument your putting forth.
"Hymn" is in a celebratory manner. ie. Paul and Silas Acts 16:25

I'm not going to make an argument with you about singing. The Hebrews had notations for the tones they used to chant scripture.

And your wrong about the Orthodox, all of what they read/chant, and sing/hymn is both psalms and scripture.

koscheiman
Nov 11th 2007, 12:23 AM
Hi Teke
..with instruments, Heb.zamar/Gk.psallo, the same as in Psalm 18:49 = Rom 15:9

Not true:

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart,


Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Besides, if that were true, and Eph 5:19 and other verses weren't in the NT, then all singing would be wrong since we have no notation for the 150 Hebrew temple psalms, and Russian and Greek Orthodox churches - who generally don't sing psalms at all - would be especially and constantly wrong in every service.

Isn't Paul an apostle too?. In any case the verb here isn't psallo but hymneo, so Matt 26:30 isn't an example of what psallo means in Rom 15:9 & Eph 5:19. The NT teaches

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart


Not: addressing one another in psalms-and-psalms-and-psalms, singing-and-singing to the Lord with your heart. God has approved both a diversity of musical forms and the use of instruments for Gentiles.
God bless
Steven

Where has God approved the use of instruments for Gentiles?

koscheiman
Nov 11th 2007, 01:01 AM
Hi Teke :)Slip of the keyboard, 15:9, probably the most important verse on this thread. One we should all have underlined if we think Paul did not encourage OT worship (zamar/psallo) for Gentiles.

Rom 15:9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and make melody (Heb. zamar/ Gk. psallo) to your name.” [Psalm 18:49]

God bless
Steven

Romans 15:9 does not authorize OT worship for Gentiles it authorizes Gentiles to sing or make melody. The other 9 verses in the NT that give authority for music in worsip are:
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
(Mat 26:30 KJV)
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
(Mar 14:26 KJV)
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(Joh 4:23-24 KJV)
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
(1Co 14:15 KJV)
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
(Eph 5:19 KJV)
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 KJV)
Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
(Heb 2:12 KJV)
We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
(Heb 13:10 KJV)
Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
(Jas 5:13 KJV)

In none of these Scripture is the instrument of music authorized. You may say, "but psallo authorizes the use of the instrument." Wrong! The term psallo is qualified by the term heart as the instrument of use.

Steven3
Nov 11th 2007, 04:03 AM
Hi Koscheimann
Romans 15:9 does not authorize OT worship for Gentiles it authorizes Gentiles to sing or make melody. Paul quotes OT "zamar" and approves it for Gentile worship, Hebrew "zamar" means "to make melody" - including instruments.

You can claim that "sing and make melody" means "sing a cappella and sing a cappella" as much as you want :). But seeing as Greek texts have already been provided on this thread where "sing and make melody" (the exact same two Greek verbs) were used by Josephus of David "singing and plucking [on the lyre]" to Saul, your claim only holds value of evidence in one respect - that you have not read the previous posts.

As for Eph 5:19 "with the heart". This is the lamest of the anti-instrument claims. Please look back three pages on this thread. Placido Domingo does not sing with the valves of the blood-pump in his chest. He sings using his lungs, larynx, throat and mouth. Likewise when someone plays a violin "with heart" it doesn't mean open heart surgery to lodge a violin in his chest cavity.

If you yourself played an instrument you'd know that - as Paul says - it is just as possible to "make melody", play an instrument "with the heart", as it is possible to sing "with heart".

God bless
Steven

PS - everyone.
again, the anti instrumentalists cite Vine as their only credible source on the Greek Orthodox modern use of psallo being current in the 1stC. Could someone who has Vine please check to see Vine's proof text for this? Thanks!

Steven3
Nov 11th 2007, 04:30 AM
Hi Teke :)
Steven, I believe you know better (I've seen you post quotes from concordances and lexicons) than the argument your putting forth. "Hymn" is in a celebratory manner. ie. Paul and Silas Acts 16:25"Hymn" isn't the "argument" (ie uncomfortable fact) that is at issue: We're talking about ado and psallo "sing and make melody" not "hymneo".


I'm not going to make an argument with you about singing. The Hebrews had notations for the tones they used to chant scripture.Are you sure you're not making an argument? Because you seem to be disputing that Paul approves use of both singing and making melody for Gentiles. I said the original temple notation is lost. I do not deny that there is medieval notation - such as that used in the Suzanne Haik-Ventoura CD I referenced above.


And your wrong about the Orthodox, all of what they read/chant, and sing/hymn is both psalms and scripture.Teke, have you actually been to an Orthodox service? Or maybe you've been and don't understand what is being sung. The Trisagion and so on in the Greek liturgy, and similar in Russian liturgy are not Biblical texts. You may find it interesting to buy a CD of Russian or Greek liturgy as below, and see how little (about 10%) is settings Psalms and Scripture.

http://www.liturgica.com/images/products/AJ005.gif http://www.liturgica.com/images/products/AB035.gif

* One major exception to this are the baroque Russian Psalm settings by Bortnyansky, but those are non-liturgical.

Not that I object, Protestants and Catholics don't use only scripture texts either, neither did the early church - witness that "Sleepers Awake" is probably a quote by Paul from a baptismal hymn. And Paul probably encourages non-scriptural settings in Eph5:19.
God bless
Steven

Debra R
Nov 11th 2007, 05:18 AM
Hi Teke :)"Hymn" isn't the "argument" (ie uncomfortable fact) that is at issue: We're talking about ado and psallo "sing and make melody" not "hymneo".

Are you sure you're not making an argument? Because you seem to be disputing that Paul approves use of both singing and making melody for Gentiles. I said the original temple notation is lost. I do not deny that there is medieval notation - such as that used in the Suzanne Haik-Ventoura CD I referenced above.

Teke, have you actually been to an Orthodox service? Or maybe you've been and don't understand what is being sung. The Trisagion and so on in the Greek liturgy, and similar in Russian liturgy are not Biblical texts. You may find it interesting to buy a CD of Russian or Greek liturgy as below, and see how little (about 10%) is settings Psalms and Scripture.

http://www.liturgica.com/images/products/AJ005.gif http://www.liturgica.com/images/products/AB035.gif

* One major exception to this are the baroque Russian Psalm settings by Bortnyansky, but those are non-liturgical.

Not that I object, Protestants and Catholics don't use only scripture texts either, neither did the early church - witness that "Sleepers Awake" is probably a quote by Paul from a baptismal hymn. And Paul probably encourages non-scriptural settings in Eph5:19.
God bless
Steven

My husband's family are Russian Orthodox. I have been to his mother's church with him when we were visiting. Which was my first time at that type of church. They did chant in a sing song voice, (I guess that's what you call it), and it was from Scripture. I recognized some from the Psalms.

Teke
Nov 11th 2007, 06:47 PM
Hi Teke
..with instruments, Heb.zamar/Gk.psallo, the same as in Psalm 18:49 = Rom 15:9

Not true:

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart,


Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Besides, if that were true, and Eph 5:19 and other verses weren't in the NT, then all singing would be wrong since we have no notation for the 150 Hebrew temple psalms, and Russian and Greek Orthodox churches - who generally don't sing psalms at all - would be especially and constantly wrong in every service.

Isn't Paul an apostle too?. In any case the verb here isn't psallo but hymneo, so Matt 26:30 isn't an example of what psallo means in Rom 15:9 & Eph 5:19. The NT teaches

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in (1) psalms and (2) hymns and (3) spiritual songs, (A) singing and (B) making melody to the Lord with your heart


Not: addressing one another in psalms-and-psalms-and-psalms, singing-and-singing to the Lord with your heart. God has approved both a diversity of musical forms and the use of instruments for Gentiles.
God bless
Steven

G5568
ψαλμός
psalmos
psal-mos'
From G5567; a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode ; collectively the book of the Psalms: - psalm. Compare G5603.



G5603
ᾠδή
ōdē
o-day'
From G103; a chant or “ode” (the general term for any words sung; while G5215 denotes especially a religious metrical composition, and G5568 still more specifically a Hebrew cantillation: - song.


A "psalm" in Eph. 5:19 "denotes especially a religious metrical composition". To "hymn" such is to sing in a celebratory manner.

"Singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart" is meant in the sense that spiritual persons sing spiritual songs.

Eph. 5:19 is not in the sense you've demonstrated above in red, "psalms and psalms and psalms".


Teke, have you actually been to an Orthodox service?

I am Eastern Orthodox, so I've been to plenty.
The Trisagion hymn is one of my favorites of the liturgy. It is sung after the Troparion and Kontakion (see below for description of these).
Certain feast days the Trisagion hymn changes to celebrate the event. Usually it is, "holy God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal-have mercy on me". Feast days like the Nativity of Christ and Pentecost it changes (ie. As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ)

Next comes the Epistle and Gospel lessons, which are preceded by special Prokeimena (Greek - proceeding), which serve as an introduction to lessons from the Epistle and Gospel (the Prokeimenon before the Gospel being the Alleluia). These are taken from the Psalms, serving to prepare our minds to comprehend what is read, indicating in brief the significance and importance of the Scripture Lessons.

As you can see the Prokeimenon is the psalms of scripture. They are variables as they vary according to the church calendar.
Orthodox clergy of the altar include, cantors, and readers. They are minor orders, but those who perform them are blessed (ordained) to do so, as is all clergy who speak scripture in traditional manners ie. sing, read, chant, during a divine liturgy. This is the Christian version of Hebrew cantillation (see "ode" above), we call it "liturgics". Which is a form of "religious metrical composition" (ie. a poetic technique), and includes "metrical psalters" (a kind of bible translation).

I can assure you an Orthodox liturgy consists largely of scripture with some "metrical psalters" which may also be hymns. We believe this is how Christ and the Apostles celebrated the Eucharist.

______________________

Notes;
The Troparia and Kontakia are similar to each other in length, literary form, etc., but each stresses a different aspect of the essence of the commemoration. While the Troparion provides us with a picture of the ' external side of the commemorated event, the Kontakion draws attention to the inner aspect, and vice versa. The Kontakia, however, usually reflect more fully the essence of the sacred event. This can be seen, for example, in the following Troparion and Kontakion of the Feast of Holy Pentecost:
Blessed art Thou, O Christ our God, Who hast revealed the fishermen as most wise by sending down upon them the Holy Spirit; through them Thou didst draw the world into Thy net. O Lover of Man, Glory to Thee!

Steven3
Nov 12th 2007, 06:25 AM
Hi Teke
"Singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart" is meant in the sense that spiritual persons sing spiritual songs.Incorrect, if Paul meant "sing spiritual songs" he would have said so - in fact he did, in Colossians. But in Ephesians he adds an extra verb which means "pluck", fact.

I keep on requesting that someone who maintains that psallo in the NT means what it means in modern Greek Orthodox usages and not what it means in Herodotus, Septuagint, Plutarch and Josephus to provide a 1st Century Greek text as evidence. The longer the silence continues the more obvious it becomes that the anti-instrumentalist view is an anachronism.
God bless
Steven

PS

Our example is Jesus and the Apostles, who after celebrating the eucharist, "sung a hymn" (Matt. 26:30, Mark 14:26).

BTW, there is no precedence in the NT to depart from biblical hymnody and make up or add to existing psalms, any new songs.I really cannot understand why you made this comment when in doing so you are condemning your own church. http://www.goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp
As regards the psalm-scripture content in EO liturgy, yes there is some. But generally the bulk of the service is not scriptural (not that I think it should be since Paul says the opposite, but apparently you do?).

Teke
Nov 12th 2007, 08:08 PM
Hi Steven,
I don't think your getting what I am showing you.


Hi TekeIncorrect, if Paul meant "sing spiritual songs" he would have said so - in fact he did, in Colossians. But in Ephesians he adds an extra verb which means "pluck", fact.

I keep on requesting that someone who maintains that psallo in the NT means what it means in modern Greek Orthodox usages and not what it means in Herodotus, Septuagint, Plutarch and Josephus to provide a 1st Century Greek text as evidence. The longer the silence continues the more obvious it becomes that the anti-instrumentalist view is an anachronism.
God bless
Steven

The LXX takes a dim view of musical passages. Let's compare one from Amos.

You strum away on your harps like David and improvise on musical instruments. Amos 6:5 NIV

"who excel in the sound of musical instruments;
they have regarded them as abiding, not as fleeting pleasure." Amos 6:5 LXX

What Jesus would call "vain worship" because they invented and improvized and it was, therefore, by the rules of men.

Justin's Dialog with Trypho the Jew translates the Amos passage-

Who applaud at the sound of the musical instruments;
they reckon them as stable, and not as fleeting.
Who drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments,
but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.

Let's give further facts.

Vincent's: Word Studies Of The New Testament, Vol. III, pg. 269-270 "...The noun psalm (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; I Cor. 14:26), which is etymologically akin to this verb (psallo in I Cor. 14:15 DEM), is used in the New Testament of a religious song in general, having the character of an Old Testament psalm...

"Some think that the verb has here its original signification of singing with an instrument. This is its dominant sense in the Septuagint, and both Basil and Gregory of Nyssa define a psalm as implying instrumental accompaniment...

"But neither Basil nor Ambrose nor Chrysostom, in their panegyrics upon music, mention instrumental music, and Basil expressly condemns it. Bingham dismisses the matter summarily, and cites Justin Martyr as saying expressly that instrumental music was not used in the Christian Church. The verb is used here in the general sense of singing praise."

CONEYBEARE AND HOWSON: "Throughout the whole passage there is a contrast implied between the Heathen and the Christian practice, q.d. When you meet, let your enjoyment consist, not in fulness of wine, but fulness of the Spirit; let your songs be, not the drinking-songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart; while you sing them to the praise. not of Bacchus or Venus, but of the Lord Jesus Christ." (P.775, n. 5.)

Ephesians 5:19 enjoins: (1) Speaking TO ONE ANOTHER in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs; (2) singing (adontes) and making melody (psallontes, psalming) with your heart TO THE LORD. (One is done with voice and lips, the other with the heart.)

"Psallo is best translated by chant, not sing. The Greeks sharply distinguish
chanting (psalmodia) from singling (tragoudi).
The first is a sacred (chanting or speaking) activity; the second, a secular (singing) one.

"In English, unfortunately, the distinction is not sharp, and the word singing is frequently employed to refer to the sacred activity of chanting.

A Greek would never say tragoudo (I sing), instead of psallo;
the two terms have connotations and associations which are worlds apart --
the first is related to the earthly realm, the second to the heavenly."
(Letter to James D. Bales of Harding University, September 22, 1959, from Constantine Cavarnos, of the Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 113 Gilbert Road, Belmont 78, Massachusetts.)

________________


"Your letter to the St. Anthony Guild concerning the Greek word psallo has been referred to me, an editor of the new English Catholic version of the Old Testament. You ask the question:

'Does the use of mechanical instruments of music inhere in the Greek word Psallo as used in the New Testament?'

The answer is no.

The meaning of this word in the New Testament usage is simply 'I sing a sacred hymn in honor of God."'
(Letter to Dr. James D. Bales from Father Stephen Hartdegen, C.P.M., Holy Name College, Franciscan House of Studies, 14th & Shepherd Streets, NE, Washington 17, DC)

___________

Arndt and Gingrich on Psallo: "Abs sing/praise Js.5:13, M-M."

"Continually I stand amazed at the scholarship in the Arndt-Gingrich lexicon. It is my understanding that under the direction of Dr. Gingrich you are now revising that lexicon. On the word psallo, since Thayer, Green, Abbott-Smith, etc., limit the New Testament meaning to sing praises, I would appreciate the reasoning that brought Doctors Arndt and Gingrich to insert "to the accompaniment of the harp" in relationship to Romans 15:19; Ephesians 5:19; and 1 Corinthians 14:15. Further, why is the phrase excluded in relationship to James 5:13. (Hugo McCord to Dr. Frederick W. Danker)

Response: It was so kind of you to take the time to make your inquiry regarding the word psallo. I see by comparison with Bauer's first edition that the editors of A.-G. have incorporated the

obvious Old Testament meaning
into the metaphorical usage of the New Testament.

Bauer did not make this mistake, and we will be sure to correct it in the revision. I doubt whether the archaeologists can establish the use of the harp in early Christian services.

The revision of the Arndt/Gingrich lexicon gives this definition of psallo: . . . This process continued until

psallo in Modern Greek means 'sing' exclusively . . .
with no reference to instrumental accompaniment . . .

Moulton and Milligan: "Psallo, 'play on a harp,' but in the NT, as in Jas-5:13 = "sing a hymn."

Would you like more references?
Or do you have some refs. to support instruments in the NT.
I've already asked the Christological significance of instruments to be shown. Or that the NT Christians used them in worship, such as archaeological proof or text specifically referring their use.



PS
I really cannot understand why you made this comment when in doing so you are condemning your own church. http://www.goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp
As regards the psalm-scripture content in EO liturgy, yes there is some. But generally the bulk of the service is not scriptural (not that I think it should be since Paul says the opposite, but apparently you do?).

Paul is not saying anything opposite of what Jesus said. Our Lord would rather us dwell in the words of scripture with Him, than replace or improvise with instruments.

I gave you a small amount of info on EO liturgies to explain the use of scripture. While I understand if you haven't grasped that, I believe it is unfair of you to say other than that which I have stated without proof of such accusations. And I do not feel I have condemned my church.
BTW, I am very much familiar with the divine liturgy of St John Chrysostom you posted a link to.

I believe it is also unfair of you to say that Paul would say otherwise than Jesus without proof of such.

Further, I could go into the reasons of Davids use of instruments, which is associated with Jewish beliefs and practices, meaning "works". But that would not edify the Christian in what their worship is to be, which is of the spirit and heart.

Steven3
Nov 13th 2007, 01:17 AM
Hi Teke

1. "to ode and pluck"

I'm afraid that Marvin Vincent's 1887 opinion (and his lack of Greek textual evidence to support it) has already been cited earlier in the thread. We can all post away to our heart's content with the opinions of 19thC Methodists like Vincent, and 20thC Greek Orthodox theologians, but the fact remains that Herodotus, Petrarch, the Septuagint, Josephus still use "pluck" (psallo) for either playing an instrument, or singing generally with an instrument, or for singing and dancing even. What I have been asking for, and now this is the sixth or seventh time (what page of the thread are we on?) is for evidence = a 1stC Greek text where "pluck" means "sing a cappella". (I suspect that Vine may have offered a Greek text in proof, rather than just assuming it as a Darbyite, but so far no one has produced it. I again appeal to anyone on this thread who has Vine on their shelves to please check for us).

2. "with the heart"

Again the idea that only singers can ado (sing, ode) "with the heart", while lyre-players and organists cannot psallo (make melody, pluck) "with the heart", or congregations collectively do both as Paul recommended, is based on an assumption that there is no heart in music itself.

Paul in Eph 5:19 is commending the spirit of David's worship to the Ephesians:

Psalm 57:7 My heart is ready, O God,
my heart is ready!
I will sing (ado) and make melody (psallo)!
8 Awake, my glory!
Awake, O harp and lyre!
I will awake the dawn!
9 I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples;
I will make melody (psallo) to you among the Gentiles.

Hence, as in Paul's Rom15:9 psallo quote of Ps18:49 zamar, commending OT music to NT Christians.
God bless
Steven

Steven3
Nov 13th 2007, 01:39 AM
PS
I believe it is also unfair of you to say that Paul would say otherwise than Jesus without proof of such.Sorry, unfair to Jesus having said what? You've lost me. I'm only saying "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" means what it says, three genres of music, three types of song - not psalms, psalms and psalms.

PPS - And sorry, but I still don't understand what the point of this comment was:

Originally Posted by Teke
Our example is Jesus and the Apostles, who after celebrating the eucharist, "sung a hymn" (Matt. 26:30, Mark 14:26).

BTW, there is no precedence in the NT to depart from biblical hymnody and make up or add to existing psalms, any new songs.I don't agree - I believe there is clear NT precedent to sing outside the psalms, Eph5:19 for starters , but I simply don't understand your point above :confused seeing as we all (Protestant, RCC, Orthodox) do sing outside the psalms.

For example:
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/images/records/emi5576772.jpg
Lovely music, but a large proportion is "made up and added to existing psalms"



* These PS are not directly relevant to the OP on instruments - can I suggest that if a thread is needed on why/why not psalms only, that someone else start it? :)

Teke
Nov 13th 2007, 01:46 PM
PSSorry, unfair to Jesus having said what? You've lost me. I'm only saying "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" means what it says, three genres of music, three types of song - not psalms, psalms and psalms.

You said. "Incorrect, if Paul meant "sing spiritual songs" he would have said so - in fact he did, in Colossians. But in Ephesians he adds an extra verb which means "pluck", fact." Can you show me where Jesus says to "pluck" anything?


PPS - And sorry, but I still don't understand what the point of this comment was:
I don't agree - I believe there is clear NT precedent to sing outside the psalms, Eph5:19 for starters , but I simply don't understand your point above :confused seeing as we all (Protestant, RCC, Orthodox) do sing outside the psalms.

Lovely music, but a large proportion is "made up and added to existing psalms"


I am not contending that ONLY the Psalms are sung or used in a liturgy. Scripture, which includes the psalms is used. Sorry if you misunderstood what I meant.

Teke
Nov 13th 2007, 02:42 PM
Hi Teke

1. "to ode and pluck"

I'm afraid that Marvin Vincent's 1887 opinion (and his lack of Greek textual evidence to support it) has already been cited earlier in the thread. We can all post away to our heart's content with the opinions of 19thC Methodists like Vincent, and 20thC Greek Orthodox theologians, but the fact remains that Herodotus, Petrarch, the Septuagint, Josephus still use "pluck" (psallo) for either playing an instrument, or singing generally with an instrument, or for singing and dancing even. What I have been asking for, and now this is the sixth or seventh time (what page of the thread are we on?) is for evidence = a 1stC Greek text where "pluck" means "sing a cappella". (I suspect that Vine may have offered a Greek text in proof, rather than just assuming it as a Darbyite, but so far no one has produced it. I again appeal to anyone on this thread who has Vine on their shelves to please check for us).

2. "with the heart"

Again the idea that only singers can ado (sing, ode) "with the heart", while lyre-players and organists cannot psallo (make melody, pluck) "with the heart", or congregations collectively do both as Paul recommended, is based on an assumption that there is no heart in music itself.

Paul in Eph 5:19 is commending the spirit of David's worship to the Ephesians:

Psalm 57:7 My heart is ready, O God,
my heart is ready!
I will sing (ado) and make melody (psallo)!
8 Awake, my glory!
Awake, O harp and lyre!
I will awake the dawn!
9 I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples;
I will make melody (psallo) to you among the Gentiles.

Hence, as in Paul's Rom15:9 psallo quote of Ps18:49 zamar, commending OT music to NT Christians.
God bless
Steven

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. In the OT during congregational worship, only the priests played instruments at certain times (ie. beginning sacrifice or trumpets to signal the people). The people were outside, they were not by the altar as the priests were.

Synagogue worship never included instruments. Temple worship and synagogue worship are different things.

You seem to be missing the latreutic (worship aspect) significance of Christ. Perhaps I've done a poor job of trying to relate that to you or the Spirit is not revealing it to you.

With no more separation (the veil is open), as there was with temple worship, there is no need for instruments. The true worshipers, worship in spirit and truth. They do not need any "works" of instruments. Their harp of God is their hearts.
In an EO liturgy this is exemplified by the doors of the altar being opened, and the words, "Wisdom let us attend!", meaning pay attention to scripture and the Wisdom of God thru Jesus Christ.

I do not deny there are inspired musicians who can play inspirational music for people. But that is not what worship is. God inspires people in worship, not instruments. He is to permeate the heart, and He does with His word (scripture) and our heart, not instruments.

We all have gifts, and some have a gift for music with instruments. But worship is not to show off our gifts to one another. God gave gifts, to believers and unbelievers, for the benefit of mankind. Because God is a friend and lover of mankind.

What I have tried to relate to you is the Christological significance of worship.

Steven3
Nov 14th 2007, 04:23 AM
What I have tried to relate to you is the Christological significance of worship.And Teke, what I'm trying to relate to you is the Christological significance of "sing and pluck".

btw - anti-instrumentalists :)
Has it occured to anyone that for someone who is mute being able to participate in worship by following Paul's encouragement in playing the piano is the only expression they have, "with the heart".

You all take care ;)
Steven

Rock48
Nov 25th 2007, 08:23 PM
Romans 15:9 does not authorize OT worship for Gentiles it authorizes Gentiles to sing or make melody. The other 9 verses in the NT that give authority for music in worsip are:
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
(Mat 26:30 KJV)
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
(Mar 14:26 KJV)
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(Joh 4:23-24 KJV)
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
(1Co 14:15 KJV)
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
(Eph 5:19 KJV)
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 KJV)
Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
(Heb 2:12 KJV)
We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
(Heb 13:10 KJV)
Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
(Jas 5:13 KJV)

In none of these Scripture is the instrument of music authorized. You may say, "but psallo authorizes the use of the instrument." Wrong! The term psallo is qualified by the term heart as the instrument of use.
Hi Koscheiman! :)

In quoting those verses, you are merely proving a point upon which anti-instrumentalists and pro-instrumentalists already agree! We both sing! :)

I would illustrate the point of contention, the exact crux of the issue, by asking this: Do you use a hymnbook in your worship? If so, why does this "authorized" argument not touch the use of something so foreign to the New Testament? Sometimes anti-instrumentalists will argue that "singing" does not mean "singing and playing." However, that same logic also precludes "singing and reading" from a hymnbook, or "singing and waving" by a song leader.

Why DO anti-instrumentalists allow the use of a mechanical instrument of printed music like a hymnbook, while disallowing the use of a mechanical instrument capable of producing various tones? What is the exact scriptural point at which this divergence takes place, where one thing is allowed and another thing is disallowed?

It does no good to simply allege that instrumental accompaniment is tantamount to steak during the Lord's supper, or other types of wood used on the ark besides gopher, or Nadab and Abihu's strange fire. Because I can similarly allege it is no such thing, and that instrumental music is not another element to the Lord's supper, but is rather the communion set; or that it is not another wood used in the ark proper, but rather another wood Noah used for hammer handles or toolsheds; or that it is not the strange fire that brought death, but rather some aid to the incense offering such as how the coals were scooped into the censer.

Can you cite any Bible principle to show how the above singing verses mean that instrumental accompaniment is disallowed, while at the same time the use of printed music while singing is allowed?

Upon what authority do you allow one aid and disallow the other? Where is your authorization for binding what God has not bound?

Ta-An
Nov 25th 2007, 08:45 PM
There is no mention of instruments, or a command to use them.

And since you admit that there is no explicit command for instruments, do you see that you are proceeding without authorization?My Dear Matt.... :hug:

May I give you an OT ref. to say that when the Temple is rebuilt... so will be restored dancing and instruments in the Temple.....

And since you believe that your body is a temple of G_d... (Holy Spirit) and that He lives through the Holy Spirit in you..... then I'd love to hear your comment on this verse:Jer 31:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=31&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt Again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.

..... soto me.... dancing and instruments as/in worship for today's church is still scriptural :)