Selected from: John W. Keddie, The Church: Its Nature, Ordinances and Offices (Scottish Reformed Heritage Publications, 2016). This book deals with the principles and practices of the Christian Church, covering its nature, government, membership, discipline, worship, sacraments and offices. It is written from a convinced Presbyterian and Reformed perspective.
Introduction
Very little thought is given these days to the question of the propriety of using instrumental music in public worship services. It is not questioned. The fact that instrumental accompaniment was more or less unknown in Presbyterian Church in Scotland up to the end of the 19th Century comes as a surprise to people, as does the knowledge that the great Baptist preacher of the Victorian era, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, never used instrumental accompaniment in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. To this day the Eastern (Orthodox) Church by and large eschews the use of instruments. In the Scottish context only a few of the smaller conservative Presbyterian bodies have maintained unaccompanied praise in their services in recent times, though the prohibition of instruments in worship was recently abandoned in the Free Church of Scotland.1This was changed in the Free Church of Scotland by an Act of a plenary Assembly in November, 2010 [Act 1, Class 2, November 2010]. By this Act the practice eschewing the use of instrumental music in the Church was abandoned. The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) still affirms the position of the post 1900 Free Church as reflected in the relevant Act in 1910 on the matter of the use of inspired materials of praise without instrumental accompaniment [Act anent Public Worship (No. 1 of Class I), Edinburgh 31st May 1910]. The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), the minority group which arose from the division in the Free Church of Scotland in 2000, still requires this statement to be made at all ordinations of ministers:
It is my duty to explain to you, and also to the Congregation here present, with reference to that part of the question which will be put to you as to ‘Purity of worship as presently practiced in this Church’ that, in 1910, the General Assembly reaffirmed the legislation of the Church as to uniformity in public worship going back to the year 1707; and that in accordance with that legislation, it is the present practice of the Free Church to avoid the use, in public worship, of uninspired materials of praise, as also of instrumental music. Such present practice determines the purity of worship to which the maintenance of which the Ordinand pledges himself.2Act V, Class 2, 1932. See, The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1995), 150. This was repealed by the Free Church of Scotland (not the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)) in November 2010 as noted above.
For much of the history of the Reformed Church in Scotland the matter of unaccompanied praise was therefore seen to be part of the Church’s principles or purity of worship. The question is: Is there a biblical principle here? Is there a sound argument for the exclusion of instrumental accompaniment in public worship services? The burden of this chapter is to provide some basis in Scripture for this position.
1. The Basic Approach
For all elements of worship it is incumbent upon any Church to establish that its practice derives from divine appointment and not merely the wit and wisdom of men. In connection with instrumental music there are certain things, superficially, that appear to be in its favour, and these have to be addressed:
(1) Instrumental music was appointed to be used in Old Testament times. Why should that not apply also for the New Testament?
(2) Instrumental accompaniment greatly aids the singing by keeping the pace up and providing a perfect pitch
(3) The use of an instrument provides the potential for a wider variety of musical forms for the songs that may be sung
(4) In any case the use of a mere instrument, or instruments, doesn’t encourage or spread error, as the words of songs admittedly might do. Is it not a thing ‘indifferent’?
The most ardent advocate of the ‘no instrumental accompaniment’ position has no bone of contention with instrumental music per se.3See the interesting book of Percy A Scholes on The Puritans and Music in England and New England (Oxford University Press, 1969 [11934]) by way of illustration of this point.
Musical appreciation is not the issue. The potential of instrumental music for example to stir emotions is not questioned, nor are the God-given talents of those who compose music or play instruments. But the question is: Is it warranted positively in the New Testament and are there sound reasons for not employing such accompaniment in public worship services?
2. The Old Testament Experience
1. The earliest references to instruments in relation to praise are found in connection with the Exodus from Egypt under Moses. In Exodus 15 after the Red Sea deliverance we have the instance of Moses’ sister, of whom we read: “Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them, ‘Sing ye to the LORD, For he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and its rider he hath thrown into the sea!’” (Exodus 15:20-21). There is here, however, no specific reference to public worship, but simply spontaneous or ‘patriotic’ praise from among the women. After all, it was men alone (Levites) who were appointed to lead the entire worship of the Tabernacle service (Numbers 3:5-11). It was only later, indeed, that the whole form of worship that the Lord required of His people in the wilderness was revealed to Moses at Sinai (Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5).
2. In Psalm 81 it is doubtless a call to celebrate the Passover or Feast of Tabernacles that is spoken of. The Psalm refers back to the Exodus period but clearly relates the praise to what God Himself appointed: “Sing aloud unto God our strength: make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob. Take a psalm, and bring hither the timbrel, the pleasant harp with the psaltery [lute]. Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day. For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob. This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I heard a language that I did not understand” (1-5). However, the actual reference to the instruments was contemporary Temple worship.
3. It was by the command of God that Moses appointed trumpets to be blown in certain circumstances, such as at times of burn offerings, and other sacrifices and special occasions (Numbers 10:1-10). These were to be blown by the sons of Aaron (Numbers 10:8; 1 Chronicles 15:24). In the nature of the case the trumpets, whether straight (silver) or curved (rams), were not intended to accompany sung praise. Other instruments were introduced also (2 Chronicles 7:6; 29:25-26) and these too were played by the Levites. They were not used for the accompaniment of psalm-singing at the morning and evening sacrifices.
4. In the period of the Exodus and subsequently before settlement in the land of Canaan the centre of worship was the Tabernacle. It had no fixed place of residence until some time after the conquest of Canaan. In Solomon’s time it was replaced by the Temple. In both cases the specifications for the structures and their functions and services were specifically appointed and determined by the Lord, in great detail. There is no evidence that instrumental music was common in the Tabernacle when it was not fixed in one position. When the Levites were no longer required for moving the Tabernacle they were deployed to various duties, including 4,000 to praise the Lord with stringed instruments (1 Chronicles 23:4-5; see also 1 Chronicles 25 for further details). The arrangements latterly in the Tabernacle clearly carried over subsequently to the Temple worship. The following should be noted of the use of instrumental music in the Tabernacle and Temple:
(1) The instrumental music employed in the Tabernacle was divinely ordained and not just a whim of King David (or any of the priests or Levites) (1 Chronicles 28:11-13, 19).
(2) When the Temple was built and the order of services instituted, it was also a matter of divine commandment (2 Chronicles 29:24-26).
(3) Instrumental music would not have constituted an element in Temple worship without the express authority of God (2 Chronicles 5:13-14; 8:14).
(4) When the burn offerings began the song to the Lord began with trumpets accompanied by the instruments. This is what we read: “when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped” (2 Chronicles 29:27-29). The musical accompaniment lasted as long as the burn offering, and so what we read in verses 29 and 30 in relation to sung praise was unaccompanied. We can understand therefore that all the elements associated with the offerings, including the instrumental music were typical or symbolic.
(5) There is no evidence for instrumental music accompanying praise outside the Tabernacle/Temple worship. And all the worship of the Tabernacle and Temple was necessarily in types, symbols and shadows, pointing forward to fulfilment in the later work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is clear from letter to the Hebrews. The priests simply “served the copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5). The worship was “symbolic for the present time” (Hebrews 9:9). The sacrifices were limited and merely pointed forward to a once-for-all perfect sacrifice offered by Christ: “For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged [purified], would have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance [reminder] again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:1-4). What takes away sin? The sacrificial work of Jesus: “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12).
(6) All this indicates that instrumental music, being appointed and ordained for the typical, symbolical and shadowy worship of the Old Testament, would also be an element, like the priesthood, and the sacrifices, which would be fulfilled in the New Testament and therefore serve no further purpose.
(7) Mention is often made of the content of Psalms such as Psalm 150 which make references to all sorts of musical instruments. These references may be understood, however, perfectly well in relation to the elements of the instrumental music which were typical or symbolical of their New Testament fulfilment. Thus, on the supposition that the use of musical instruments pointed forward to the work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament era (principally), then such Psalms in fact become far clearer to the Christian Church than it would have been even to the Old Testament Church.
3. The New Testament Position
1. We have spoken already of the passing of the Old Testament ceremonies, types, symbols and shadows with the work of Christ and pouring out of the Holy Spirit. It stands to reason – and is agreeable with Biblical revelation – that those things which anticipated the New Testament era must of necessity be abolished (Matthew 27:51). It also stands to reason, however, that there will be an element of continuity or at least evident replacement of elements of the Old Testament services. This applied, for example, to the sacraments, baptism replacing circumcision as a sign of the covenant (Matthew 28:19-20), and the Lord’s Supper replacing the Passover (Matthew 26:17-30; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34).
2. Thus, the positive sanction for the instruments in the Tabernacle or Temple does not carry over to the New Testament any more than the priesthood or sacrifices did. That is not to say that there will not be aspects of the Temple services which will have their analogy in New Testament worship. We have that, for example with the singing of Psalms (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16) and the offerings (2 Corinthians 8). But it is the fruit of the lips that praises Him, not the sounds of instruments in His worship: “by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name” (Hebrews 13:15).
3. The principal question is whether or not there is any direct and express warrant in the New Testament for the accompaniment of sung praise. If the Temple and its services must be recognised as fulfilled and therefore obsolete; and if the instrumental music was expressly appointed as a type or symbol of something fulfilled in the New Testament age, then it is unwarranted simply to adopt such instrumental music without having a clear warrant to do so from the Lord’s Word in the newer testament.
4. Whatever the origins of the local Synagogues may have been as meeting places for the worshippers under the older testament, it was clearly consistent with the application of the 2nd and 4th commandments and the basic need of people to devote time on the weekly Sabbath to public praise, as exemplified by the Lord Himself (Luke 4:16). There is every reason to believe that there were no instruments in the Synagogues. There appears to be the simple elements of prayer and praise and preaching. This much is suggested by the several instances in the gospels and Acts in which we have glimpses into the worship patterns within the Synagogues. It is clear from the Acts that Synagogues became the first centres for collective Christian congregational worship (Acts 17:10-12).
5. There is no question that the Old Testament with its elaborate system of ritual and sacrifices presented a more carnal, outward aspect of religion than what we find in the New Testament. It is clear that in the New Testament a veil was lifted (2 Corinthians 3:14-15) and the worship was more simple, spiritual and experiential than visual. This is understandable, given the uniqueness of the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Jesus Himself indicated this contrast in speaking to the woman at the well in Samaria: “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21-24).
6. In a sense this answers an obvious question: If all the worship that was adopted in the Tabernacle/Temple were typical or figurative of a fulfilment in the New Testament era, what was it specifically of which the instrumental music was typical? We can understand all the sacrifices and the priesthood as being fulfilled in Christ and His work. This much seems very clear in the letter to the Hebrews. But what in the Old Testament points forward to the Holy Spirit’s work, conjointly with Christ’s? We read in Hebrews: “if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge [cleanse] your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:13-14).
Southern Presbyterian theologian of the 19th century, John L. Girardeau suggested that, “the elements in the temple service, which were not embraced in that of the synagogue, were typical; that some of these were typical of the Holy Ghost and the effects to be produced by his grace in New Testament times; and that among them instrumental music must be classed.”4John L Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Richmond, VA, 1888), 74. There seems good reason for affirming that it is precisely the instrumental music element of the Temple worship that pre-figured the work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament era.
Conclusions
1. It must come as no surprise that Churches of the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, conscientiously seeking express commandment and appointment, directly and by good and necessary consequence from Scripture, generally came to the conviction that instrumental music was inappropriate and without divine warrant for New Testament worship. The adoption of instruments, mostly organs, but more recently a whole range of instruments and styles of music, derives for the greater part from the mid-to-late 19th century, certainly in Scotland. Typically, legislation was passed of a permissive sort. Thereafter in local congregations its introduction and development depended largely upon mere supportive majorities. The Free Church of Scotland allowed instrumental music in 1883 though after little or no discussion of the principle. The legislation that allowed instrumental accompaniment was repealed and repudiated by the post-1900 continuing Free Church between 1905 and 1910.
2. Initially the motive for the adoption of instrumental music lay in the desire to improve praise. The preference was for organs, the so-called ‘queen of instruments.’ However, as we have argued, Biblical warrant for such a thing is weak in the extreme. What is more, once it is admitted there is little prospect of restricting the types or numbers of instruments used. There are simply no Biblical criteria to say what instruments may – or may not – be adopted. It may be said to be retrogressive in worship in that the use of instrumental music radically shifts the focus of worship from the individual engaged in praise from his own heart and lips to the ‘music’ as that which drives it all along and may so readily become an element in itself as a ‘performance’ or merely producing ambient noise before, during or after services. This is not to excuse poor singing or carelessness about the leading of the unaccompanied praise. Nor does it involve accusations of heresy. But there is an argument for eschewing musical instruments in New Testament worship because of the evident want of direct warrant and the concern there ought to be to avoid that which smacks of being essentially the “doctrines and commandments of men” (Colossians 3:22).
Further Reading:
James Begg, “Musical Instruments in Public Worship,” in, The Watchword, January 1, 1872, 435-445, and February 1, 1872, 491-503. [This James Begg was the Church of Scotland minister in New Monkland, Ayrshire, and the father of James Begg the Free Churchman. The ‘Treatise’ was published first in 1808 at the time of an ‘organ’ controversy in the Church of Scotland]
John L Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Worship of the Church, Richmond, VA, 1888. Classic study from a Southern Presbyterian USA theologian.
Gerald I Williamson, “Instrumental Music in Worship: Commanded or Not Commanded?” in, The Biblical Doctrine of Worship, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, c1973, 338-349. This was a contribution to a useful Symposium produced by the RPCNA and covering a wide range of exegetical, theological and historical issues in relation to Worship.
John Price, Old Light on New Worship, Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study, Simpson Publishing Company, 2005. This is the work of a Reformed Baptist. A book of 256 pages it is a comprehensive modern study of the issue of the use of musical instruments in public worship and why it should not be adopted in Christian worship.
Footnotes
- 1This was changed in the Free Church of Scotland by an Act of a plenary Assembly in November, 2010 [Act 1, Class 2, November 2010]. By this Act the practice eschewing the use of instrumental music in the Church was abandoned. The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) still affirms the position of the post 1900 Free Church as reflected in the relevant Act in 1910 on the matter of the use of inspired materials of praise without instrumental accompaniment [Act anent Public Worship (No. 1 of Class I), Edinburgh 31st May 1910]. ↩︎
- 2Act V, Class 2, 1932. See, The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1995), 150. This was repealed by the Free Church of Scotland (not the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)) in November 2010 as noted above. ↩︎
- 3See the interesting book of Percy A Scholes on The Puritans and Music in England and New England (Oxford University Press, 1969 [11934]) by way of illustration of this point. ↩︎
- 4John L Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Richmond, VA, 1888), 74. ↩︎
