Church of Christ Question

Tony:
The Bible never authorizes by silence. The silence of the scriptures prohibits men from acting in the name of God. One can and must speak against this unlawful practice.

Consider the following:

1.The difference between Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam, was the difference between respecting what Jehovah had authorized, and what he had not. Cain offered the produce of the field; Abel offered the firstlings of his flock (Gen. 4:3-4). The latter act was “by faith” (Heb. 11:4) - which comes by hearing what the Lord has spoken (Rom. 10:17) - not what he has left unspoken! The former act was obviously of human inclination, and so Cain was rejected by the Creator. Not all “Cains” have passed from earth’s scenes!
2.Similarly, when Noah constructed the ark, he did so “by faith” (Heb. 11:7), which means the patriarch did “according to all that God commanded him” (Gen. 6:22), or, as the NIV renders the clause: “Noah did everything just as God commanded him.” Though the question is frequently ridiculed these days - when authority is held in contempt - it is still appropriate to ask: Would Noah have been preserved if he had acted upon the presumption that “whatever is not forbidden is allowed,” and so had altered the divine pattern for the building of the ark?
3. Nadab and Abihu were sons of Aaron, the first Hebrew high priest. When they employed “strange fire,” i.e., fire not taken from the altar of sacrifice (cf. Lev. 16:12), they were destroyed by God. What was their crime? The inspired text states that they offered “that which [God] had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1), or, to express it in another way: “[T]hey offered unauthorized fire before the Lord” (NIV; emp. WJ).
4. One of the sacred items of the tabernacle system was the ark of the covenant. The Mosaic law specified: “Jehovah set aside the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant” (Deut. 10:8). The Levites were thus authorized to carry the ark. There was no specific prohibition regarding the other tribes; the law was simply silent as to their privilege of transporting the holy vessel. Was that silence prohibitive? Yes it was, for a parallel passage explicitly states: “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites, for them Jehovah has chosen to carry the ark . . .” (1 Chron. 15:2; emp. WJ). When the Levites were specifically authorized to bear the ark, in the absence of supplementary authority, that clearly implied that “none else” should function in that capacity. Silence excluded! Furthermore, the Levites were to bear that ark by poles, which were passed through rings on the side of the golden box (Ex. 25:12-14). David, however, had borne the ark on a “new cart” (2 Sam. 6:3). Was such a sin, inasmuch as the law was silent respecting the matter of carts? Israel’s great king clarified this matter when he later confessed: “. . . we sought [God] not according to the ordinance” (1 Chron. 15:13), or, “in the prescribed way” (NIV). One is not at liberty to go beyond what has been “prescribed” in a religious practice, any more than a pharmacist is allowed to add more to your medicine than what the physician prescribed!
5. The very first commandment of the Decalogue stated: “I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:2-3). Of course the nation of Israel egregiously violated that prohibition across the centuries. There is an interesting commentary on this matter in the book of Jeremiah. God’s prophet was instructed to stand in the gate of the temple compound and urge the nation to: “Amend your ways” (Jer. 7:3). What was their transgression? Among other things: “[T]hey have built the high places [centers of idol worship] of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind” (Jer. 7:31; emp. WJ). A comparison of this passage, with the original law forbidding idolatry, plainly shows that a practice which the Lord has not commanded is equivalent to an explicit prohibition. The Bible is its own best commentary!

The New Testament record is equally lucid with reference to our obligation to acknowledge the principle of biblical silence.
1.In his first letter to the Christians at Corinth, Paul addresses the problem of attaching oneself to a church leader and forming a sect around that individual. The apostle condemns the practice by the use of some rhetorical questions: “Is Christ divided?”, etc. (1 Cor. 1:12-13). Later, he apparently alludes to the issue again when he says: “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written . . .” (1 Cor. 4:6 - ASV). The reference to “myself” and “Apollos” is “a veiled allusion to those who were actually responsible for the church factions, tactfully withholding their names . . .” (W. E. Vine, 1st Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951, p. 61). When one goes “beyond the things that are written,” he has entered the realm of silence. And the inspired apostle says that one must learn not to do that.
2.In Paul’s letter to the saints at Colossae, he condemned the practice of “will worship,” a disposition which is “after the precepts and doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22-23). W. E. Vine defines “will-worship” as “voluntarily adopted worship, whether unbidden or forbidden” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Westwood, NJ: Fleming Revell Co., 1962, Vol. IV, p. 236). We have no difficulty in understanding what it means to do that which is “forbidden.” But what does it mean to do that which is “unbidden” - if it is not doing that about which the Bible is silent? Noted lexicographer J. H. Thayer described “will-worship” as “worship which one devises and prescribes for himself . . .” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958, p. 168). Everett Harrison commented that “will-worship” is that which “is not prescribed by God but only by (the will of) man” (Colossians: Christ All-Sufficient, Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, p. 72). Here is the issue: If one may, with divine approval, operate in the realm of silence, why can’t he “devise and prescribe for himself” whatever pleases him? And yet, it is this very thing that is censured.
3. In the opening chapter of Hebrews, the inspired author argued for the superiority of Jesus Christ over the angels. One of his points was this: One may not place angels in the same class as God’s Son. Why not? Because the Father never “at any time” said to an angelic being: “You are my Son” (1:5). The principle is this: When God is silent about a matter, humanity has no right to be presumptive, and thus to speak (or to act) without his bidding.
4. One of the most powerful arguments setting forth the “silence” principle is found in Hebrews 7-8. In 8:4, it is affirmed that Jesus Christ, if on earth, could not function as a priest. And why was that the case? Because, as indicated in 7:14, the Lord Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (not Levi). Here is the crux of the matter. Concerning priests from the tribe of Judah, “Moses spake nothing,” or, to say the same thing in another way: He was silent about it! Silence amounts to no authority, and is thus prohibitive. One scholar expresses it in this fashion: “It was from the tribe of Judah that our great High Priest descended. The Mosaic legislation never authorized anyone from that tribe to be a priest” (William McDonald, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1971, p. 102). Or note the comment of the renowned scholar John Owen, in his monumental seven-volume set of commentaries on the book of Hebrews: “And this silence of Moses in this matter the apostle takes to be a sufficient argument to prove that the legal priesthood did not belong, nor could be transferred, unto the tribe of Judah”(An Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Vol. V, p. 442). Could a matter be clearer? This argument has never been answered by those who ridicule the “silence-is-prohibitive” concept.
5. An inspired apostle wrote: “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). There is an objective body of truth designated “the teaching of Christ.” To step beyond it - either into that which is specifically forbidden, or into the unauthorized realm of “silence” - is to transgress the will of God. There has been considerable technical discussion over the grammar of this passage. Some have contended that the verse addresses only the nature of Jesus, but not peripheral matters of doctrine. The fact is, one of the most ludicrous positions that one can entertain is to allege that one must accept the New Testament teaching about Christ, but he may, with impunity, ignore the instruction that is from the Lord! The “silence” principle is quite valid, and a repudiation of it leads to abject apostasy.
The Consequences of Rejecting the “Silence” Principle.
We must at least give brief attention to the logical consequences that attach to rejecting the “silence” concept. Once one abandons this principle, “anything goes” becomes the name of the game. One of the leading digressive voices of today argued this very point: “If it were the case that anything not expressly forbidden in the New Testament is permissible in the Christian religion, then we could not only use pianos to accompany our singing but beads to aid our prayers, crucifixes to focus our devotion, and hashish to enhance our sensitivity. We could also initiate an organizational network similar to that which has been protested so strongly in Catholicism or begin financing church projects with bingo games (where legal) on Tuesday evenings. Not one of these things is explicitly forbidden in the New Testament, and no one who denies the legitimacy of the authority principle as outlined above can consistently argue against any of them” (Rubel Shelly, Sing His Praise! A Case For A Capella Music as Worship Today, Nashville, 20th Century Christian, 1987, pp. 33-34).
The scriptures teach us that silence is prohibitive. The argument you are using is one from long ago and is simply one example of apostasy led by men.

Consider the following:
Tertullian (c. A.D. 150-222) spoke of those who contended that “the thing which is not forbidden is freely permitted.” He replied: “I should rather say that what has not been freely allowed is forbidden” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995, Vol. III, p. 94). During the early Reformation period, Martin Luther (1483-1546) taught that “whatever is without the word of God is, by that very fact, against God.” He frequently appealed to Deuteronomy 4:2: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.” But he gradually modified his view. Later Luther wrote: “Nothing ought to be set up without scriptural authority, or if it is set up, it ought to be esteemed free and not necessary” (emp. WJ). Finally, he declared: “What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and Scripture for it” (A. H. Newman, A Manual of Church History, Chicago: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1902, Vol. II, p. 308). How tragic it is that Luther’s course of doctrinal digression is now pursued by so many today. Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) of Switzerland felt that practices “not enjoined or taught in the New Testament should be unconditionally rejected” (Ibid., p. 308). Yet not even he grasped the full implication in this maxim, for he sanctioned infant baptism - which is neither enjoined nor taught in the New Testament. For a very helpful discussion of the Reformers’ struggle with the principle of “silence,” see: Jack P. Lewis, “Reformation Thought,” Gospel Advocate (January, 1996), pp. 18-19. In the final analysis, the issue actually is: Does the Bible itself sanction the principle that the “silence” of the Scriptures is prohibitive? That is what counts. It will be the contention of this article that both the Old and New Testament amply demonstrate that one is not allowed to engage in any religious practice for which there is not scriptural authority (either in a generic or specific format).

 

Ken:
I do not have a denomination. I am not a part of any organization that is denominational in it's teachings or practice. I desire to follow the teachings of the new testament of Christ. I want no part of conventions, councils, synods, magisteriums. I simply want to continue to be a Christian. Therefore, I describe myself as such by the divine new name Christian. ( Isaiah 62:2, Acts 11:26).

Man has the right to choose any denomination and join it. However, I do not endorse the practice because it is foreign to the word of God.

 

Tony:

The answers I provided were from scripture. This is precisley the way God has commanded his people to answer. ( I Pet. 3;15, II Tim. 3:16,17). If you believe I am wrong. You may follow the procedure Paul instituted long ago. Prove it.(I Thes. 5:21).

The assertion that I posted content that was somehow slanted is unsubstantiated and implies a falsehood being purported on my part. My post simply stated what was found in the scriptures. The scriptures are truth. Moreover, truth is absolute and static.( John 8:32, Mal. 3:6). Your view of it being slanted is unsupported by the evidence. You assumed a bias against the scriptures posted. Yet, you offered nothing to repudiate them as being slanted toward some false position of mine.

Furthermore, I answered the question in light of the scriptures. I believe that is the best way to answer a question of spirituality. It is unfortunate that you do not like that approach. However, I do not intend on answering any other way.

Have a good one.

 

Semantics</font>[/QUOTE]It is not semantics. The Church of Christ has always denied Baptismal Regeneration. For the Campbellites, salvation comes from an act of faith, believing immersion, not from the grace of God conferred through baptism.

 

Jon:
The Catholic church introduced mechanical instruments in NEW TESTAMENT worship. The Jews used instruments in the outer courts of the temple. They used instruments in expressing joy over crossing the Red Sea. They also danced at this time. However, these are not binding on us today as they were sanctioned by God for the Jews. This is why I do not burn incense, wash in a basin, kill bulls or goats, neither do I go to Jerusalem three times a year. If you use the Old law for one, you must do it for all. ( Gal. 5:3).

 

John Gilmore:
The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith. Baptism is an act of faith in the operation of God that saves us by that grace.( Eph. 2:8,9, Gal. 3:26-29, Acts 15:11; 2:38, Col. 2:12, Romans 5:1,2).
Campbell does not deny grace is essential to salvation, only that it also requires an active faith to receive the gift of salvation.

 

Regarding the instrument thing the COC is plain wrong. The verb psallo in Greek tragedy means to pluck a string, and sometimes sing with it. So the idea that singing alone is allowed is flawed to begin with. In addition, making such a big deal of something that is not prohibited is downright Pharisaical.

I know many moderate COC members. Unfortunately I think the strict COCers are part of a cult that is not properly Christian.

 

In other words, faith alone does not justify but we must add an active faith (e.g., the work of baptism). This view is opposed baptismal regeneration, that is, grace received through baptism. The Campbellites understand this and, therefore, have always rejected baptismal regeneration.

 

Notice that whole discussion on "silence is prohibitive" focuses on the Law, thus ignoring that we are not under the Law, but now have the Spirit "to guide us into all truth". That's how we know that things such as beads and has his (which are from pagan worship) are not allowed, but other things not mentioned may be allowed if they do not violate scriptural principle. The C of C does the same thing when it is convenient to them, such as having buildings, incorporated congregations (with the boards, legal 501C3 rules, and other trappings that requires), because "this is necessary for us to function". Not necessarily. But it is easier to do it that way, and the C of C makes that much of a compromise along with all the other churches.

"Will worship" (ethelotheskeia) means "voluntary (arbitrary and unwarranted) piety, i.e. sanctimony". This more fits C of C practice than the liberty we are discussing!

And in Hebrews 8:4, the second part of the verse tells us why Jesus would not be a priest: "since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the LAw", which he then goes on to describe as "a copy and shadow of heavenly things", while Christ has obtained that "more excellent" Heavenly ministry. Why read some whole thing about "silence of Moses means Judah was fobidden from priesthood" into it? Just go by the context. This is precicely one reason why the silence is prohibition teaching can be dangerous. It leads you to try to read things into scriptures while ignoring the contexts. Actually, as Matthew Henry so well taught, it is actually to judge the scriptures, (as imperfect)! They are not prohibitive enough, and therefore must be corrected by our teachings! That's why to judge others on issues like this is to "judge the Law", and thus to not onesself be doing the Law!

 

Charles:

The word Psallo means to pluck. It is a verb. The object expressing action is defined in the text itself. It is the mind, or heart.
Furthermore, the text describes actions that the soul of man can perform. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spirtiual songs singing with grace in your heart to the Lord.( Col. 3:16).

The scripture reads in Ephesians 5:19,  Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

The first phrase speaking to yourselves is a reciprocal receptive pronoun. It requires communication from one person to another. This act requires at least two people in the action of speaking. The later part of verse describes the source of the communication. ( The mind or heart). It is the heart strings that are to be plucked in Col. 3:16, Ephesians 5:19. Words are used between two or more people to communicate a spiritual message ( psalms, hymmns spiritual songs) emanating from the mind or heart.

The scriptures inthe new testament are explicit and specific about singing. The sdriptires specifically require people to communicate a spritual message that teaches others as they pluck the mind or heart strings.

There is no record of the first century church using any form of mechanical instruments in worship to God. This practice began some 600 years after the church was established.

Ina previous post I documented the scholarship from various sources about this issue. all of these scholars ( Barnes, Spurgeon, Wesley, Calvin, Knox, Luther)stood opposed to this invention fo man.

All the verses of the new testament of Christ teach folk to sing? ( Acts 16:24, Hebrews 2;12, I Cor. 14:15, Col. 3:16, Ephesians 5:19, Mat. 26:30, Romans 5:19, Which verse teach us to play?

 

Eric:
Buildings are permissable by example and implication. The church in Jerusalem met in the temple on Solomon's porch.(Acts 5:12). Congregations of the Lord's church met in the homes of members.( Romans 16:1-5).

Your contention is without scriptural support in the new testament. The Bible allows expedients. ( I Cor. 6:12). Expedients are lawful things used to carry out a command. The new testament teaches that meeting places are expedients by word and example.

Christians met in buildings, homes, on the town square, etc. Therefore, meeting places are expedients. They are lawful to carry out a command to assemble. ( Acts 20:7, I Cor. 16;1,2, Acts 2:42).

 

Frank,

I know what psallo means. I can read classical Greek and know how Eurypides and Menander and others have used it. There is no prohibition against instrumental music.

You have a presupposed understanding of what should be and you evidently interpret scripture accordingly.

 

Charles:

I have not presupposed any meaning. I know the meaning of the word. I know the context. I know the act involved and the noun that is the cause of the action. The Bible specifically states what is to be done. This eliminates the general.

This principle is seen throughout the scriptures. Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire. ( Leviticus 10:1-5). Moses striking the rock instead of speaking to it.( Numbers 20:11). The method of carrying the ark of the covenant.( I Samuel 6:7, I Chronicles 15:2).
In each example, God was displeased and punished those who violated the act specifically required.

 

Charles:

There is no authority to use mechanical instruments. God requires men to act under his expressed authroity. ( Col. 3:17). My previous post provides the inspired evidence that one act specifically as God has stated.

I would like the divine scripture under the law of Christ( I Cor. 9:21,) that provides us with the authority to use mechanical instruments.

 

Charles:
With all due respect to Eurypides and Meander, they are not examples from the divine record to prove one may or may not use instruments. The question is what does God say?
Furthermore, the scholarship is against the use of them. Consider the following:
For more than a century the advocates of the use of instrumental music in Christian worship have contended that one of the stronger arguments in defense of that practice is to be found in the Greek word psallo. This term, found only five times in the New Testament, is rendered by the English terms “sing” (Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Jas. 5:13), and “make melody” (Eph. 5:19).
It has been alleged, however, that psallo embraces the use of a mechanical instrument. In classical Greek the word meant “to strike,” as, for instance, “striking” the strings of a harp. And so, it is claimed, this concept is transferred into the NT.
The History of Psallo
Words have histories, and linguistic history often reveals that terms are altered in their meanings as they pass through the centuries. So it was with psallo.
The history of the Greek language extends back about fifteen centuries before Christ. The era called the “classical” period was from around 900 B.C. (the time of Homer) to the conquests of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). During this time psallo carried the basic sense of “to touch sharply, to move by touching, to pull, twitch” (Liddell, p. 1841).
Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.), the Greek playwright, used the word of “plucking hair” (Persae, p. 1062). Euripides (480-460 B.C.?), another Greek writer, spoke of “twanging” the bowstring (Bacchae, p. 784). Psallo was used of “twitching” the carpenter’s line so as to leave a mark (Anthologia Palatine, 6.103). Finally, in Plutarch the verb also could convey the sense of “plucking” the strings of an instrument (Pericles 1.6).
Surely it is obvious that in these various passages the object of what is “touched” was supplied by the context.
Scholars are aware, however, that languages change with time. In 1952, F.F. Bruce wrote: “Words are not static things. They change their meaning with the passage of time” (Vine, 1997, p. vi). This concept must be understood if one is to arrive at the meaning of psallo as used in the NT.
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that dates from the 3rd century B.C. In this production, psallo is used to represent three different Hebrew words. The term may be used to denote simply the playing of an instrument (1 Sam. 16:16). It may bear the sense of singing, accompanied by an instrument (as certain contexts reveal - cf. Psa. 27:6; 98:5 - Eng. versions). Or, the word may refer to vocal music alone (cf. Psa. 135:3; 138:1; 146:2).
After a detailed consideration of the use of psallo in the Greek OT, Ferguson affirms that “what is clear is that an instrument did not inhere in the word psallo in the Septuagint” (p. 7 - emp. orig.). He contends, in fact, that the “preponderance of occurrences” of psallo in the LXX refer simply to “vocal music.”
In a study of the transitional uses of psallo across the years, one thing becomes apparent. The task of the conscientious Bible student must be to determine how the verb is used in the New Testament. This is the only relevant issue.
Incidentally, if one is going to quote the classical usage of psallo, or that conveyed in the LXX (as defenders of instrumental music commonly do), then he could well argue for the playing of instruments as a pure act of worship - with no singing at all - because that sense is clearly employed at times in those bodies of literature.
Language Authorities
1. J.H. Thayer (1828-1901) was Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at the Divinity School of Harvard University. He also served on the revision committee that produced the American Standard Version of the New Testament.
In 1885 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament was published, which reflected Thayer’s translation, revision, and enlargement of an earlier work involving the labors of C.G. Wilke and C.L.W. Grimm. In its day, Thayer’s work was the finest lexicon available, and still is of considerable value.
In discussing psallo, after commenting upon the word’s use in classical Greek, and in the Septuagint, he notes that “in the N.T. [psallo signifies] to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song. . . ” (p. 675).
2. The first edition of W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was issued in 1940 in four volumes. In 1952 a one-volume edition was published. F.F. Bruce, Head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, wrote the Foreword for that production. Therein, Prof. Bruce praised Vine’s work. He stated that the “Greek scholarship was wide, accurate and up-to-date.” He noted that the author had a “thorough mastery of the classical idiom,” a “close acquaintance with the Hellenistic vernacular,” and an awareness of the influence of the Septuagint upon the New Testament.
In his popular work, Vine, in commenting upon psallo (under “Melody”), notes the classical sense, the Septuagint usage, and then says: “... in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise” (1997, p. 730).
In another book, Vine explained the matter more fully.
“The word psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument with the fingers, or to sing with the accompaniment of a harp. Later, however, and in the New Testament, it came to signify simply to praise without the accompaniment of an instrument” (1951, p. 191 - emp. added).
3. In 1964. the prestigious Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley) issued from the press. The article which dealt with psallo was written by Gerhard Delling. Relative to Ephesians 5:19, Delling contended that the literal use of psallo, as “found in the LXX, is now employed figuratively” (Kittel, et al., p. 499).
In an abridgement of this work, published in 1985, Bromiley expressed it this way: “. . . psallontes does not now denote literally playing on a stringed instrument” (p. 1226).
4. In the revised edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, David Howard of Bethel Theological Seminary, commented upon psallo.
“Psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument; in the LXX it generally translates zimmer and ngn. In the NT it refers to singing God’s praises (not necessarily accompanied by strings)” (p. 314).
5. In the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Balz and Schneider write: “In the NT [psallo] always refers to a song of praise to God” (p. 495).
6. In his popular work, Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle comments on psallo in Ephesians 5:19.
“‘Making melody’ is one word in Greek, psallontes. The verb psallo meant first to strike the strings of a harp or lyre. Then it meant to ‘strike up a tune.’ Finally it was used in the sense ‘to sing’” (p. 333).
It is important to remember that these men were affiliated with denominational groups that employ instrumental music in their worship. They have no motive for misrepresenting the facts of this issue. Their testimony, therefore, is compelling indeed.
On the other hand, we must acknowledge that a few scholars have set aside the historical evidence, being swayed by their own theological prejudices. They assert that psallo in the New Testament embodies the idea of “playing” a musical instrument. Liddell & Scott, as well as Edward Robinson, in their respective works, listed the term “play” as the significance of psallo in Ephesians 5:19.
The best example of unwarranted lexical liberty in recent times is the Baur-Arndt-Gingrich production. In the first edition (1957), William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich defined psallo as follows: “. . . in our literature, in accordance with OT usage, sing (to the accompaniment of a harp), sing praise. . . Rom. 15:9. . . Eph. 5:19. . . ”
What most did not realize at the time, however, was that the phrase “to the accompaniment of a harp” was not in Baur’s original work. It was added by the subsequent editors. Following the death of Arndt, Frederick Danker joined with Gingrich for yet another revision (2nd Ed.). At the time, Danker apparently was unaware of the “tampering” by Arndt & Gingrich. When he learned of it, he admitted that the earlier editors had made a “mistake” in their rendition. He promised to try to remedy the error in a future revision.
Gingrich later acknowledged that the added phrase was only his interpretation. In the 2nd edition (1979), the phrase was deleted. However, this comment was added – obviously to placate someone.
“Although the NT does not voice opposition to instrumental music, in view of Christian resistance to mystery cults, as well as Pharisaic aversion to musical instruments in worship. . . it is likely that some such sense as make melody is best here [Eph. 5:19]” (p 891; see McCord, pp. 390-96).
One might have hoped for something better in the 3rd edition, over which Danker had control. But such was not to be. The editor initiated a “departure” from earlier formats by offering an “expanded definition” of words. And so the “sing, sing praise” of the 2nd editon becomes “to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment. . . ” in this latest edition.
However, both 2nd and 3rd editions suggest that those who render psallo by the word “play” in Ephesians 5:19 “may be relying too much on the earliest meaning of psallo [i.e., the classical meaning].” And yet, this is precisely what Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker have done. They imported the classical sense into the New Testament, when their lexicon was supposed to define words according to the “New Testament and other early Christian literature” usage. People need to realize that Greek lexicons are not inspired of God; they can be flawed at times. J.H. Thayer summed-up the issue rather candidly.
“The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context or discussion. . . [T]he lexicographer often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition of the passage in which the reference occurs. In such a case he is compelled to assume, at least to some extent, the functions of the exegete. . . ” (p. VII).
Some scholars have clearly set aside the true significance of certain words and allowed their theological bias to flavor their definitions. This has happened with baptizo (immerse), when some suggest that “sprinkling” is encompassed in the verb’s meaning. Some theologians manipulate the meaning of the preposition eis (for, unto, in order to obtain) in Acts 2:38 in an effort to avoid the conclusion that immersion in water is essential to salvation. This is a sad but tragic reality within the theological community.
Translations
It must be a matter of some consternation, to those who argue that psallo necessarily includes the instrument, that virtually no standard (committee) translation of the English language (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV) provides a hint of instrumental music in any of the five texts where the verb is found in the New Testament. This should be dramatic testimony to the fact that the cream of the world’s scholarship has not subscribed to the notion that psallo inheres a mechanical instrument of music.
Post-Apostolic Testimony
In a thorough discussion of the topic, Prof. Everett Ferguson has shown dramatically that the writers of the first several centuries of the post-apostolic period employed psallo simply to denote the idea of “singing,” or else they used the term in its classical sense only metaphorically, e.g., in Ephesians 5:19, plucking the strings of one’s heart in praise to God (pp. 18-27). (Note: In his translation, Hugo McCord rendered this passage as “plucking the strings of your heart,” thus giving the “plucking” a figurative thrust.) At this point we must add this testimony from McClintock & Strong’s celebrated Cyclopedia:
“The Greeks as well as the Jews were wont to use instruments as accompaniments in their sacred songs. The converts to Christianity accordingly must have been familiar with this mode of singing; yet it is generally believed that the primitive Christians failed to adopt the use of instrumental music in their religious worship. The word psallein, which the apostle uses in Eph. 5:19, has been taken by some critics to indicate that they sang with such accompaniments. . . But if this be the correct inference, it is strange indeed that neither Ambrose. . . nor. . . Basil. . . nor Chrysostom. . . in the noble encomiums which they severally pronounce upon music, make any mention of instrumental music. Basil, indeed, expressly condemns it as ministering only to the depraved passions of men. . . and [he] must have been led to this condemnation because some had gone astray and borrowed this practice from the heathen. . . The general introduction of instrumental music can certainly not be assigned to a date earlier than the 5th or 6th centuries. . . ” (p. 759).
An Ad Hominem Observation
An ad hominem (“to the man”) argument is designed to show the fallacy of an illogical position. It appeals to an erroneous proposition being defended, and demonstrates that, if followed to its logical conclusion, the idea manifests an unreasonable viewpoint. That this is a valid method of dealing with error is evidenced by the fact that Jesus himself occasionally employed it to expose false teaching (cf. Mt. 12:27). There is certainly a legitimate usage of this type of argument in the music controversy.
Several writers, who have argued the psallo position, have contended that an instrument of music is unavoidably inherent within the term. O.E. Payne alleged that if the Christian fails to employ the instrument in worship, he “cannot conform to the divine injunction to psallein” (p. 172). Others (e.g., Dwaine Dunning and Tom Burgess) have argued similarly (see Bales, pp. 97ff).
In view of this, let us consider Ephesians 5:19, where the inspired apostle commands the saints in Ephesus to practice “speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody [psallontes] with your heart to the Lord.”
If the participle psallontes retains a literal, classical sense (to pluck), and therefore inheres the instrument, then the following conclusions necessarily result.
1. This command cannot be obeyed without the employment of the instrument.
2. Since each Christian is under the obligation to psallo, each person must play an instrument.
3. The instrument must be one capable of being “plucked” (e.g., the harp), which would eliminate organs, pianos, trumpets, etc.
This writer has never encountered an advocate of the use of instruments in worship who will stay with the logical demands of his argument in defense of psallo. That speaks volumes.
Recent History
Perhaps the most telling thing of all in this controversy over instrumental worship is the fact that in the recent history of our exchanges with those of the Independent Christian Church (with whom we’ve had most of our discussions), the psallo argument has been virtually abandoned.
One of the last major debates on instrumental music was between Alan E. Highers (churches of Christ) and Given O. Blakely (Independent Christian Church) in April, 1988. During the course of that encounter, Blakely never attempted to introduce the psallo argument. In fact, he “broke new ground” in that he argued that “authority” for what one does in worship is not even needed; worship is a wholly unregulated activity – a position wholly absurd!
Instrumental music in Christian worship is indefensible.
Interesting Quotes
“Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments of music, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 651).
“There is no record in the NT of the use of instruments in the musical worship of the Christian church” (Pfeiffer, p. 1163).
“Whatever evidence is forthcoming, is to the effect that the early Christians did not use musical instruments” (Smith, p. 1365).
“The foregoing argument [of this book] has proceeded principally by two steps. The first is: Whatsoever, in connection with the public worship of the church, is not commanded by Christ, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence, in his Word is forbidden. The second is: Instrumental music, in connection with the public worship of the church is not so commanded by Christ. The conclusion is: Instrumental music, in connection with the public worship of the church, is forbidden” (John J. Girardeau, Professor, Columbia Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), p. 200).

SOURCES
Bales, James D. (1987), Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship (Searcy, AR: Resource Pub.).

Baur, W., Gingrich, F.W., Danker, F. (1979), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago).

Balz, Horst & Schneider, Gerhard (1993), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. 3.

Bromiley, G.W., Ed. (1985), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913).

Earle, Ralph (2000), Word Meanings in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Ferguson, Everett (1972), A Cappella Music (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press).

Girardeau, John J. (1888), Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Richmond, VA: Whittet & Shepperson).

Howard, David (1986), “Melody,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Revised, G.W. Bromiley, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. 3.

Kittel, Gerhard, et al., Eds. (1964), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Vol. VIII.

Liddell, Henry & Scott, Robert (1869), A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon).

McClintock, John & Strong, James (1969 Reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker), Vol. VI.

McCord, Hugo (n.d.), Volume Two: Fifty Years of Lectures (Atwood, TN: Church of Christ).

Payne, O.E. (1920), Instrumental Music Is Scriptural (Cincinnati: Standard).

Pfeiffer, C.F., Vos, Howard & Rea, John (1998), Wycliffe Bible Dictionary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Smith, William & Cheetham, Samuel (1880), A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (London: John Murray), Vol II.

Thayer, J.H. (1958), Greek-English Lexicon (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark).

Vine, W.E. (1951), First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Vine, W.E. (1997 ed.), Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson).

 

Frank,

"You have a presupposed understanding of what should be and you evidently interpret scripture accordingly."

Sorry - that's not meant to sound mean-spirited. But I assert that it is true! You've listed a good number of references, many of which I own. I'd also suggest Kittel's essay on "psallo" and related words. You have shown that the verb has a musical context. Nowhere can it be found that the word must mean "sing" and not "pluck". This is like the KJVO argument. You're position is untenable as you have no proof that your interpretation is exclusively correct. My argument is much easier to defend as I assert that the word can mean pluck or sing - there is no justification for exclusivity in this case.

Once again I challenge you. You want this verse to mean a certain thing. Are you willing to really research it or are you already a priori convinced of the interpretation?

 

I have been a member of the Church of Christ since the early nineties. Prior to that I was a Lutheran and then Baptist. The Church of Christ believes that you must obey the church of the Bible-- nothing added or taken away. It is their belief that they are in conformity to this. So with that being said, I know of several other churches not called by this name that are also recognized as true churches. It is not about the name, it is about obedience to our Lord.

 

I was thinking more in terms of having its OWN building, and thus becoming a "corporation" (under a secular state--right there, that could be seen as the "fornication" spoken of in Rev.17!), in order to hold it. As well as paying "salaries" to pastors. "Elders" and traveling ministers were to be supported, which was often food and shelter, not a "salary").
My point is, there are so many things we have added in the name of "expediency". Neither the Church of Christ, Primitive Baptists, nor all others claiming to be the original NT Church are anywhere near it. Then it's debated what is really "expedient". Some think instruments are, but you are rejecting that. Some think modern styles are. Some think shows and plays in the Church are. All the same reasoning. Then some think corporate Church govt. even if it is just the congregation and not a parachurch body) are too much. I think they have a great point and go along with that thinking, but there are more important things to be concerned with than creating another division; more strife with that.
So it is ridiculous to be arguing this stuff when we all have adapted to the changing times, where it was convenient for us. If we want to be consistent with this, then the Amish and the home fellowship movement are closer to the NT. But we don't want to give up the trappings of organized Christianity. But we are quick to tell others what to give up, though!

Is this a biblical analogy?