PART II. THE CASE IN FAVOR OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.
I.
THE “PSALMOS” AND “PSALLO” IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT (TRANSLATED “PSALMS,” “SING,” AND “MAKE MELODY”) INDICATES
ACCEPTABILITY OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC.
Eph
5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms [#5568 psalmos] and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody [#5567 psallo]
in your heart to the Lord;
Colossians
3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you
richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms [#5578 psalmos] and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God.
1
Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? I will
pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing [#5567 psallo] with the spirit, and I will sing
[#5567 psallo] with the understanding also.
1
Corinthians 14:26 What is it then,
brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm [#5568 psalmos], hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a
tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
James 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is
any merry? let him sing psalms
[#5567 psallo].
Romans
15:9 and that the Gentiles might glorify
God for his mercy; as it is written, Therefore will I give praise unto thee
among the Gentiles, and sing
[#5567 psallo] unto thy name.
1.
Headings of the Psalms,
older than the New Testament, indicate use of instruments.
Ps. 4: “on
stringed instruments”
Ps. 54: “on
stringed instruments”
Ps. 55: “on
stringed instruments”
Ps. 67: “on
stringed instruments”
Ps. 81: “set
to the Gitth.”
Ps. 84: “set
to the Gitth.”
2.
The word, “selah,” found
throughout the Psalms is generally recognized as having to do with either
flourishing or silencing the instruments.
3.
Instrumental music is very
much a part of the teaching of the Psalms.
Ps. 33:2, 3. “Give thanks unto Jehovah with
the harp: sing praises unto him with the psaltery of ten strings.
Sing unto him a new song; play skillfully with a loud noise.”
Ps. 57:7-9. “Awake, psaltery and harp...I
will give thanks unto thee, Lord, among the peoples: I will sing praises unto
thee among the nations.”
Ps. 71:22-23. “I will also praise thee with
the psaltery, ... “Unto thee will I sing praises with the harp....”
Ps. 81:2. “Raise a song, and bring hither
the timbrel, The pleasant harp with the psaltery.”
Ps. 92:1-3. “It is a good thing to give
thanks unto Jehovah, And to sing praises unto thy name, O Most High; ...With an
instrument of ten strings, and with the psaltery: With a solemn
sound upon the harp”
Ps. 98:4-6. “Sing praises unto Jehovah with
the harp; With the harp and the voice of melody. With trumpets
and sound of cornet Make a joyful noise before the King, Jehovah.”
Ps. 108:1-3. “I will sing, yea I will sing
praises, even with my glory. Awake, psaltery and harp...I will give
thanks unto thee, O Jehovah, among the peoples; And I will sing praises unto
thee among the nations.”
Ps. 144:9. “I will sing a new song unto
thee, O God: Upon a psaltery of ten strings will I sing praises unto
thee.”
Ps. 147:7. “Sing unto Jehovah with
thanksgiving; Sing praises upon the harp unto our God”
Ps. 149:3. “Let them praise his name in the
dance: Let them sing praises unto him with timbrel and harp.”
Ps. 150:3-5. “Praise him with trumpet sound:
Praise him with psaltery and harp, Praise him with timbrel and dance*:
Praise him with stringed instruments and pipe. Praise him with loud
cymbals: Praise him with high sounding cymbals. Let everything that
hath breath praise Jehovah.”
* (Some commentators think the “dance” in some of
these passages is a kind of instrument.)
If it were sinful to play instrumental music then
teaching with the Psalms would certainly have been qualified by warnings against
doing so. How can it be expected that teaching with the Psalm that says, “Praise God with the harp,” must be
understood to mean that if we do so we are sinning against God unless some such
restriction is stated? Anti-instrumentalists do not fail to see that this is
made clear. Why did God not do the same? Why do they speak where God has not
spoken? Why are they not as silent on the matter as the scriptures?
A.
“PSALMOS” AND ITS OTHER FORMS
ETYMOLOGICALLY SUGGEST MUSIC PRODUCED BY PLUCKING WITH THE FINGERS.
1.
Eph 5:19; Col. 3:16.
Christians are told to speak to each other in “psalms.”
As we have seen, both internally and historically,
psalms are strongly instrumental. When psalms were used to teach and admonish
in the Old Testament they were commonly accompanied. Without some clear
scriptural teaching restricting such use, it cannot reasonably be considered
sinful. Indeed, the fact that the three words here employed, “psalmos,” “hymnos” and “ode” are
used to express the breadth of meaning, indicates that they do not all mean the
same thing. It makes little sense to make this mean, “speaking to one another
in songs, songs and spiritual songs.”
In definitions both ancient and modern, “psalmos” indicates a song of praise with
instrumental accompaniment, “hymnos,”
a song of praise to God without implied accompaniment, and “ode” is a song in general, with or
without an instrument, specified to be spiritual in nature.
It is argued that “psalmos” means only the composition rather than a musical
performance with instruments. Nothing in the sentence requires this. On the
contrary, the force of the infinitive in the verb form, “psalein” (“making melody”), suggests performance.
Even in conceding that this may refer to the piece
of music, it does not solve the difficulty. It obviously does not restrict its
performance to a-cappella. How would one who speaks in a Psalms know that he
must ignore the internal and historical plucking of strings?
The situation is much like our use of the word,
“song.” A “song” may be either the piece of music or the performance of that
piece. Unless it is otherwise clearly indicated, nothing restricts someone from
using the word in the sense of a musical performance. It is just as
unreasonable to conclude that if we are told to speak to each other in Psalms,
we must not perform the action of making melody by plucking strings.
Some authorities feel this is not restricted to the
150 Psalms. The fact that it is included with other music not found in the
scriptures and use of the verbal forms, may well indicate this is speaking of
music that has the character of psalms. The distinguishing character of the
psalms was clearly instrumental.
2.
Standard entomological
dictionaries, Bible dictionaries, Commentaries, translations and Lexicons.
The Greek word, “psalmos,”
and its verb form, “psallo” expressed
the idea of plucking with the fingers. This was extended to simply indicate
music or a melody and finally a psalm fitted for that purpose or singing with
or without an instrument. While it seems to have been used occasionally of
music in general, at no time did the word mean to sing a-cappella.
-The American
Heritage Dictionary, 1980, College edition.
“Psalm...from Greek psalmos, song sung to the harp, psalm (translation of Hebrew mizmor, song, psalm), from psallein, to pluck, play the harp.”
-Strong’s
Concordance, Lexicon,
“psallo; probably strengthened from psao (to rub or touch the surface; compare 5507; to twitch or twang, i.e. to play on a stringed instrument (celebrate the divine worship with music and accompanying odes):--translated, make melody, sing (psalms).”
“psalmos; from 5567; a set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument; a “psalm;” collection of the book of the Psalms: Translated--psalm. Compare 5603.”
-Young’s
Concordance:
“SING 14. To sing praise with a musical instrument, psallo.”
The translators recognize that “psallo” cannot be restricted to “sing.” Almost all translate Eph.
5:19 indicating “melody” rather than singing. Even anti-instrumentalists
concede as much, although they must say the instrument here is the heart.
M. C. Kurfees, the classic of
anti-instrumental writers, says:
“I have conceded and do now concede that there is in Ephesians 5:19 an allusion to and a play upon the original meaning of psallo...”
-Robertson's
Word Pictures in the New Testament
James 5:13 Is any among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise.
[Let him sing praise] [psalletoo (Grk 5567)]. Present active imperative of [psallo] (grk 5567), originally to twang a chord as on a harp, to sing praise to God whether with instrument or without, in the New Testament only here, <1 Cor. 14:15; Rom. 15:9; Eph. 5:19>. “Let him keep on making melody.”
-Vincent's
Word Studies of the New Testament
James 5:13
[Let him sing psalms] [psalletoo (Grk 5567)]. The word means, primarily, “to pluck or twitch.” Hence, of the sharp “twang” on a bow-string or harp-string, and so “to play upon a stringed instrument.” Our word “psalm,” derived from this, is, properly, a tune played upon a stringed instrument. The verb, however, is used in the New Testament of singing praise generally. See <1Cor. 14:15; Rom. 15:9>
The fact that ado and psallo are placed together in
conjunction makes it nonsense to translate them as “singing and singing.”
Because of this they are translated, “singing
and making melody.” Why, then, were not the other passages where psallo was used translated, “make
melody”?
One reason for
this may be that we have no exact English equivalent for the Greek word.
A psalm is a song sung to an instrument. We
have no word to fully express both ideas. If we translate it, “play,” we fail
to express the associated idea of a message in song. It we translate it,
“sing,” we fail to express the underlying idea of making melody by plucking an
instrument with the fingers. If we employ too many words the translation
becomes cumbersome.
Accordingly, in Eph. 5:19 it is commonly translated,
“making melody,” while in other passages it is commonly translated “sing” or
“sing psalms,” recognizing that both ideas may be included.
Actually, there is no contextual reason why all the
passages containing psallo could not
be translated as to make melody or music.
Eph. 5:19. singing and making melody [#5567 psallo] in your heart to the Lord
1Cor.
14:15. I will make melody [#5567
psallo] with the spirit, and I will make melody [#5567 psallo] with the understanding also.
James
5:13. Is any merry? let him make
melody [#5567 psallo].
Romans
15:9 Therefore will I give praise unto
thee among the Gentiles, And make melody [#5567 psallo] unto thy name.
A second
factor that probably influenced the translators is its use in Byzantine and
later Greek
(after AD 300).
Because of traditional non-use of psallo in the Greek chapels, the
primitive idea was almost entirely lost in later usage.
Anti-instrumentalists often press the point that
surely the Greeks should know their own language. They do know their language, as
it is now spoken, but, as anti-instrumentalists themselves argue, language
changes—sometimes a great deal over two thousand years. The ancient Greeks knew
what their language meant at that time. They used psallo to indicate instrumental music for hundreds of years after
the New Testament. Even today in the Greek language, psallo does not mean “sing a-cappella.” It is normally not used in
the churches but elsewhere it is used in reference to make music in general,
whether accompanied or unaccompanied.
A third
influence is Calvinistic tradition.
Just as the strong tradition of pouring for baptism
restrained most translators from rendering “baptizo”
in its original sense of “immerse,” so Calvinistic tradition influenced
translators to continue rendering psallo as
“sing.” Even today, whenever a translator or lexicographer suggests the
original meaning, anti- instrumentalists turn on a lot of pressure.
A first-class example is the clamor made for removal
of the qualifying phrase “(to the
accompaniment of a harp)” added by Arndt
and Gingrich for clarification in their revision of Bauer.
Anti-instrumentalists attacked with a vengeance, making it sound like this was
a distortion of Bauer, whereas the editors were doing what all Lexicographers
do, inserting additional clarifying information. There is a lot of money wrapped
up in publication and such pressures are keenly felt. The result was that after
Professor Arndt died, Gingrich and Danker made another revision which attempts
to straddle the issue, although still conceding that the original meaning of psallo was ‘pluck’ which continued at
least to the time of Lucian (AD 160).
Emphasized
NT by J.B. Rotherham, C.1897 (Non-instrumental Church of Christ in
England.)
-Eph.5:19.
“Speaking to yourselves with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs; singing and striking
the strings with your heart unto the Lord.”
-Rom.15:9. “And unto thy name will I strike the
strings”
-I
Cor.14:15. “I will strike the strings with the spirit, [But] I will strike
the strings also with the mind.”
-James
5:13. “Cheerful is any? Let him strike the strings;”
Lenski, (translation in his
commentaries)
-Eph.5:19. “be filled in spirit, making utterance for
yourselves by means of psalms and hymns and spiritual odes, singing and playing
with your heart to the Lord”
-Rom.15:9. “And will sing
and play psalms to thy name.
Concordant
Literal New Testament by (A. E. Knoch), C.1926, 1931, 1944, 1966.
-Eph.5:19. “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns
and spiritual sings, singing and playing music in your hearts to the
Lord”
-I
Cor.14:15. “In the spirit I will be playing...playing with the
mind also.”
-Rom.15:9.
“And playing music to Thy name.”
-James
5:13. “In anyone cheerful? Let him be playing [music].
Centenary
Translation of the NT by Helen Montgomery, -C.1924, 1941 printing
-Eph.5:19.
“When you talk together; with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
with all your hearts make music unto the Lord.”
-James
5:13. “Is any in good spirits? Let him sing unto his harp.”
-Eph.5:19. “Playing the
harp heartily”
-James 5:13. “Sing with the
harp”
Amplified
Translation,
-Eph.5:19. “Speak out to one another in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, offering praise with voices (and instruments),
and making melody with all your heart to the Lord.”
In spite of economic pressure, a number of
translators have broken with tradition and indicated instrumental
accompaniment. To this, anti-instrumentalists respond by declaring that those
are not “committee translations.” However, while the larger committees do
tend to follow tradition (How many “committee translations” use “immerse” for
baptizo?), that does not mean that they have accepted the anti-instrumental
case. A number of them have written in books or letters that in their judgment psalmos and psallo indicates accompaniment, and some deny they ever intended
their translation to indicate it meant a-cappella.
Joseph Henry
Thayer, D. D.,
Chairman of the American Standard New Testament Revision Committee, in editing
Grimm’s Lexicon, under “psalmos,”
refers us to Bishop Lightfoot on Col. 3:16. At the end of the article he
inserts another note for us, “Synonym,
see Humnos, at the end.” Going to the passage on p. 637 of his lexicon
he states that psalms took their character from the Old Testament Psalms and
then cites Lightfoot on Col. 3:16.
[SYN. humnos, psalmos, ode: ode is the generic term; psalm and humn are specific, the former designating a song which took its general character from the O.T. ‘Psalms’ (although not restricted to them, see 1Cor. 14:15, 26), the latter a song of praise. “While the leading idea of psalm, is a musical accompaniment, and that of humn, praise to God, ode is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once psalmos, humnos and ode” (Bishop Lightfoot on Col. 3:16). The words occur together in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19. See Trench, Syn. Section 78.]
Anti-instrumentalists go to considerable lengths to
try to get around the force of this. They point out that Thayer let Grimm’s
statement, “in the N.T. to sing a hymn,
to celebrate the praises of God in song,” stand without correction.
However, on p.VII, he says, “On points of
etymology the statements of Professor Grimm have been allowed to stand, although,
in form at least, they often fail to accord with modern philological methods.”
Also, under the noun form, Thayer specifically cites Lightfoot on Col. and
refers the reader to Synonyms at the end of humnos for further information. The
idea that he said nothing is wrong.
They further attempt a defense by citing Thayer’s
Preface, p.VIII, where, concerning his additions (in brackets “[ ],” see p.VI)
he cautions,
“Accordingly, a caveat must be entered against the hasty inference that the mention of a different interpretation from that given by Professor Grimm always and of necessity implies dissent from him. It may be intended merely to inform the student that the meaning of the passage is still in debate...”
This statement hardly puts Thayer into the
anti-instrumental camp. It merely indicates that his citation of a different
interpretation should not provoke “hasty”
conclusions that “always and of necessity”
he was differing with Professor Grimm. If anything, this infers that at times
he did differ. As we have shown above, Thayer saw Grimm’s definitions at times
were lacking and gave his own reason why he may or may not have changed it.
On p.VIII he says that his supplementary references
and remarks have been governed at different times by different considerations.
On p.VI he indicates two of his “leading
objects,” (which appear in this case), were “to introduce brief discussions of New Testament synonyms” and to
give “the best English and American
Commentaries (Lightfoot...)”
Thayer clearly added his judgment that a psalm, “took its general character from the O.T.
‘Psalms’, (although not restricted to them. See 1Co.xiv. 15:26)...” To
illustrate what he meant, at this point he cites Lightfoot, who indicates the
character is instrumental. The nature of the statement indicates this serves to
express his view. This is no, “hasty conclusion.”
Bishop
Lightfoot,
quoted above on Col. 3:16, who Thayer says is one of the best commentaries,
further says:
“The three words psalmos, humnos, ode, are distinguished, so far as they are distinguishable, in Trench N.T. Syn. par. 78, page 279. They are correctly defined by Gregory Nyssen in Psalm 100:3 (I. p. 295)”
Both Thayer and Lightfoot cite Trench’s Synonyms. Going to his comments on “psalmos, humnos and ode,” we read:
“When some expositors refuse even to attempt to distinguish between them, urging that St. Paul had certainly no intention of classifying the different forms of Christian poetry, this statement, no doubt, is quite true; but neither, on the other hand, would he have used, where there is evidently no temptation to rhetorical amplification, three words, if one would have equally served his turn. It may fairly be questioned whether we can trace very accurately the lines of demarcation between the ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” of which the Apostle makes mention, or whether he traced these lines for himself with a perfect accuracy. Still each must have had a meaning which belonged to it more, and by a better right, than it belonged to either of the others; and this it may be possible to seize, even while it is quite impossible with perfect strictness to distribute under these three heads Christian poetry as it existed in the Apostolic age....”
“Psalmos, from psao, properly a touching, and then a touching of the harp or other stringed instruments with the finger or with the plectrum (psalmoi toxoon, Euripides, Ion, 174; cf Bacch. 740,... was next the instrument itself, and last of all the song sung with this musical accompaniment. It is in this latest stage of its meaning that we find the word adopted in the Septuagint; and to this agree the ecclesiastical definitions of it...”
When they cannot in some way make it appear that the
authority favors their cause they then seek to destroy his credibility in other
ways. This may be done by citing his theological background or statements made
on some other subject, such as baptism. Of course, when these people seem to
favor their position on instruments their other errors are of no import!
3.
Contemporary usage in and
following early church times indicates that Psalms were still regarded as
indicating instrumental music.
a.
Instruments were certainly
used in the temple to express the psalms during New Testament times.
1) The Bible indicates instrumental music was used in the Temple.
-2Chron.
29:25-28.
25.“And he set
the Levites in the house of Jehovah 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 the commandment was of Jehovah by his prophets.
26. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with
the trumpets. 27. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt-offering upon the
altar. And when the burnt- offering began, the song of Jehovah began also, and
the trumpets, together with the instruments of David king of Israel. 28. And
all the assembly worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded;
all this continued until the burnt-offering was finished.”
This was re-instituted in the second temple.
-Ezra 3:10, 11. “And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of Jehovah
they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons
of Asaph with cymbals, to praise Jehovah, after the order of David king of
Israel. 11. And they sang one to another in praising and giving thanks unto
Jehovah...”
2) Historians agree that instrumental music continued in the temple.
McClintock
& Strong,
p. 753, 3.
“The Talmud also contains some notices of the liturgical music of the Herodian temple. The ordinary Levitical orchestra (according to Erachin, 10a, and Tamid, vii, 3), consisted of only twelve performers, provided with nine lyres, two harps, and one cymbal, with the addition, on certain days, of flutes.... ...mention is made in the Talmud of the use of an instrument in the later temple, which would seem to have been of the nature of a wind- organ, provided with as many as a hundred different keys, and the power of which was such, according to Jerome, that it could be heard from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives, and even farther.”
b.
The non-Christian world, in
and following New Testament times, defined and used Psalmos and psallo to
indicate instrumental music.
Anti-instrumentalists claim that psalmos and psallo came to mean a-cappella by New Testament times. How did they
do so? Did first century Christians invent a special language of their own?
They lived in the culture of the times and spoke the language in which they
were brought up. I give here only a few of the many references that show the
instrumental nature of the word. For more examples, see Documents On Instrumental Music by Tom Burgess, or Instrumental Music Is Scriptural by O.
E. Payne.
Josephus:
(A.D. 70)
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 [exadein] and playing [psalein], upon the harp, they advised them to inquire of such a one, and observe when these demons came upon him and disturbed him, and to take care that such a person might stand over him, and play [psalein] upon the harp and recite hymns to him....skillful in playing [psalein] on the harp, and in singing [exadein] of hymns,...whensoever it was that it came upon him, and this by reciting of hymns, and playing [psalein] upon the harp... -Antiquities, Bk. 6, chap. 8, #2; Pages 185-186. (6.166 Whiston)
“And when the evil spirit again came upon him to trouble and confuse him, he called David to the chamber wherein he lay, and, holding his spear in his hand, bade him charm away the spell with his harp [psalmoi] and songs [humnois]. -Antiquities, Bk. 6, Chap. 9, #3 (6.213 Whiston)
Plutarch.
(A.D. 85)
“They fined a lyre-player [psalter] who was living with them because he played [psallo] with his fingers” -233,F
“And so the lyre-player [psaltees] not rudely nor inelegantly put the curb on Phillip when he tried to dispute with him about the way to strike [psalles] the lyre [psalteerion].
-Moralia, p. 67F.
Lucian. (A.D. 160) The Parasite, 17
“..for it is impossible to pipe [aulein] without a pipe [auloon] or to strum [psallein] without a lyre [luras], or to ride [ippeuein] without a horse [ippou]...”
Athenaeus. (A.D. 230)
“Being very talented, he could play on the harp [epsallen] with the bare hand without a plectrum.” -The Deiphnosphists, IV. 183-184, Tr. by Gulick Bk. 4, Sec. 183 D.
“Aristoxenus says that the magadis and the pectis may be played without
a plectrum, by simply plucking
[psalmou] with the fingers....
Again, Phrynichus says in The Phoenician Women, ‘With plucking [psalmoisin] of the strings they sing [aeidontes] their lays in answering strains.”
-The Deiphnosphists, XIV. 635, Translated by Gulick, Vol. 6, p. 427.
This is conceded by Everett Ferguson, A CAPPELLA
MUSIC..., p. 3.
“The classical meaning of psallo continued into Hellenistic and post-New Testament times. The satirist Lucian of Samosata in the second century A.D. said ‘It is impossible to pipe [aulein] without a pipe or to strum [psallein] without a lyre or to ride without a horse’ (Parasite 17). Aristides, the second century orator, could say ‘as easy as plucking [pseeleie] a lyre’s string’ (Orations 26 [14]. 31). The third (?) century treaties De musica by Aristides Quintilianus contains the statement, ‘If we wish to play [psallein], stretching the string in accord with the musical intervals which through the prescribed ratios will permit all the meters, some of our sounds will be found to have harmony and some to be discordant” (II.ii).
It is not sufficient to shrug these off as
“classical.” The classical period ended around 300 B.C.. However, psallo was used to translate the Hebrew
word, “nagan” in the Septuagint
around 150 BC and this usage continued in the Greek language until at least
around A.D. 500. While we can expect lingering classical features, that is does
not mean that everything in the language changed, or necessarily that “psallo” came to mean “acapella music.”
Indeed, much of the Greek language continued the same. The burden of proof is
upon those who maintain that in the Greek of New Testament times it had
entirely lost its instrumentation.
It is highly unlikely that there were two entirely
different meanings for psallo being
used at the same time by people conversing in the same language.
The fact is that in the preserved writings of New
Testament times, and for long afterwards, psallo
was often used of plucking strings.
c.
Even the ancient “Fathers,”
for four hundred years after Christ, recognized that psalmos and psallo
indicated a melody produced by plucking strings.
Early writers sometimes allegorized instruments to
mean parts of the body etc., but that does not change the ordinary meaning
which they certainly recognized indicated playing an instrument.
Clement of
Alexandria.
(A.D. 150)
“Confess to the Lord on the harp, play [psalate] to Him on the psaltery [psalteerioo] of ten strings. Sing [asate] to Him a new song [asma].”
-Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, The
Instructor [paedagogus], Book 2, Chapter 4. (quoting Psalms 33:2-3)
Hippolytus,
Bishop of Rome (A.D. 170-236)
Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries on the
Psalms.
#7. “they are called ‘psalms of song’ when the voice
takes the lead, while the appropriate sound
is also made to accompany it, rendered harmoniously by the instruments; and
‘songs of psalmody,’ when the instrument takes the lead, while the voice has
the second place, and accompanies the music of the strings.”
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5
(Hendricksen Edition, printed by Christian Book Discount House).
Basil the
Great (A.D.
364) makes a clear distinction between odes and psalms.
“For it is a song [ode] and not a psalm [psalmos], because it is rendered with musical expression by the voice alone.” -on Psalm 44
“A Psalm is a musical sound caused when the instrument is struck rhythmically according to the musical notes” on Psalms 29:1
Gregory of
Nyassa.
(A.D. 370),
“The psalm [psalmos] is the melody produced on the musical instrument. The song [ode] is the utterance of the melody through the mouth with words. hymn [humnos] is the praise offered to God for the good things we possess. The psaltery [psalterion] is a musical instrument which emits the sound from the upper parts of the structure. The music made by the instrument is called Psalm [psalmos]” (Migne. I. p. 493)
Chrysostom. (A.D. 386) On Psalms 41.
“It is possible, even without the voice to psallein--the mind echoing (accompanying) within. For we play the lyre not to men, but to God, who is able to hear (our) hearts, and enter the secrets of our minds.”
Augustine. (A.D. 396)
“But those are called Psalms which are sung to the Psaltery”
Cyril of
Alexandria.(AD
425) -Lexicon
“Psalmos, a musical utterance while the instrument is played
rhythmically according to harmonic notes.”
4.
Early translations of the
Bible into other languages indicate Psallo
and Psalmos included instrumental
accompaniment. For example, see the Latin definitions and translation.
Psallo, like many other words, did
change in meaning. At first it meant only to pluck something with the fingers.
Because this commonly produced a sound, in time it was also used of playing a
melody. Because instrumental music is commonly accompanied with singing, it
eventually came to refer to singing with musical accompaniment. Finally, it
came to mean simply, to sing, with or without an instrument. At no time did the
word mean, “sing a-cappella.”
While we can positively show that instrumentation
continued long after the New Testament, let us, for the sake of the discussion,
grant the claim that by New Testament times it had come to mean to sing, with
or without an instrument. That by no means indicates psallo meant to sing a-cappella. “With or without” does not mean
that accompaniment with an instrument was precluded. It simply means that the
melody may be produced by either the fingers or voice, or both.
Similarly, since bread was commonly leavened, God
specified that in Passover it was to be unleavened (Lev. 10:12). Had He not, it
could have been either. Likewise, if psallo
could be “with or without an instrument,” without restrictive specification,
“psallo” can not exclude the accompaniment. The very nature of the word
requires that in order for it to be exclusively vocal some command would be
necessary to restrict it to that use. The common use of the word to indicate
music both by and with instruments is clear evidence that use of the word alone
cannot exclude instruments.
5.
The Septuagint (LXX), Greek
Bible translated from Hebrew, used by early Christians, clearly indicates the
readers would have understood “psallo”
to include the idea of instrumental melody.
The Bible of New Testament times was commonly the
Old Testament translated into Greek. Like Timothy (2Tim. 3:15), they were
reared from childhood, being taught that David “played [psallo] a harp with his hand” (1Sam. 16:23; 18:10). No reader would
think this meant, “sing a-cappella.” It is just as illogical that when those
Christians read the same word in James 5:13, “psallo when you are happy,” that they would
have understood it to mean “sing a-cappella?”
The Bible used by early
Christians was the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (LXX,
meaning, “70” because seventy men were supposed to have translated it 250-150
BC). That was the Bible Timothy knew “from a babe.” That was the Bible the
Apostles read and quoted. It makes no sense that they used the same word used
for playing with the hand, even quoting it, and without any limitation or
clarification, to mean “sing a-cappella.”
That Bible plainly used “psallo” to describe what was done by one who “psalloed” on a
“psalterion” with the hand, which produced a “psalm.” It even used combination
words such as “psalm-singer” --one who sings psalms. As thoroughly immersed as
they were in the LXX Greek Old Testament, it is unreasonable to think they
would have understood “psallo” and “psalmos” to mean the music must be
a-cappella.
It is highly unlikely that the early Christians,
would be using two different definitions for psallo –one when they read their Septuagint Bibles meaning to play
an instrument, and the other when they wrote the New Testament scriptures,
meaning to sing a-cappella. If God were opposed to instrumental music, one
would at least expect either a clear qualifying definition of the word or a
prohibition of its use, especially in the setting of the times when the Psalms
were commonly sung with instruments, and they themselves call for the use of
instruments.
a.
Importance of the Septuagint.
A. T. Robertson
In his Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The
Light Of Historical Research, p. 93, says it is pleasing to find Deissmann
accenting “strongly the influence of the LXX on the N.T..” He quotes him: “A
single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Septuagint will further our
exegetical knowledge of the Pauline Epistles more than a whole day spent over a
commentary.”
In his debate with Rice, in responding to the claim
that by New Testament times “baptize” had come to include sprinkling, Campbell
laid open the clear path concerning such claims. He pressed the evidence
from the classics and the Septuagint. Rice appealed to historians,
citing unusual uses of baptize by some writers and exceptional claims by some
lexicographers. Consider the wisdom of Campbell as he destroyed Rice’s defense.
After citing many sources such as Josephus, Gregory,
Clement etc., on p. 89 he says:
“It has been a question amongst theologians, whether the sacred use, that is, the Jewish and Christian, agrees with the classic use of this word; whether in one sentence the New Testament writers use baptizo, as do all other writers of that age... It would be indeed adopting a very dangerous principle and precedent, that this word means one thing out of the New Testament, and another in it...
“There are, too, writers in every age, who use terms in a sense very remote from the true. But whether the apostles were such men; or whether we, in a grave discussion like this, are to decide upon the meaning of a word by such corruptions, and licenses, or whether we shall accept the sense in which a word was used by those who lived contemporaneously with the apostles, will hardly admit of question, or of doubt.”
“I am one of those who admit, and can prove, the most exact agreement between the classic, the New Testament, and the Septuagint use of this word. These perfectly corroborate each other. All use the word as indicative of the same action, universally expressed by those classic writers adduced....”
Rice responded, (p. 94)
“One of the most serious errors of the gentleman, and of those who agree with him on this subject, is their undue reliance upon classic usage to determine the meaning of words found in the Scriptures. The pagan Greeks are certainly unsafe guides in the exposition of the language of the New Testament; so the best critics declare. And it is on this account, that we have Lexicons of the New Testament.”
Campbell
responded,
(p. 96)
“Our issue, says Mr. Rice, after
all, depends upon the lexicographers. They are, no doubt, a proper court of
appeal, but they are not the supreme court of appeal. They have
themselves to appeal to the classics and approved writers for their authority.
They are often wrong. Mr. Carson says they are all wrong in affirming that wash
is a secondary meaning of baptizo. We all appeal from them to the classics. No
learned man will ever rest his faith upon dictionaries. he will appeal from
them, in very many cases, to their teachers, the classics.”
Thus today, just as Mr. Rice contended for baptizo,
so anti-instrumentalists contend that in the New Testament psallo meant something entirely different than in the Septuagint
and the classics, and they are just as wrong. They can find instances where it
may merely mean to sing, but no first-century writer using it in the sense of
a-cappella. However, not to be put off, they strain very hard to be convincing.
Even if they could find such an exception, that would not change the rule.
Sometimes the word, “lyric,” is cited as an example
as how a word completely lost instrumentation. However, “lyric” never meant to
play a lyre. It meant, “like a lyre,” and still does.
They try to cite other words that have changed
meaning. That does not prove that psallo
changed meaning in the New Testament. The burden of proof rests upon them. “Eat
meat,” came to mean eating food in general, with or without animal flesh.
“Break bread,” came to mean a meal in general, with or without grain. However,
it would be nonsense to say that the original items of meat and bread must be
excluded unless specified.
b.
Content of the Septuagint.
1) Hebrew, #5059 “nagan” (play)
translated as “psallo” and “psalmos.”
The Hebrew word, “nagan,” which is never used of singing, is translated by the Greek
words, psallo and psalmos. If psallo came to mean to sing without instruments, why was there
never an updated translation of these passages, or even an explanation that
would correct any misconception --especially by the Christians who preserved
the Septuagint and added the New Testament revelations?
-1Sam. 16:16.
David was chosen to play a harp.
Rotherham. 1897: “a man skilled in playing [nagan] on the lyre”
Greek LXX: “andra
eidota psallein en kinura”
Brenton’s trans. of LXX: “and he shall play [psallo] on his harp.”
-1Sam. 16:16.
Rotherham. 1897 “then
he shall play [nagan] with his hand”
Greek LXX: “kai
psalei en tee kinura autou”
(Alexandrian Mss. “psallo”)