Where is the command authorizing singing in 4-part harmony?

Big words relating to interpreting the Bible and the study of *how* we determine what God wants us to do.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
pastorstringer
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:38 pm

Where is the command authorizing singing in 4-part harmony?

Post by pastorstringer » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:21 am

I have read your articles on music and many of the questions posted by people in the forums (as well as your responses). I, too, am a firm believer that we should have a Bible reason for everything we do.

In your article, you taught that instrumental music is forbidden because it is not expressly commanded by God in the New Testament. I am interested in this line of thinking. Would singing harmony also be forbidden? After all, the Lord said for us to sing and make melody in our heart to the Lord.

Should solo singing be restricted only to singing psalms since all references to hymn singing and spiritual songs in the New Testament only include plural Greek pronouns and nouns. The only place in the New Testament where an individual is told to sing by himself expressly is in James where he is instructed to sing psalms if he is in a good mood.

Should women participate in congregational singing at all? They are commanded to keep silence in the assembly and only speak with their husbands at home about spiritual matters. Since Colossians 3:16 expressly commands us to teach and admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, wouldn't a lady violate the teaching in Timothy not to teach or usurp authority over a man if she participates in congregational singing?

The Lord said we are to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (with the understanding). Just what is a psalm? If it is referring to the book of psalms, do we need to omit the ones that command us to praise the Lord with instruments (like Psalm 150)? What is a hymn? I know that Jesus sung a hymn with His infant church just after the first Lord's Supper. But what hymn was it? According to some Greek Lexicons, the Greek word translated hymn referred to singing Psalms 113-118 & 136. So should we be singing those specific psalms? What is a spiritual song? According to Strong, it is a chant. The following quotation from the Online Bible program's Greek English Lexicon concerning all three of these terms is quite interesting.

Synonyms
See Definition forhumnos (hoom'-nos) 5215
See Definition for psalmos (psal-mos') 5568
See Definition for ode (o-day') 5603
5603 is the generic term; 5568 and 5215 are specific, the former designating
a song which took its general character from the OT Psalms, although not
restricted to them, the later a song of praise. While the leading idea of 5568
is a musical accompaniment, and that of 5215 praise to God, 5603 is the
general word for a song, whether accompanied or not, whether of praise or on
any other subject. Thus it is quite possible for the same song to be at once
described by all three of these words.
I am wondering just how closely we should follow the letter of thelaw when it comes to these teachings? Do you really believe the Lord was trying to establish the fact that we should not have any type of instrumental music in our lives by not mentioning it at all in the New Testament (unless one accepts that psalmos and psal'-lo could refer to some sort of instrumental music)? Should we decide other matters that are not specifically addressed by name in the same manner?

Thank you.

truth
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm

Re: Where is the command authorizing singing in 4-part harmo

Post by truth » Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:57 pm

were is the command condemning singing in 4-part harmony?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Instrumental Music

Post by m273p15c » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:05 pm

Thank you for your good questions. I apologize for the delay, but I pray you will still find this answer helpful, in spite of the late hour. :)

Although you had multiple questions, I believe they can generally be answered by understanding one key concept: the distinction between general and specific authority. We have an article on this topic here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/authority3.html

In short, every command has both general and specific elements. For example, Noah was commanded to build the ark out of gopher wood (Genesis 6:14-16). God specified the wood to be used, dimensions, and several other details, but He did not specify the tools to use, plank length, and several other aspects, where multiple options were present. Unless we are willing to accept that God is capricious, then we must assume that Noah was free to choose the most expedient course within the general authority God had provided. In other words, Noah was at liberty to choose the tools, plank length, plank width, etc.

Please consider, was Noah free to use some other type of wood, beside gopher wood? God had specified it, but He did not say to not use some other kind of wood. He just said to use gopher wood. Do you think God would have blessed Noah, if Noah second guessed God and used some other kind of wood? What if Noah thought cherry wood was prettier? What if he thought oak would float better? Imagine Noah had said, "God, I know you said to use gopher wood. But, you did not say not to use oak, and I think oak is better, so I am going to use oak." What kind of attitude would such a statement manifest? Would that not be presumptuous? We have more on this line of thought in the following article:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/pattern.html

Now, I'd like to answer your questions individually:
In your article, you taught that instrumental music is forbidden because it is not expressly commanded by God in the New Testament. I am interested in this line of thinking. Would singing harmony also be forbidden? After all, the Lord said for us to sing and make melody in our heart to the Lord.
My apologies, but I have not properly conveyed the argument. I am not arguing that instrumental music is forbidden because it is not expressly commanded. Rather, I am arguing that instrumental music is unauthorized, because God specifically commanded acapella music. Just as Noah's gopher wood excluded oak, so does NT acapella music exclude instrumental music. God specified vocal music ("singing and making melody in your heart"). If you find any references to NT worship with mechanical instruments, then I'll retract that argument with sincerest apologies.

Now, about singing in parts or in harmony, please show where God specified some other type. ... All we have is a general command to sing. Whether we sing in 4-part, 2-part, or 1-part harmony, we are still singing regardless. We are in no way adding to or taking away from God's command to sing. Now, if you can find a command to sing in a more specific way, in unison for example, then I will repent of singing in harmony. The key here is to recognize that harmony is but one way to execute the general command to make music by singing.
Should women participate in congregational singing at all? They are commanded to keep silence in the assembly and only speak with their husbands at home about spiritual matters. Since Colossians 3:16 expressly commands us to teach and admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, wouldn't a lady violate the teaching in Timothy not to teach or usurp authority over a man if she participates in congregational singing?
We could simply say that congregational singing, making the good confession, and other similar vocalizations are obvious exceptions to the rule on a woman's silence, since God commanded these also. However, for consistency's sake, I think it is more important to notice that they are not in conflict. First, let us look at Timothy's letter:
... in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. (I Timothy 2:9-15)
The Greek word for silence or quietness, hesuchia, can have a relative meaning of comparative quietness. It does not necessarily mean complete and utter silence. Please consider these NT usages of the same word:
And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent. Then he said ... (Acts 22:2)
If "silence" (Gr., hesuchia) always means absolute silence, then how does one keep more silent? Obviously, comparative degrees are permissible within the connotation of this word.
For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. (II Thessalonians 3:11-12)
Obviously, Paul was not commanding people to never speak again while conducting their daily work; however, in comparison to a lifestyle of meddling, manipulating, and lazy scheming, they were to lead a life of peace, contentment, and relative quietness.

So, if "silence" does not mean absolute silence, uttering not a word nor a sound, then what does it mean in I Timothy 2:11-12? The key is to recognize it's relative nature and look for its basis of comparison in the text. In other words, women are to be quiet relative to whom and to what extent? Paul said women are not "to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence". Based on this context, I understand that a woman could not preach or teach a class with male participants. Otherwise, in such a class, men would sit in comparative silence, generally listen to a woman choose, order, and homilize Scripture. The order of submission, established at creation, is clearly backward in such a case. However, when a woman blends her voice to sing songs chosen, ordered, and orchestrated by a male leader, then how is she "teaching or having authority over a man"? She is participating in an indistinguishable manner with the entire congregation. Unless she is leading the singing, how is she usurping the man's authority? Therefore, consistency is preserved. A woman can meet the command to sing and maintain her submissive position, providing she does not assume the leadership position.

Now, the curious thing to me is that if congregational singing is accompanied by mechanical instruments, this test of Scriptural unity is in no way relaxed. The only way it can be relaxed by such an addition is if one has already accepted that God's Word can contradict itself! In trying to show my inconsistency, you have revealed that you have already swallowed a much greater "camel". Were you content in accepting that Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 contradicted I Timothy 2:11-12? I do not know your view of God, His Word, and its inspiration, but I am concerned about the possible liberal attitude, which seems to be manifested in the foundation of your challenge. If you knew these verses were not in conflict, regardless of our positions, then why did you present it to me as a challenge? I am worried that you have accepted a loose hermeneutic to accommodate what you perceived as a contradiction.
The Lord said we are to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (with the understanding). Just what is a psalm? If it is referring to the book of psalms, do we need to omit the ones that command us to praise the Lord with instruments (like Psalm 150)? What is a hymn? I know that Jesus sung a hymn with His infant church just after the first Lord's Supper. But what hymn was it? According to some Greek Lexicons, the Greek word translated hymn referred to singing Psalms 113-118 & 136. So should we be singing those specific psalms? What is a spiritual song? According to Strong, it is a chant. The following quotation from the Online Bible program's Greek English Lexicon concerning all three of these terms is quite interesting.
The mechanical instrument is not inherent in any of these words. By the time of the writing of the NT, context dictated whether an mechanical instrument accompanied these songs. In fact, the only instrument inherent in these words, especially psallo, is the human voice. You can read more on this point here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... tml#psallo

So, after reading that please tell me, from the context of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, what instrument is approved? Who are we to "add to" God's Word?

We can generally sing almost any of the Psalms. The only qualifications provided are that whatever doctrine a song "teaches and admonishes" is both spiritual and consistent with Scripture (i.e., not false doctrine). Elsewhere, we learn that all worship must be "decently and in order" (I Corinthians 14:40). I cannot think of any other specific limitations at the moment.
I am wondering just how closely we should follow the letter of thelaw when it comes to these teachings? Do you really believe the Lord was trying to establish the fact that we should not have any type of instrumental music in our lives by not mentioning it at all in the New Testament (unless one accepts that psalmos and psal'-lo could refer to some sort of instrumental music)? Should we decide other matters that are not specifically addressed by name in the same manner?
Again, the key argument is not the absence of any approval of instrumental music in NT Scripture. Rather, that fact combined with the specific command to make music through singing excludes other forms of music. How can we introduce the mechanical instrument without "adding to" God's command to make music through singing?

I pray you find these thoughts helpful. I look forward to your prayerful, Biblical response.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

pastorstringer
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:38 pm

Re: Instrumental Music

Post by pastorstringer » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:01 am

I have a short reply. When I have time, I may make a fuller response.

Ephesians 5:19 specifically says how we are to sing (if I accept your rule of general vs specific authority). We are to make melody.Since the Bible specifies melody and omits using the word harmony along with instrumental music, then, according to your logic, we must only sing melody. According to most people's understanding of musical history, harmony is a relatively new invention as we sing it today. Many of the old psalms were more like chants than the music we sing today anyway.

I find your almost total reliance on Greek etymologies to defend certain aspects of your doctrine to be interesting. Depending on what Lexicon I use, I can find agreement and refutation of your etymology of psallo. Also, the definition given for psalmosin some lexicons is "of a striking the chords of a musical instrument"or (as in Strong's) "a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument."It seems to me that if God wants to forbid something, He will do so in plain language rather than only by omitting a direct command regarding that practice. The Bible is full of direct commands prohibiting certain activities and requiring certain activities. If God had really intended for no Christian to worship the Lord while using instrumental music, wouldn't He have been a little clearer?

I believe there are no contradictions in the Bible whatsoever. I am not trying to bait you. I am just trying to understand your method of Bible interpretation. It seems that if someone applies the rule of general versus specific authority, he can preach against almost anything that is not specifically authorized or commanded in the Bible; especially if it is something he particularly dislikes.

By the way, just for the record. I love a capella music. I love singing in harmony (I sing high tenor). I detest secular music (country, rock, rap, R&B, hip hop, etc...) even when "Christian" lyrics are substituted for the worldly ones. In many of the churches which I have worshipped (there have been many, as I have been a traveling evangelist for nearly 20 years), there has been a growing trend toward what I would call worldly music. I believe our music should be conservative and clearly different than what the world enjoys. However, I cannot agree with your teaching that any type instrumental accompaniment in a church service is a sin against God. If it were, I believe God would have been more direct in condemning instrumental music of all kinds in the New Testament.

Thanks for your time in reading and responding to my initial email.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Instrumental Music

Post by m273p15c » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:13 pm

Thank you for your brief response. I appreciate your respect for God and His Word. I pray that we may both be consistent and committed in such a respect. Your resistance to worldly influences penetrating the church's sacred walls is also encouraging. I pray you may be strong and courageous in confronting those threats.

I would like to briefly answer your two objections, and then I would like to focus on the greater issue, the so-called "Silence of the Scriptures".
I find your almost total reliance on Greek etymologies to defend certain aspects of your doctrine to be interesting. Depending on what Lexicon I use, I can find agreement and refutation of your etymology of psallo. Also, the definition given for psalmosin some lexicons is "of a striking the chords of a musical instrument"or (as in Strong's) "a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument."
I only turn to Greek lexicons, when forced by others. My argument is very simple: The Bible says we are to sing (Acts 16:24-25; Romans 15:8-9; Ephesians 5:18-20; Hebrews 2:12; 13:15; James 5:13). Who are we to add to God's Word and use any other, additional musical source, such as mechanical instruments? See more here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/music.html

Do you see any word in any reputable English translation that necessarily authorizes or requires the instrument in the NT? In recent years, some have suggested that the Greek words, psalmos and ode, necessarily demand and therefore authorize mechanical instruments. I only turn to Greek lexicons to refute their arguments, since they first referenced the original Greek. (To explain the significance of the word, necessarily, if one agrees that some of these words (ode, for example) can optionally include mechanical instruments, then my original question remains: Out of multiple kinds of music and songs, God has specified acapella. Where is the authority for anything more?) Consequently, the analysis of the Greek appears on our web-site in an answer to a "frequently asked question" - not as an opening argument:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... tml#psallo
Ephesians 5:19 specifically says how we are to sing (if I accept your rule of general vs specific authority). We are to make melody.Since the Bible specifies melody and omits using the word harmony along with instrumental music, then, according to your logic, we must only sing melody. According to most people's understanding of musical history, harmony is a relatively new invention as we sing it today. Many of the old psalms were more like chants than the music we sing today anyway.
Here is the passage in question:
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 5:18-20)
According to Scripture, what instrument is to "make melody"? Where is this melody to be made? Is it not within the heart? Man's spirit is the source of this music, which separates this music from the context of your argument - carnal melody. ... Interestingly, if we spiritually all "speak the same thing, without division, perfectly joined in the same mind and in the same judgment", would we not be spiritually making a unified melody in our hearts to the Lord (I Corinthians 1:10)?

Again the verse says "to sing". I can find no specifics in Scripture on the style of singing, except those I provided in my last correspondence. Whether a congregation blends their voice in chants, unison, or 4-part harmony, are not all its members singing, nothing more, nothing less? "Singing" is general in many aspects, just as "go preach the gospel" is also open to many expedients. For example, we can travel on foot, by camel, by bus, by airplane, or by the internet, but regardless we are going forth with the gospel message. However, we are not free to teach anything but the gospel (Romans 1:16; Galatians 1:6-8). Where is the authority for the social and carnal education that has become common, even dominant, in many churches? Again, some things are specified. Who are we to add to them or take away from them? Other aspects have been left general, free to be determined according to expediency, circumstances, our preferences, and our judgment.
It seems to me that if God wants to forbid something, He will do so in plain language rather than only by omitting a direct command regarding that practice. The Bible is full of direct commands prohibiting certain activities and requiring certain activities. If God had really intended for no Christian to worship the Lord while using instrumental music, wouldn't He have been a little clearer?
I think this is the most fundamental point of disagreement and therefore most critical point of necessary discussion. Often this question is labeled under the heading, "The Silence of the Scriptures". Personally, I think this is a misnomer, because I don't believe God has been silent. He has specified what He wants. However, He has not specifically spoken against instrumental music, incense, dance in worship, modern temples and cathedrals, modern priests, and many other additions. Therefore, many interpret this as "God's silence". To answer this, I would again encourage you to read these brief articles, which contain my response:
In short, God has repeatedly demonstrated that He expects us to respect His "silence" (I Chronicles 17:1-6; Leviticus 10:1-3; I Samuel 15:22-23; II Samuel 6:3-9; I Chronicles 15:2-15; II Chronicles 26:16-21; Galatians 5:1-4; Hebrews 7:12-15; Revelation 22:18-19). When He tells us what to do, He expects us to follow it without having to condemn every possible way to disobey.

Pragmatically, imagine if the Bible did tell us every possible thing not to do. How big and manageable would the Bible be? Is your hermeneutic even realistic? Secondly, if I am free to do whatever I want in worship or in life, unless God specifically condemns it, where will that lead? (Temples, incense, Popes and saints, dance in worship, church zoos, church parks, church medical industries, etc.) I am not trying to persuade through terror or a "slippery-slope", I am just asking, "Are you being consistent?" How will you honestly, consistently resist the inventions of your spiritual children, grandchildren, and so on, since there are many things not expressly forbidden? Children are not constrained by our nostalgic sense of tradition, so they will follow our taught principles more consistently - or abandon them, if they perceive them to be inconsistent or impossible.

I look forward to your thoughts.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth (II Thessalonians 2:9-12; Isaiah 66:4),

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Post Reply