5. Dealing with a cappella’s third pillar

A summary of the argument: the claim that instrumental music was not used by the early church and that the early church interpreted the Bible to teach a cessationist perspective on instruments

The third pillar used for building an Instrument-abolitionist position is an appeal to a claimed “universal” absence of instrumental music in the synagogues and among church fathers. Joseph Bingham represents the opinion of many when he says,

Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so… In the Western parts, the instrument, was not so much as known till the eighth century; for the first organ that was ever seen in France was one sent as a present to King Pepin by Constantinus Copronymus, the Greek emperor…But, now, it was only, used in princes courts, and not yet brought into churches; nor was it ever received into the Greek churches, there being no mention of an organ in all their liturgies ancient or modern.¹¹²

Quotes like these could be multiplied many times over. When questioned whether they have abandoned the principle of sola Scriptura, these authors insist that they are only appealing to church fathers in an ad hominem way to show that our interpretation is the novel one.¹¹³ In effect they are saying, “so many people couldn’t be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.” It is checking the catholicity of our interpretations by appealing to the history of interpretation, and as such has a legitimate role.

Girardeau believes that the overwhelming weight of church history should alleviate the charge of begging the question with respect to appealing to Instrument-abolitionists in order to defend Instrument-abolitionism. He says,

If it be urged that this is begging the question, and proof is demanded, the appeal is taken, first, to the preceding argument [i.e., that lexicons and other authorities agree with him]; and, secondly, to the practice of the post-apostolic church. If the apostles had allowed the employment of instrumental music in the church, it is morally certain, from the very constitution of human nature, that it would have continued to be used subsequently to their time.¹¹⁴

We will see that it was unbiblical (Greek) ethical thinking that caused some portions of the church to reject instruments in the fourth centuries and beyond. But even apart from the issues of asceticism, the evidence in church history is grossly overstated by most instrument abolitionists. It is because the myth persists that all church fathers were opposed to musical instruments¹¹⁵ that I am providing contrary evidence in this chapter.

McCracken represents many when he claims,

No evidence of instrumental music in the churches exists until the 7^th Century. In the year 666 A.D. one of the popes of the Roman Catholic church, Pope Vitalian, brought into his worship Latin singing to the accompaniment of the organ. This is the first time instruments were formally used in worship since the time of the Jewish ceremonial ritual.

The Roman church adopted this practice, and it continued until the time of the Reformers. Striving to return to the purity of worship and obedience to the law of God, many of the Reformers cast out the use of instruments in their worship services.¹¹⁶

The false picture often painted is that of an early church that maintained purity of worship (with no instrumentation), and as Romanism grew, corruption grew, and with it came church instrumental music. McCracken’s reference to AD 666 gives the offensive impression that the entrance of instrumental music into the church was ironically characterized by the mark (666) of the Beast (Rome).

When critics of the a cappella position assert that there was no criticism of instruments in worship during the first three centuries, the a cappella response is to claim that this lack of criticism is proof that no one tried to introduce instruments into worship during those first three centuries. For example, Foley asserts that the music “was so exclusively vocal in its early stages that the occasion to criticize the use of instruments in the church never arose.”¹¹⁷ As we will see, however, all branches of the church had instrumental music, and it was only the ascetics who opposed it.

Preliminary contradiction of the a cappella thesis

There has always been plenty of evidence that this thesis has been flawed.¹¹⁸ My own original study of the electronic databases of the church fathers convinced me in 2002 that musical instruments were indeed present in worship across a broad geographic spectrum of the church. I will present some of my own findings on this subject later. I want to present the concessions that have recently been made by those who believe no instruments were present in the early church.

James McKinnon’s¹¹⁹ initial foray into this subject was in his 1965 doctoral dissertation, The Church Fathers and Musical Instruments.¹²⁰ Based on the conclusions of previous scholarship, he still had a working assumption that there were no instruments in the church in the first few centuries, but he was puzzled by what he found. He said,

Now a close reading of all the patristic criticism of instruments leads to the remarkable conclusion that there is not a single quotation which condemns the use of instruments in church.¹²¹

He believed this was because no instruments were present in the church, and therefore no criticism of instruments within the church was necessary. This was what many scholars had assumed, and it seemed like an unremarkable conclusion to say,

If it had ever occurred to any Christian communities of the third or fourth centuries to add instruments to their liturgical singing, indignation over the action would certainly be prominent in patristic literature.¹²²

Keep this quote in mind as I present evidence that musical instruments were indeed present in many congregations. The fact that they were present during a time when there was no criticism of instruments within the church forces a different conclusion than McKinnon arrived at. I believe the evidence points in the direction that instrumentation was used without controversy.

Instrument-abolitionist, Everett Ferguson¹²³ came to the same conclusion as McKinnon in his own research. In 1972 he published the book A Cappela Music in the Public Worship of the Church. In that book he admits that early church criticism of instrumental music has been grossly overstated in his Instrument-abolitionist circles. Like McKinnon, he pointed out that early rhetoric against instruments was against instruments at banquets and parties and contexts that led to lewdness. He said,

There is no polemic against instruments in the church. That is not under consideration…¹²⁴

This concession and other refreshingly honest admissions are certainly a welcome change from the constantly repeated exaggerations that I have read in the Instrument-abolitionist literature.

In 1987 James McKinnon wrote a book outlining some of his newest conclusions.¹²⁵ He concluded that early church criticism of instruments was related to the fact that non-church concerts were almost always connected with either pagan cultic worship or with sexual immorality.

…no one will dispute the close association of much pagan musical practice with pagan cults. One need look no further than the omnipresent theatrical music of the day and recall the cultic origins of the theatre… the motivation of moralism is at least as strong as that of antipathy toward idolatry. The polemic makes reference to a limited number of contexts: most notably the theatre, marriage celebrations and banquets. Typically singled out are items of moral concern like the lewd aspect of theatrical musicians, the coarseness of marriage songs and the dubious profession of female musicians employed at banquets. Obviously it is not so much morality in general that is at stake here, but sexual morality in particular, a subject concerning which the church fathers display the most acute sensitivity.¹²⁶

In other words, the criticisms often cited were reactionary against the idolatry and immorality in the culture around them. He then asks,

[W]hat relationship is there between the polemic against instruments and the a cappella performance of sacred music? Music historians have tended to assume that there is a direct connection, that is, that ecclesiastical authorities consciously strove to maintain their music free from the incursion of musical instruments. There is little evidence of this in the sources however.¹²⁷

While still maintaining that “ecclesiastical psalmody [was] obviously free of instrumental involvement” and yet finding an exclusive “condemnation of instruments in the contexts” of idolatry and immorality, he goes on in the next sentence to say,

It is puzzling to the modern mind that the church fathers failed to forge an ideological link between the two – leaving this apparently to the a cappella partisans of the nineteenth century. It is true that a few exceptional passages exist where there is a hint of such a connection – where the two are juxtaposed at least on the level of phenomenon if not of doctrine. The most striking is one in which John Chrysostom writes admiringly of a monastic community that rises before daybreak for prayer and psalmody:

They sing the prophetic hymns with great harmony and well ordered melody. Neither cithara, nor syrinx, nor any other musical instrument emits such sound as can be heard in the deep silence and solitude of those holy men as they sing.¹²⁸

The very fact that Chrysostom admires this monastery for its lack of instruments argues that instruments were present elsewhere. Otherwise, what would be admirable about this unique group of men in Chrysostom’s mind? McKinnon goes on to say,

One would have to deny the larger context to see this as an example of incipient a cappella doctrine.¹²⁹

Indeed, there are other puzzling things that he uncovered. McKinnon shows how the church fathers saw no contradiction in condemning musical instruments in the theatre and other immoral contexts and teaching the use of musical instruments “as one of the encyclical or liberal arts” courses, saying that “the church fathers accepted it [musical education] while rejecting pagan musical practice.”¹³⁰ Why pass on the skill of training churchmen in musical instruments if musical instruments were universally condemned?

McKinnon shows that the knowledge of musical instruments by some church fathers was so extensive that,

However far one wishes to take such thinking, it seems fair to say that western music would not have been quite the same had the church fathers adopted a different policy toward the ars musica.¹³¹

Indeed, my own reading of the fathers shows that they understood the intricacies of musical instruments quite well. People might assume that they understood the instruments because of personal use outside the church, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. McKinnon demonstrates that their knowledge is “so far removed from everyday music that there is no real contradiction in the fact that the church fathers accepted it [musical instruction of church leaders] while rejecting pagan musical practice.”¹³²

When this newer research is coupled with the examples of instruments in worship that I have uncovered, a quite different picture emerges – a picture of a church at ease with instruments in worship until Greek asceticism began to infect certain sections of the church (especially in the East).

When the focus goes beyond Europe and into the practices of the world-wide church of the first seven centuries, the evidence in favor of instrumentation becomes even stronger. David Shirt says,

As this thesis has sought to indicate, examination of Christian practices limited to the Mediterranean world, reveals only part of the whole picture and ignores much of the most vivid and colourful evidence supporting the use of vocal and instrumental music, and dance, in Christian worship throughout the centuries of concern to this study. The array of drums and sistra of Ethiopian Christian tradition, together with the dancing priests of that country (among the first to officially adopt Christianity) offers swathes of evidence depicting the musical life of its liturgy. None of this is mentioned by McKinnon or Foley. That Irish love of the harp, evidenced, for example, in the action of (St) Kieran when raising from the dead, eight drowned harpers, and the slightly later evidence of Bede, that English bishops regarded a harpist in their retinue as highly desirable, clearly places that instrument above the level of blanket condemnation so frequently meted out by many of the Fathers. A wealth of evidence on the use of pipes and multi-toned bells, by Christian missionaries in Scotland, thanks to the work of John Purser, in this connection, leaves no room for doubt as to the use of musical instruments in the Christian worship of Scotland and further north. Whether in the north-westerly progress of Christianity through the cultures of England, Ireland, and Scotland, or south-easterly through India and China, no assessment is made by McKinnon or Foley concerning the role of musical instruments in the Christian worship of these places.¹³³

It is my hope that this chapter will put to rest the false notion that there was a total absence of musical instruments in the first eight centuries. Even the shrillest opponent of instruments in his own churches (Clement of Alexandria) admitted to the bishops of other churches that “if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.”¹³⁴ Hippolytus (AD 170-235) defined the psalms that they sang as hymns “which are simply played to an instrument.”¹³⁵ The bishop who wrote what is now called “Pseudo-Ignatius” greeted elders, readers, and musicians of the church, and the word used for musicians means “harp players.” ¹³⁶ Hilary of Poitiers, Ephraem the Syrian, and other well-known church fathers spoke explicitly about the instrumentation that was currently being used in their worship services. The following list of quotes, while not exhaustive,¹³⁷ reveals either 1) the presence of instruments in the writer’s own church and/or the churches of others or 2) a positive view towards musical instruments that would be out of accord with the philosophy of asceticism.

Church fathers who either played musical instruments themselves or who (while opposing instruments in their own local churches) admitted that the true church used instruments in worship (AD 70-680)

Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107)

Ignatius has a passage that speaks positively of a cithara (rendered “harp” below). This passage also uses an analogy of praises to Jesus accompanied by instruments (“so that, joining the symphony… taking your keynote from God… you may … sing a song”) to describe the relationship of a bishop to the presbytery of elders – they must work together harmoniously. For this analogy to even work, it assumes that it is appropriate to worship Christ accompanied by musical instruments. The idea is that just as symphony and chorus should work harmoniously together, a bishop and his presbytery should work harmoniously together. Ignatius wrote:

Hence it is proper for you to act in agreement with the mind of the bishop; and this you do. Certain it is that your presbytery, which is a credit to its name, is a credit to God; for it harmonizes with the bishop as completely as the strings with a harp. This is why in the symphony of your concord and love the praises of Jesus Christ are sung. But you, the rank and file, should also form a choir, so that, joining the symphony by your concord, and by your unity taking your key note from God, you may with one voice through Jesus Christ sing a song to the Father. Thus He will both listen to you and by reason of your good life recognize in you the melodies of His Son. It profits you, therefore, to continue in your flawless unity, that you may at all times have a share in God. (Ignatius to the Ephesians, 4)

The Greek word translated “symphony” can refer to either a literal symphony composed of musical instruments¹³⁸ as in Luke 15:25¹³⁹ or be a metaphorical reference to the same unity or agreement that is found in a musical symphony. Either way it is a positive reference to accompanied singing. Though it is possible to exclude the concept of music from this metaphor, it is highly unlikely for three reasons: 1) Ignatius uses the term “symphony” in a musical context (“harp… choir”), 2) if we translate “symphony” as “unity” it produces a tautology (“that the unity of your unity - ἵνα σύμφωνοι ὄντες ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ¹⁴⁰),” and 3) thirdly, the metaphor is more striking if the translation “symphony” is kept because it adds the “choir” to the “symphony [συμφωνω…συμφωνοι]” to provide a unity of metaphorical sound before God. So it appears that Ignatius is saying that just as they seek to harmoniously unite symphony with choir in church, they should unite bishop with presbytery, rather than having a bishop be a solo tyrant.

Another very positive reference to a musical instrument can be found in the following description of an elder that Ignatius was pleased with:

I am charmed with his sweetness of manner. He accomplishes more by his silence than others that talk to no purpose. No wonder; he is as perfectly in accord with the commandments as strings are with a harp.¹⁴¹

Though some like Roberts and Donaldson¹⁴² place “The Epistles of Ignatius to the Antiochians” in this time period, most recent scholarship would place this epistle and its reference to “the sub-deacons, the readers, the musicians (ψάλτας),” to the late fourth century. I will place this reference to a distinct group of musicians within the church to that time period.

The Odes of Solomon (first century AD)

These hymns from the latter part of the first century¹⁴³ were discovered by J. Rendel Harris in 1909 and have been the subject of much discussion and study. Most scholars now believe that they were put in their present order in AD 125, though they were composed long before that (perhaps in the first century). It is believed that these were hymns composed by a Syrian Christian. Many have noted that these hymns show both sophisticated artistry¹⁴⁴ as well as appreciation for musical instruments. Here are two sample¹⁴⁵ references to accompanied singing:¹⁴⁶

To announce to those who have songs of the coming of the Lord, that they may go forth to meet Him and may sing to Him, with joy and with the harp of many tones.¹⁴⁷

This is a clear reference to accompanied singing in worship – “sing to Him… with the harp.”

I poured out praise to the Lord, Because I am his. I will pronounce his holy song, Because my heart is with him; For his cithara is in my hands, And the songs of his rest shall not be still.¹⁴⁸

This too is a clear reference to song in worship “praise to the Lord… his holy song”) that is accompanied with a stringed instrument that is authorized by God Himself (“his cithara is in my hands, and the songs of his rest shall not be still.”)

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)

Sadly, a cappella writers have frequently copied “citations” of early church fathers from other a cappella books without checking the sources. This bad scholarship has resulted in an embarrassing number of false citations that do not exist in the original sources. This has certainly been the case with Justin Martyr. He is frequently quoted as saying,

The use of [instrumental] music was not received in the Christian churches, as it was among the Jew, in their infant state, but only the use of plain song…Simply singing is not agreeable to children, but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping is. On this account the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs of the churches, and there is left remaining simply singing.

However, scholars have shown that this quote is not from Justin Martyr, but appears to have been written by an unknown father somewhere between AD 400 and 466. Thankfully, several recent a cappella advocates have corrected this error and have either attributed the quote to Theodoret or have called it “pseudo-Justinian.”

Justin Martyr’s own views were supportive of accompanied singing. In his debate with the Jewish author, Trypho, Justin said,

The Spirit… bids the inhabitants of all the earth… to sing (ᾄδοντας) and play the harp (ψάλλοντας) to God the Father of all things…”¹⁴⁹

Three things to notice: First, Justin Martyr does not see this command as only relevant to Jews, but sees it as applicable to “the inhabitants of all the earth.” Second, it is in the context of worship (“to God the Father”). Third, it is clearly a call for singing accompanied by instruments (“sing and play the harp”).

It might be objected that the word ψάλλοντας should be translated as “to sing psalms” or “to sing praise,” but this is not likely for three reasons: First, Justin is calling for something in addition to singing – note the “and” in the Greek phrase, “ᾄδοντας καὶ ψάλλοντας.” To translate the second term as anything other than “to play the harp” would produce a very awkward sentence: “to sing and to sing psalms” or “to sing and to sing praise.”

Second, we have already demonstrated that the meaning of the word in the centuries leading up to Christ and in the three centuries after Christ was “to play the harp.” For example, Josephus used the term exclusively to refer to playing with a stringed instrument. I would refer the reader to our discussion of this term under the heading, “Ephesians 5:19: Does it command the use of instruments or forbid the use of instruments?”

The third reason this objection is not likely is that Justin Martyr defines the term in Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, section 29. He says,

For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David played them on a harp (εψαλλεν), Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them.

The Greek in this paragraph is identical to the Greek in the Septuagint of 1 Samuel 16:23 and 19:9 where David “played before the LORD.” The Septuagint faithfully translates the Hebrew (“to play a harp”), and neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of the Septuagint can be translated in any other way than to play the harp. So Justin is a clear supporter of instruments in worship.

Tatian (AD 120-180)

Tatian criticized the Greeks for deceitfully taking credit for their wonderful inventions, including musical instruments. He pointed out that they got them from earlier peoples, whether barbarians or Jews. This is yet another positive reference to musical instruments, not at all like the language used by the ascetics.

Be not, O Greeks, so very hostilely disposed towards the Barbarians, nor look with ill will on their opinions. For which of your institutions has not been derived from the Barbarians? … To the Babylonians you owe astronomy; to the Persians, magic; to the Egyptians, geometry; to the Phoenicians, instruction by alphabetic writing. Cease, then, to miscall these imitations inventions of your own. Orpheus, again, taught you poetry and song; from him, too, you learned the mysteries. The Tuscans taught you the plastic art; from the annals of the Egyptians you learned to write history; you acquired the art of playing the flute from Marsyas and Olympus, — these two rustic Phrygians constructed the harmony of the shepherd’s pipe. The Tyrrhenians invented the trumpet; the Cyclopes, the smith’s art; and a woman who was formerly a queen of the Persians, as Hellanicus tells us, the method of joining together epistolary tablets: her name was Atossa. Wherefore lay aside this conceit, and be not ever boasting of your elegance of diction; for, while you applaud yourselves, your own people will of course side with you. But it becomes a man of sense to wait for the testimony of others, and it becomes men to be of one accord also in the pronunciation of their language. But, as matters stand, to you alone it has happened not to speak alike even in common intercourse; for the way of speaking among the Dorians is not the same as that of the inhabitants of Attica, nor do the Aeolians speak like the Ionians. And, since such a discrepancy exists where it ought not to be, I am at a loss whom to call a Greek.

Athenagoras (AD 133-190)

Athenagoras’ reference to musical instruments treats it as a gift of God, not as a tool of the devil. He says,

If, therefore, the world is an instrument in tune, and moving in well-measured time, I adore the Being who gave its harmony, and strikes its notes, and sings the accordant strain, and not the instrument. For at the musical contests the adjudicators do not pass by the lute-players and crown the lutes. Whether, then, as Plato says, the world be a product of divine art, I admire its beauty, and adore the Artificer…¹⁵⁰

Polycrates (AD 130-196)

Polycrates was a bishop in the church of Ephesus. He was a staunch defender of the Regulative Principle of Worship, ¹⁵¹ and protested the imposition of an unbiblical date for celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus. The debate was over Quartodecimanism, the practice of celebrating Pascha on the 14^th of Nisan. There were many who held to Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship and argued that it was the only date given in Scripture and had been practiced by the apostle John, by Polycarp, Melito of Sardis, and others. Though he argued that the Bible alone should regulate the church’s activities, pope Victor sought to excommunicate him for lack of conformity. It was only the intervention of Irenaeus (who argued that Victor’s predecessors had allowed this practice) that reversed the discipline. Later councils were not as kind.

All of this illustrates how easily some of the church fathers could allow legalism to triumph over Sola Scriptura, and how quickly the Regulative Principle of Worship came into jeopardy. Whether the following information related to “the harp of Ephesus” is accurate or not, it is worth asking why some of the subsequent defenders of the Regulative Principle of worship were so opposed by the a cappella advocates.

In any case, there is at least some evidence that this early church father was favorably disposed to instrumental music. In a paper submitted to The Expository Times, Professor John Foster suggested that the “ring of Polycrates” referred to by Clement was the ring of Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus.¹⁵² While there is contrary evidence to this identification,¹⁵³ Foster’s interpretation certainly squares well with the testimony of Ignatius concerning the presbytery of Ephesus being “attuned to the bishop like the strings of a harp.” (See discussion under Ignatius.)

Theophilus (bishop of Antioch from AD 169-183)

The only reference I could find in Theophilus to music was his unwillingness to let the Greeks get the credit for it. He said,

And Lamech took unto him two wives, whose names were Adah and Zillah. At that time there was made a beginning of polygamy, and also of music. For Lamech had three sons: Jabal, Jubal, Tubal. And Jabal became a keeper of cattle, and dwelt in tents; but Jubal is he who made known the psaltery and the harp; and Tubal became a smith, a forger in brass and iron. So far the seed of Cain is registered; and for the rest, the seed of his line has sunk into oblivion, on account of his fratricide of his brother. And, in place of Abel, God granted to Eve to conceive and bear a son, who was called Seth from whom the remainder of the human race proceeds until now. And to those who desire to be informed regarding all generations, it is easy to give explanations by means of the holy Scriptures. For, as we have already mentioned, this subject, the order of the genealogy of man, has been partly handled by us in another discourse, in the first book of The History. And all these things the Holy Spirit teaches us, who speaks through Moses and the rest of the prophets, so that the writings which belong to us godly people are more ancient, yea, and are shown to be more truthful, than all writers and poets. But also, concerning music, some have fabled that Apollo was the inventor, and others say that Orpheus discovered the art of music from the sweet voices of the birds. Their story is shown to be empty and vain, for these inventors lived many years after the flood.¹⁵⁴

Tertullian (AD 155-240)

Another church father who is often misquoted is Tertullian. The quote I have frequently read goes as follows:

Musical concerts with viol and lute belong to Apollo, to the Muses, to Minerva and Mercury who invented them; ye who are Christians, hate and abhor these things whose very authors themselves must be the object of loathing and aversion.

This actually quotes Tertullian out of context. The context was opposition to the debauchery that happened in connection with the stage. In context, Tertullian says,

That immodesty of gesture and attire which so specially and peculiarly characterizes the stage are consecrated to them—the one deity wanton by her sex, the other by his drapery; while its services of voice, and song, and lute, and pipe, belong to Apollos, and Muses, and Minervas, and Mercuries. You will hate, O Christian, the things whose authors must be the objects of your utter detestation.

Elsewhere Tertullian makes clear that it is not the instruments themselves, but the drunkenness that was evil. He says,

This prohibition from drink was given also to the high priest Aaron and his sons, “when they went into the holy place.” The command, to “sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns,” comes suitably from him who knew that those who “drank wine with drums and psalteries” were blamed by God.¹⁵⁵

Since God authorized the musical instruments of Aaron and his sons, it was not the instruments themselves that were criticized, but playing them in a state of drunkenness.

This observation is consistent with the fact that Tertullian speaks with admiration of the hydraulis (predecessor to the pipe organ). Though he uses the instrument as a symbol, he speaks of the literal instrument as “a wonderful piece of organic mechanism.”

But of the whole number of the limbs one body is made up, so that the arrangement is rather a concretion than a division. Look at that very wonderful piece of organic mechanism by Archimedes,—I mean his hydraulic organ, with its many limbs, parts, bands, passages for the notes, outlets for their sounds, combinations for their harmony, and the array of its pipes; but yet the whole of these details constitute only one instrument. In like manner the wind, which breathes throughout this organ at the impulse of the hydraulic engine, is not divided into separate portions from the fact of its dispersion through the instrument to make it play: it is whole and entire in its substance, although divided in its operation. This example is not remote from (the illustration) of Strato, and Ænesidemus, and Heraclitus: for these philosophers maintain the unity of the soul, as diffused over the entire body, and yet in every part the same. Precisely like the wind blown in the pipes throughout the organ, the soul displays its energies in various ways by means of the senses, being not indeed divided, but rather distributed in natural order.¹⁵⁶

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

Though Clement of Alexandria was prejudiced against some musical instruments¹⁵⁷ (and we will have more to say about the reasons for that in the next section), he explicitly says that those who disagree with him are not Biblically wrong. To be fair, I will give a more extended quote so as to show both his opposition to instruments and his concession that continued use of instruments is allowable. He says,

The Spirit, distinguishing from such revelry the divine service, sings, “Praise Him with the sound of trumpet;” for with sound of trumpet He shall raise the dead. “Praise Him on the psaltery;” for the tongue is the psaltery of the Lord. “And praise Him on the lyre.” By the lyre is meant the mouth struck by the Spirit, as it were by a plectrum. “Praise with the timbrel and the dance,” refers to the Church meditating on the resurrection of the dead in the resounding skin. “Praise Him on the chords and organ.” Our body He calls an organ, and its nerves are the strings, by which it has received harmonious tension, and when struck by the Spirit, it gives forth human voices. “Praise Him on the clashing cymbals.” He calls the tongue the cymbal of the mouth, which resounds with the pulsation of the lips. Therefore, He cried to humanity, “Let every breath praise the Lord,” because He cares for every breathing thing which He hath made. For man is truly a pacific instrument; while other instruments, if you investigate, you will find to be warlike, inflaming to lusts, or kindling up amours, or rousing wrath.

In their wars, therefore, the Etruscans use the trumpet, the Arcadians the pipe, the Sicilians the pectides, the Cretans the lyre, the Lacedaemonians the flute, the Thracians the horn, the Egyptians the drum, and the Arabians the cymbal. The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we honour God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute, which those expert in war and contemners of the fear of God were wont to make use of also in the choruses at their festive assemblies; that by such strains they might raise their dejected minds. But let our genial feeling in drinking be twofold, in accordance with the law. For “if thou shalt love the Lord try God,” and then “thy neighbour,” let its first manifestation be towards God in thanksgiving and psalmody, and the second toward our neighbour in decorous fellowship. For says the apostle, “Let the Word of the Lord dwell in you richly.” And this Word suits and conforms Himself to seasons, to persons, to places.

In the present instance He is a guest with us. For the apostle adds again, “Teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to God.” And again, “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and His Father.” This is our thankful revelry. And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame. Thou shalt imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God. “Rejoice in the Lord, ye righteous; praise is comely to the upright,” says the prophecy. “Confess to the Lord on the harp; play to Him on the psaltery of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song.” And does not the ten-stringed psaltery indicate the Word Jesus, who is manifested by the element of the decad? And as it is befitting, before partaking of food, that we should bless the Creator of all; so also in drinking it is suitable to praise Him on partaking of His creatures. For the psalm is a melodious and sober blessing. The apostle calls the psalm “a spiritual song.”¹⁵⁸

Three things to notice: First, the context of the comment was not private parties, but the public worship of God. He had moved from discussing parties to discussing “the divine service” where God is “a guest with us.” He also quotes the admonitions in Ephesians and Colossians to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. The very next sentence is “And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.” So his allowance for instrumentation was in the context of worship.

Second, though Clement avoids the use of instruments by allegorizing them (especially in the first cited paragraph), he concedes that the exclusion of musical instruments was a recent innovation. He said, “We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute…” If “we” no longer employ such instruments it implies that the group called “we” once used to use them. Since some of his contemporaries in the church continued to use musical instruments, the “we” is not the church as a whole, but those in Clement’s own church. This means that even Clement’s own church had previously used instruments in worship and that they had stopped due to his strong influence. We will discuss the reasons for his opposition to instruments later in this chapter, but it is important not to miss his concession that “we” (including Clement) had previously used instruments.

Third, this concession to the church at large (“And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame.”) implies that there has been some resistance to his innovation within the church. Indeed, we are seeing that there were musical instruments used in branches of the church, and that they continued to be used.

Fourth, the reason Clement could make allowance for the use of instruments is that he held to two meanings of the text: the literal, and the allegorical. As Frederic Farrar points out, “He does not deny the literal sense, but thinks that it only furnishes an elementary faith. The literal is the milk of the word, but the esoteric vision furnishes strong meat.”¹⁵⁹ So he could consistently make allowances for other churches to continue to use instruments in worship while teaching that he held to a higher way. Some church fathers held to three levels and even four levels of meaning in every text, but usually they did not deny the literal application.

Hippolytus (AD 170-235)

In defining the distinction between psalms and hymns, Hippolytus points to the presence of instruments accompanying the first. Since he and other fathers of his age sang both psalms and hymns, this is evidence (along with the definitions of Didumus and Gregory of Nyssa) that the fathers of their age did indeed use instruments:

“We think, then, that the ‘psalms’ are those which are simply played to an instrument, without the accompaniment of the voice, and (which are composed) for the musical melody of the instrument; and that those are called ‘songs’ which are rendered by the voice in concert with the music; and that 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. And thus much as to the letter of what is signified by these terms.”¹⁶⁰

It is often objected that this cannot indeed be the correct understanding of Hippolytus since he opposed instruments, but a cappella defenders are now admitting that the context of such opposition was to music in the theatre or at parties of debauchery.¹⁶¹

Origen (AD 184-253)

While Origen is often cited as spiritualizing the instruments of the Old Testament,¹⁶² that is not the same thing as opposition to musical instruments. Origen believed in four levels of meaning for every text. While he emphasized the spiritual meaning, he did not ignore the literal. Indeed, more recent scholars have pointed out that Origen never corrected Celsius’ charge that the orthodox churches used instruments in worship – something Celsius rejected and counted as a mark against Christianity. It would have been easy enough for Origen to refute it, but he did not. More recent a cappella advocates have admitted that this is an “incongruity” with their position. I would argue that it is more than an incongruity – it is inconceivable that Origen would let such an accusation go uncontested if the church of Jesus Christ did not indeed use musical instruments.

Pseudo-Ignatius (late third century AD)

Though some still attribute “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians” to Ignatius in the first or early second century, most attribute it to a church father of the late third century. The writer of this epistle assumes the presence of a group of musicians in every church.

I greet the holy elders. I greet the sacred deacons… I greet the sub-deacons, the readers, the musicians (ψάλτας), the porters, the laborers, the exorcists and the confessors. I greet the keepers of the sacred gateways and the deaconesses in Christ.¹⁶³

The word for “musicians” is literally, “harp players.”¹⁶⁴ Though BDAG thinks the word ψάλτας had lost its instrumental meaning, see our discussions of the grouping of related words under Ephesians 5:19 for evidence that it retained an exclusively instrumental meaning up through this time. Keep in mind that this is the word group condemned by a cappella fathers. They would not have condemned it if it was not related to instrumental music. What one group of fathers oppose, pseudo-Ignatius (whoever he is) approves.

Pachomius (AD 292-348)

Pachomius was the founder of the coenobitic monasticism, and he had a huge influence upon notable leaders like Basil, Cassian, and Martin of Tours. One of the rules for his monastery was,

As soon as the signal of the trumpet that calls them to the collecta sounds, he immediately comes out of his cell, meditating on some passage of Scripture [de scripturis aliquid meditans] until he reaches the door of the meeting room.¹⁶⁵

Though this does not prove accompanied singing, it does show that he was not opposed to musical instruments as being intrinsically evil, like some fathers did.

Didymus of Alexandria (AD 309-394)

Since the church fathers of this age sang both “psalms” and “hymns” and constantly distinguished between the two, it is instructive that Didymus gives the following definition: “A psalm is a hymn which is sung to the instrument called psaltery or else cithara.”¹⁶⁶ Since Didymus and his contemporaries clearly sang “psalms,” they are said by this author to be singing hymns accompanied with instrumental music.

Hilary of Poitiers (AD 315-367)

Hilary was the bishop of Poitiers and was a very influential church father. He was sometimes referred to as “the Hammer of the Arians” because of his powerful work against that heresy. Others referred to him as the “Athanasius of the West.”

James McKinnon (probably the most scholarly proponent of the view that the early church did not have instruments in worship) concedes that the following passage from Hilary looks like Hilary is endorsing literal instruments. He believes that it can be explained as simply exegesis of the Old Testament rather than reflecting Hilary’s own person views, but the passage goes as follows:

Now, the varieties of function and kind in the art of music are as follows. There is a ‘psalm’ when the voice rests and only the playing of the instrument is heard. There is a ‘song’ (canticum) when the chorus of singers, using its freedom, is not bound in musical deference to the instrument and enjoys a hymn with sonorous voice above. There is a ‘psalm of a song’ when, after the chorus has sung, the art of the musical instrument is adapted to the hymn of human singing and the psaltery plays with equal sweetness to the measures of the singing voice.¹⁶⁷

Note that Hilary defines these terms as necessitating some interaction with musical instruments. Since he and his contemporaries sang Psalms, hymns, and songs, it follows that they used instruments. Notice that he speaks of this instrumentation as currently taking place. Notice thirdly the positive descriptions of the instruments: he speaks of the “equal sweetness” of the instrument to the “singing voice.”

Athanasius (AD 296-373)

Athanasius was familiar with musical instruments and spoke of them in positive terms. He said,

Secondly, because as harmony creates a single concord in joining together the two pipes of the aulos, so … reason wills that a man be not disharmonious with himself, nor at variance with himself…¹⁶⁸

Just as when one hears from afar a lyre, made up of many different strings, and wonders at their harmonious symphony, that not only the low one produces a sound, not only the high one, and not only the middle one, but all sound together in balanced tension; and one concludes from all this that the lyre neither operates by itself nor is played by many, but rather that there is one musician who by his art blends the sound of each string into a harmonious symphony – even though one fails to see him – so too, since there is an entirely harmonious order in the world as a whole, without things above being at odds with those below, and those below with those above, but one completed order of all; it follows that we know there is one leader and king of all reaction, not many, who illuminates and moves everything with his own light.¹⁶⁹

Of course, he recognized that music can be used for good or evil. He gave an interesting account of the Life of Anthony, in which he spoke of demons who played music and sang so as to deceive.

They [demons] are crafty and quick to change and to transform themselves into anything. Frequently, without appearing, they pretend to play harps with songs (ψάλλειν μετ´ωδης), and they repeat passages from lections. Often, after we have read, they straightaway, like an echo, say precisely what has been read; and they arouse us to prayer when we are asleep, doing so continuously, hardly allowing us to sleep at all.¹⁷⁰

The thing of especial interest is that he claimed the demons imitated their worship. If this is so, it might imply that their worship had musical accompaniment.

Ephraem the Syrian (AD 306-373)

Ephraem clearly speaks of instrumental accompaniment to hymns:

Blessed He Who by our tongue interpreted His secret things. Let us praise that Voice whose glory is hymned with our lute, and His virtue with our harp. The Gentiles have assembled and have come to hear His strains.¹⁷¹

Though most of the references to musical instruments in his writings relate to the worship of heaven,¹⁷² it is clear that he also played instruments on earth. J. S. Assemani says,

[Ephraem] himself founded choirs of consecrated virgins, taught them the hymns and responses… was in their midst as their father and citharist of the Holy Spirit, and he taught them music and the laws of song.¹⁷³

David Shirt says, “Indeed Ephraem’s biographer, Jacob of Serug (c. 451-c 521) describes Ephraem accompanying his choir on the cithara in church, on Festivals and Sundays.”¹⁷⁴ Even James McKinnon agrees that Ephraem probably did accompany the singing with instrumentation,¹⁷⁵ but this contradicts the claims to a “universal” position of a cappella singing.

Basil of Caesarea (AD 330-379)

Basil was a very influential theologian in Cappadocia. He is often quoted as being opposed to instrumental music. Based on the Greek “cosmological functions of good music” he apparently classified instrumental music as “useless.”¹⁷⁶ If he was indeed opposed to instrumental music, it seems extremely odd that he would admit that a “psalm” is a hymn sung to the accompaniment of music and that it cannot be called a “psalm” if instrumentation is absent. He said, “it is a canticle not a psalm: because it is sung with harmonious modulation by the unaccompanied voice and with no instrument sounding in accord with it.”¹⁷⁷ This together with his brother Gregory’s definition of a psalm indicates that the hundreds of references to “psalms” in the writings of these two brothers and their contemporary churchmen may indicate a far greater degree of instrumentation in the church than is explicitly stated. It may also explain why certain fathers railed against the instrumentation of other churches. It showed disagreement, not a so-called “universal” endorsement of a cappella singing.

Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395)

Gregory tried to distinguish between the terms ‘hymn’ and ‘psalm’ by saying that “a psalm is the tune produced by a musical instrument.”¹⁷⁸ Since both he and his contemporaries sang ‘psalms,’ it follows that they used instruments. He does of course warn against solo instruments, stating, “the meaning is most certainly not recognized when the tune is played on musical instruments alone,”¹⁷⁹ but that very statement also affirms that they used musical instruments to accompany the words of the psalms. Otherwise why give the warning?

Victricius (AD 330-407)

Victricius was the bishop of Rouen. He urged his congregations, “Play your instruments and mount the paths to heaven with your dances.”¹⁸⁰

Prudentius (AD 348-410)

This church father wrote a hymn that calls heaven and earth to join him in worship as he sings accompanied by an instrument:

Let the heights of heaven sing, all you angels, sing,

Let all powers everywhere sing in praise of God,

Let no tongue be silent, let every voice ring in harmony.

Him alone may my muse sing of,

Him alone may my lyre praise.¹⁸¹

Synesius of Cyrene (AD 370-414)

This bishop of Ptolemais gives evidence of having a love for musical instruments. The following poem gives his personal testimony of worship with harmony and musical accompaniment.

I was the first to invent this meter

For thee, blessed, immortal,

Illustrious offspring of the virgin,

Jesus of Solyma,

And with newly-devised harmonies

To strike the cithara’s strings.

Egon Wellesz says of this author, “We know from his letters that he practiced music and we also know a song which he used to sing, the Hymn to Nemesis, one of the few pieces of Greek music which have come down to us.”¹⁸² So here is yet another father who played a musical instrument. Interestingly, he also rejected other faulty ascetic ideas - such as celibacy being good (he was married).

Diodore of Tarsus (in office AD 378-390)

Diodore was the bishop of Tarsus, and the mentor of John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. He played a key role at the Council of Constantinople. He held to the Antiochene exegetical method that insists on the literal, grammatical, and historical reading of the Bible and he avoided the allegorical method. What is notable about this influential bishop was that he mandated the use of instruments. After quoting Psalm 32:2 he said,

Having said above that it is necessary for them to hymn God, he adds then that they must do this with instruments.¹⁸³

Jerome (AD 347-420)

Jerome speaks of a “sister” who praises God with the timbrel and teaches other women how to be “luteplayers for the Savior.”

Oh! that you could see your sister and that it might be yours to hear the eloquence of her holy lips and to behold the mighty spirit which animates her diminutive frame. You might hear the whole contents of the old and new testaments come bubbling up out of her heart. Fasting is her sport, and prayer she makes her pastime. Like Miriam after the drowning Pharaoh she takes up her timbrel and sings to the virgin choir, “Let us sing to the Lord for He hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.” She teaches her companions to be music girls but music girls for Christ, to be luteplayers but luteplayers for the Saviour. In this occupation she passes both day and night and with oil ready to put in the lamps she waits the coming of the Bridegroom. Do you therefore imitate your kinswoman. Let Rome have in you what a grander city than Rome, I mean Bethlehem, has in her.¹⁸⁴

Cyril of Alexandria (AD 376-444)

Cyril of Alexandria was the bishop of Alexandria from 412-444. He was the central figure at the First Council of Ephesus in 431. Cyril defined a “Psalm” in a way that completely rules out a cappella singing. Since he advocated singing psalms, he advocated singing that was accompanied by musical instruments.

A Psalm (psalmos) is a musical sound caused when the instrument in struck rhythmically according to the musical notes.

One advocate of a cappella singing calls this an “anomaly” that is hard to explain from an a cappella perspective,¹⁸⁵ but it is totally consistent with Cyril’s practice of using instruments. Recounting a time under Cyril, Theodoret said,

At this time the see of Alexandria was held by Cyril, brother’s son to Theophilus whom he succeeded… The bishop gathered all the faithful together, both clergy and laity, and marched with them to the assembly. The procession was accompanied by musicians (ψάλλοντας); one hymn was sung by all in harmony, and thus he and his company went in procession from the western postern to the great church, filling the whole forum with people, and constituting a stream of thinking living beings like the Orontes in its course.¹⁸⁶ (emphasis mine)

This not only describes a church event when singing was “accompanied by musicians,” but speaks of that whole throng “filling the whole forum” of the church. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the musicians themselves entered the church. Clearly the church members and leaders were singing hymns accompanied by instruments at an organized event of the “gathered” “faithful.” If “all the faithful” including all the “clergy and laity” sang with instrumental accompaniment, it is inconceivable that there was universal contempt for musical instruments prior to this time. Instead, it points to pockets of resistance to the more widespread use of instrumental music.

Theodoret (AD 393-460)

Theodoret was the bishop of Cyrrhus from 423-457, and a very influential theologian. He is often quoted as saying, “instruments and other such things appropriate to those who are childish is dispensed with in the churches and singing alone has been left over.” Here is the problem - you will not find that quote in any of Theodoret’s writings. Instead, it is found in an anonymously authored document that used to be attributed to Justin Martyr, but that scholars have proved could not have been written by him.¹⁸⁷ Some have guessed that Theodoret might have written it, but that evidence is not conclusive. Indeed, it seems to contradict Theodoret’s views on music. The passage already quoted under our discussion of Cyril shows Theodoret describing a church “gathering” of “all the faithful” including “clergy and laity” in which singing of hymns was “accompanied by musicians.” There is no hint that Theodoret disapproves of this instrumental music:

The bishop gathered all the faithful together, both clergy and laity, and marched with them to the assembly. The procession was accompanied by musicians (ψάλλοντας); one hymn was sung by all in harmony, and thus he and his company went in procession from the western postern to the great church, filling the whole forum with people, and constituting a stream of thinking living beings like the Orontes in its course.¹⁸⁸ (emphasis mine)

It is inconceivable that “all the faithful together” would joyfully sing to the accompaniment of instruments if Alexandria had been universally opposed to instrumental music prior to this time. Certainly Theodoret gives no criticism of this musical event.

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Augustine speaks so frequently about the church of his day playing the lyre and psaltery that I will not be able to reproduce all of the quotations here. James Hastings summarizes the position of the Western church of his day in these words:

St. Augustine (354-430) likewise encourages ‘the singing of Psalms to the lyre or psaltery’ (j.A. Latrobe, The Music of the Church, London, 1831, p. 42). This regulation, or partial allowance, of instrumental music in the service of the Church seems not to have affected the Eastern branch, since in the Greek Church instrumental accompaniment has never been allowed, probably from its proximity to the pagan East.

Where instrumental help was allowed, it is easy to understand that the lyre, cithars, etc., would soon give way to the organ; the advantage of having the accompaniment under the control of one person would be apparent, and from the 5^th cent. onwards the organ became supreme. Ancient MSS of the 8^th, 9^th, and later centuries show the use of the harp, the square stringed psaltery, the rotta or crwth (of the viol species) and trumpet, which the minstrel galleries seen in ancient churches both on the Continent and in England confirm.¹⁸⁹

Notice the stark contradiction of McCracken’s statement that no instruments were introduced into the church before AD 666. This encyclopedia asserts that “from the 5^th cent. onwards the organ became supreme” in displacing other instruments that had been used to accompany worship. By now it should be apparent that the claim that the “universal” position of the early church was the a cappella position is a myth. Instruments have always been present in the church, though some branches deviated from the practice because of their infection with Greek asceticism. Certainly Augustine acknowledges their use in his day:

“Yea, upon the harp will I praise Thee, O God my God.” What is the meaning of “praising on the harp,” and praising on the psaltery? … These two instruments of the musicians have each a distinct meaning of their own, worthy of our consideration and notice. They are both borne in the hands, … Both are good, if one knows how to play the psaltery, or to play the harp. … both however are acceptable to God, and grateful to His ear…¹⁹⁰

Though Augustine believed in four levels of meaning of the text (including the allegorical), we should not ignore his numerous references to the literal meaning of the musical instruments. Even the literal sounds of literal instruments were pleasing to God’s ear, though Augustine believed the presence of the spiritual meaning was even more pleasing. Commenting on Psalm 66:3 he says,

3. “But play ye to His name” (ver. 2). What hath he said? By you “playing” let His name be blessed. But what is it to “play”? To play is also to take up an instrument which is called a psaltery, and by the striking and action of the hands to accompany voices. If therefore ye jubilate so that God may hear; play also something that men may both see and hear: but not to your own name. …For if for the sake of yourselves being glorified ye do good works, we make the same reply as He made to certain of such men, “Verily I say unto you, they have received their reward:”¹⁹¹

In this and in many passages Augustine gives layers of meaning, but he does not discount the literal meaning as having current significance. On Psalm 71:28 he says,

28. “For I will confess to Thee in the vessels of a Psalm Thy truth” (ver. 22). The vessels of a Psalm are a Psaltery. But what is a Psaltery? An instrument of wood and strings. What doth it signify? There is some difference between it and a harp: …there seemeth to be signified by the Psaltery the Spirit, by the harp the flesh.

On Psalm 147:2 he comments,

2. For a “Psalm” is a song, not any kind of song, but a song to a psaltery. A psaltery is a kind of instrument of music, like the lyre and the harp, and such kinds of instruments, which were invented for music. He therefore who singeth Psalms, not only singeth with his voice, but with a certain instrument besides, which is called a psaltery, he accompanieth his voice…

On Psalm 150 he comments on both the mystical and the literal meaning of the text, saying,

Nor do I think that I should pass over what musicians say, that there are three kinds of sounds, by voice, by breath, by striking: by voice, uttered by throat and windpipe, when man singeth without any instrument; by breath, as by pipe, or anything of that sort: by striking, as by harp, or anything of that kind. None then of these kinds is omitted here: for there is voice in the choir, breath in the trumpet, striking in the harp…

These kinds of quotes could be multiplied many times over. It is not fair scholarship to quote the portions of Augustine that speak of the “mystical” sense that he articulated and forget that he held to four levels of meaning, the “literal” being one of them. In many passages he indicated that the literal playing of instruments was currently happening.

Spanish Churches in AD 450

James Hastings summarizes the evidence of the use of instruments in Spain:

Organs seem to have been in common use in the Spanish churches of A.D. 450, according to Julianus, a Spanish bishop (Hopkins and Rimbault, The Organ, London, 1877)…¹⁹²

Ethiopian Churches in AD 500

David Shirt says,

A scene inclusive of music can be inferred from the depictions of Yared (505-571), possibly Ethiopia’s most celebrated saint, with an orchestra of monks… Yared’s instrumentally accompanied (sistrum, and drums of various sizes) compositions enjoyed a widespread appeal which appears to have survived the centuries. That Yared’s chants and hymns were used monastically supports the argument that Ethiopian ascetic practice did not necessarily view instrumentally accompanied music as incompatible with the ascetic Christian life. That the generality of Christians, clearly including those who are priests, vigorously immersed themselves in the drumming and dancing associated with the liturgy would seem beyond doubt. As touched on in chapter three, particular solemn hymns, with plucked string accompaniment, appear to have been reserved for Lent.¹⁹³

Adomnan of Iona (AD 624-704)

David Shirt says,

The Celtic missionaries were particularly fond of bells, including those whose several faces, when struck externally, could produce a range of different notes. One of Adomnan’s bells, considered to be genuine, and dating within the life-span of this study (first to seventh centuries), is housed in the museum of Kilmartin, on Scotland’s west coast.¹⁹⁴

Saint Bede the Venerable (AD 673-735)

In his commentary on Psalm 97, Bede writes,

After a prelude on an instrument, the sound of a singing voice is heard, following and keeping time with the instrument, imitating the strains of the psaltery with the tones of the voice.¹⁹⁵

Though not a conclusive testimony to English use of instruments, it is certainly consistent with England’s requests for instrumentalists from other parts of the church.

Having given samples of church fathers who either spoke of the presence of instruments in worship or who actively participated in such instrumental worship we will now seek to examine why some church fathers resisted instrumental music so vigorously.

The real reason that opposition to musical instruments arose in the late third century and following – the Greek philosophy of asceticism

Summary

I do not question the fact that many church fathers can be cited who opposed instrumental music, but they opposed the music for the same reason that they opposed enjoyment of sex, art, special food, and other pleasures – the influence of Greek asceticism.¹⁹⁶ So many authors have documented this influence of the Greeks upon many church fathers that it is not much contested. A cappella advocate, James McKinnon, admits,

The later fathers on the other hand, all thoroughly educated in the classical tradition, might be said to have shared the musical Puritanism of pagan intellectuals, taking it – for reasons of their own – beyond all precedent.¹⁹⁷

John T. Noonan writes,

Stoicism was in the air the intellectual converts to Christianity breathed. Half consciously, half unconsciously, they accommodated some Christian beliefs to a Stoic sense.¹⁹⁸

David Shirt documents the negative attitudes of the Greek philosophers to musical instruments. One cannot read the canons of the Council of Laodicea without seeing the strong impact of Greek thinking upon their worldview. Many of the church fathers explicitly credit their ideas to various Greek writers whom they admired. Shirt then explains how the Greek view of passions and music influenced the thinking of some church fathers. He says,

The idea that the passions were vices,⁴¹ or at the very least, that the passions of the soul may be likened to unruly children,⁴² would seem to be echoed by Christian writers, including Clement of Alexandria, who directed that the soul to be kept quiet and not be stirred by external impressions that stimulate the passions.⁴³ The emotions/passions, especially the passionate emotions such as Galen (129–200 A.D.) lists as ‘temper, anger, fear, grief, envy and extreme desire’,⁴⁴ if unrestrained, as Galen’s contemporary, Clement expresses it – ‘unbridled and disobedient to reason’⁴⁵ – could be morally disastrous. To the extent that music was considered highly influential in establishing or changing the emotional state, it was clearly a force to be reckoned with – for good or ill – and perhaps perceived as weighted towards the ill. Justification was provided by the variety of reprehensible circumstances in which music was frequently located.¹⁹⁹

Their worldview led them to be prejudiced against musical instruments, and it made a conundrum for them when interpreting the Bible – how should they interpret passages which give every appearance of approving of musical instruments? Those embarrassing passages had to be explained away, and there were two approaches to doing so.

The Alexandrian School, under the heavy influence of the Greek allegorical method,²⁰⁰ simply ignored the literal meaning and said that the Old Testament saints played spiritual instruments within their hearts (much like McCracken does).²⁰¹

The Antiochian school, though strongly opposed to the allegorical method, still evidenced Greek prejudice against instrumental music. However, their approach to explaining away instruments was to say that God was overlooking the problem of instruments as he sought to woo the Israelites away from the idolatry of Egypt. They did not deny that Israel played musical instruments, but they claimed that God allowed those practices to continue as a concession to Jewish immaturity, weakness, and ignorance. They insisted that after Christ, we must put away such childish things. Though slightly changed, we will see that Calvin buys into their arguments. Chrysostom,²⁰² Eusebius,²⁰³ Jerome,²⁰⁴ Clement, and Thomas Aquinas²⁰⁵ can all be cited for their resistance to instrumental music.

This tendency to allow cultural presuppositions to influence our hermeneutics is powerfully illustrated by the Hellenized Jews. We all know that the temple had musical instruments, but it was interesting to see the way Philo explained away the instrumentation of the Old Testament through allegory, and Clement of Alexandria was influenced by Philo to do the same. Louis Feldman points out that “Philo reflects the Greek contempt for instrumental music.”²⁰⁶

This Greek asceticism was resisted by fathers who believed that the Bible alone must govern our church worship (i.e., the Regulative Principle of Worship)

This Greek asceticism was strongly resisted by many church fathers that believed the Bible alone should regulate the church. In other words, it was the instrumentalists who most strongly adhered to the Regulative Principle of Worship. Some of these church fathers continued to have influence in the church while others, like Jovinian, were brought under church discipline.

David Shirt says, “Jovinian … proclaimed that Christianity was advocating new and unnatural dogma.”²⁰⁷ He resisted not only the novel views on music, but the novel views of sexuality that had crept into the church via Greek philosophy. His writings proclaiming the excellence of marriage were condemned at a synod held under Pope Siricius and were again condemned at the Milan synod. It needs to be kept in mind that the very thing for which he was condemned (a Biblical view of sexuality within marriage) is a viewpoint held to by most a cappella writers who have written on the subject. Yet the underlying reason for early hostility to sexuality in marriage is the same underlying reason for early hostility to instruments.

Some church fathers thought that marital sex was sinful if there was the least passion involved,²⁰⁸ and some thought that all sex was sinful.²⁰⁹ Their ideas on marriage were highly influenced by pagan Greek asceticism.²¹⁰

David G. Hunter points out that Ambrose, Jerome, and many other Christian ascetics “believed that the time for procreation lay in the past when the earth still needed to be filled with people,” but was no longer a relevant command.²¹¹ Some of the ascetics argued for celibacy within marriage, which in turn severely limited the number of children.²¹² Tertullian even sounded like a Malthusian in his fears of overpopulation. He said,

What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race…²¹³

Though this legalism was vigorously opposed by church fathers such as Jovinian, Epiphanius, Filastrius, Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and others, it continued to flourish in the church for many centuries. It led some married couples to avoid sex within marriage, and it led many to oppose remarriage, contrary to Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 5:14.²¹⁴ The point is that though we should always take seriously the views of the church fathers, the church fathers themselves insisted that the Bible alone is inerrant.²¹⁵

Some of the non-instrumentation citations prove too much

There are further problems that I see with the a cappella practice of indiscriminately citing the church fathers to prove their position. If they were to follow those same church fathers consistently on their views of worship, they would have to jettison the Regulative Principle of Worship. It is crystal clear that those Greek fathers were not regulated by the Word of God alone on their views of asceticism, celibate priesthood, multiplication of offices, sacraments, economics, monasteries, sign of the cross, etc. The fact of the matter is that the early church does not represent the pinnacle of the church, but the infancy of the church. The apostolic church was awash in bad doctrine and practice,²¹⁶ and Paul characterizes it as being immature:

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (Eph. 4:11-19)

Paul points out that the trajectory of history over the thousands of years will be towards more maturity and unity in doctrine. It should be pointed out that though there was some growth in the first eight centuries, there was still wide variation of viewpoint on worship. David Shirt points out,

Whatever rituals of the first Christian gatherings, any new innovation, in a particular location, could soon become established tradition, and might differ from that which evolved elsewhere. By the early fifth century, the Christian historian Socrates was to record that ‘it is impossible anywhere, among all the sects, to find two churches which agree exactly in their ritual’. Within that diversity (a diversity increasingly brought to our attention by recent scholarship), [and despite attempts by regional synods to prohibit cithara playing, the very rhetoric against instruments by some] … illustrates the measure of non-compliance.²¹⁷

The bottom line is that there must be continuing reformation of the church, and part of that reformation is to put off regulation by the traditions of men (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-23; Col. 2:20-23; etc.) and to put on regulation by the word of God alone (Deut. 12:31-32; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Tim. 3:15; etc.). As will be seen by the following points, following the lead of the non-instrumentalist fathers would prove far too much.

Some fathers opposed audible singing

For example, some of the fathers who showed detestation for instrumental music also showed detestation for all singing. In some circles this prohibition of singing was pervasive enough to warrant rebuke. For example, Niceta, bishop of Remesiana in AD 370, castigated those who took the interpretation of McCracken (that the phrase “in the heart” in Ephesians 5 refers to a silent and unexpressed form of music). He said,

I know that there are some, not only in our area but in the regions of the east, who consider the singing of psalms and hymns to be superfluous and little appropriate to divine religion. They think it enough if a psalm is spoken in the heart and frivolous if it is produced with the sound of one’s lips, and they appropriate to this opinion of theirs the verse of the Apostle which he wrote to the Ephesians: ‘Be filled with the Spirit, seeking in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts.’ Look, they say, the Apostle specifies that one must make melody in the heart, and not babble in the theatrical manner with sung melody, for it is sufficient to God ‘who searches the hearts’ (Rom. 8:27) that one sings in the secrecy of his heart.”²¹⁸

Niceta then went to great lengths to prove that it is proper to sing audibly. Why would he need to do this? The answer is that these men had been hugely influenced by Greek philosophy.

Some fathers opposed use of instruments outside of church

Most modern a cappella advocates are quite willing to permit musical instruments in private, in non-church orchestras, in education, in civic celebrations, etc. Yet we find that the church fathers that they cite to prove a cappella singing opposed all use of musical instruments, whether in the church or outside the church, whether in private or public. In fact, some were willing to discipline anyone who learned how to play a musical instrument. As Shirt points out,

The Canons of Hippolytus, dating from the late fourth century, state ‘whoever performs in a theatre or is … a music teacher … none of these may be permitted to attend a sermon until they have been purified from these unclean works. After forty days they may hear a sermon’. The slightly later Canons of Basil insist that ‘If anyone is a chorus dancer he shall either give up his profession or be excommunicated and banned from the mysteries … [a woman who] allures people by her beautiful singing and her deceitful melody … shall, if she renounces her profession, wait forty days before she communicates’. That such directives concerning musicians did not entirely correct the situation is strongly suggested by later canons attempting to enforce the same prohibitions. A half millennium beyond the period of prime concern to this study, canon 70 of Gabriel ben Turiek, condemns use of the cithara and the late twelfth century Nomocanon of Michael of Damietta reiterates yet again that if ‘anyone plays a cithara or an instrument which is blown he shall either cease or be cast out’.²¹⁹

Unless a cappella advocates are willing to embrace this kind of opposition to all private use of musical instruments, it is not consistent for them to cite those same fathers as authoritative exegetes on a cappella singing within the church. Even those like Novatian who considered music lawful, did not consider it proper for Christians. Speaking of musical instruments he said,

Even if these things were not consecrated to idols, faithful Christians ought not to frequent and observe them, for even if there were nothing criminal about them, they have in themselves an utter worthlessness hardly suitable for believers.²²⁰

Some fathers malign the fathers of the Old Testament in their zeal to avoid any positive reference to instrumentation in the Bible

Some of these church fathers that are cited go so far in their hostility to instrumental music that they stoop to accuse the Old Testament musicians of being weak, immature, and sinful. Even James McKinnon admits this in his polemic against instruments. He quotes a church father’s comments on the instruments of Psalm 150:

Of old the Levites used these instruments as they hymned God in his holy Temple, not because God enjoyed their sound but because he accepted the intention of those involved. We hear God saying to the Jews that he does not take pleasure in singing and playing: ‘Take away from me the sound of your songs; to the voice of your instruments I will not listen’ (Amos 5:23). He allowed these things to happen because he wished to free the Jews from the error of idols. For since they were fond of play and laughter, and all these things took place in the temple of the idols, he permitted them… thus avoiding the greater evil by allowing the lesser.²²¹

This church father blasphemes God’s law by calling the Old Testament musical instruments a lesser “evil.” Chrysostom says,

But I would say this: that in ancient times, they were thus led by these instruments due to the slowness of their understanding, and were gradually drawn away from idolatry. Accordingly, just as he allowed sacrifices, so too did he permit instruments, making concession to their weakness.²²²

The point is, that appealing to the church fathers proves neither the truthfulness nor the falsity of our position or the a cappella position. As the early church historian, Socrates, pointed out, there was wide division on liturgy in the early centuries because many issues had not yet been settled. Like eschatology, all viewpoints can find support in the fathers, and this means that we need to go to the Scriptures to be Reformed and ever reforming.

What about the Reformers?

Some will object that the Reformation settled the question. Of course, by “the Reformation,” they mean Calvin and his heirs, because they know that the Lutherans held that musical instruments glorified God and were Biblical. It is worthwhile pointing out the same kind of disparity of thought existed among the Reformers and their heirs as existed among the church fathers.

Luther’s views

Luther’s attitude toward music was not governed by pragmatism. Nor was it due to a lack of zeal in throwing out anything that smacked of Romanism. Indeed, it was because of the way that the organ had overwhelmed the voices and become a vain showpiece in Romanist churches that Luther initially opposed it, saying, “The organ in worship is the insignia of Baal… The Roman Catholics borrowed it from the Jews.”²²³ But he hastened to say,

Nor am I at all of the opinion that all the arts are to be overthrown and cast aside by the Gospel, as some superspiritual people protest; but I would gladly see all the arts, especially music, in the service of Him who has given and created them.²²⁴

This promoter of “Sola Scriptura” had a very positive and healthy attitude toward instrumental music. His philosophy of its use in worship can be seen in his “Forward” to Georg Rhau’s Symphoniae, a collection of chorale motets published in 1538:

I, Doctor Martin Luther, wish all lovers of the unshackled art of music grace and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ! I truly desire that all Christians would love and regard as worthy the lovely gift of music, which is a precious, worthy, and costly treasure given to mankind by God. The riches of music are so excellent and so precious that words fail me whenever I attempt to discuss and describe them…. In summa, next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world. It controls our thoughts, minds, hearts, and spirits…. Our dear fathers and prophets did not desire without reason that music be always used in the churches. Hence, we have so many songs and psalms. This precious gift has been given to man alone that he might thereby remind himself that God has created man for the express purpose of praising and extolling God. However, when man’s natural musical ability is whetted and polished to the extent that it becomes an art, then do we note with great surprise the great and perfect wisdom of God in music, which is, after all, His product and His gift; we marvel when we hear music in which one voice sings a simple melody, while three, four, or five other voices play and trip lustily around the voice that sings its simple melody and adorn this simple melody wonderfully with artistic musical effects, thus reminding us of a heavenly dance, where all meet in a spirit of friendliness, caress and embrace. A person who gives this some thought and yet does not regard music as a marvelous creation of God, must be a clodhopper indeed and does not deserve to be called a human being; he should be permitted to hear nothing but the braying of asses and the grunting of hogs.²²⁵

Calvin’s changing views

A cappella advocates are correct in saying that Calvin was opposed to instruments. However, Calvin also gives mixed signals. For example, when commenting on Ephesians 5:19 Calvin says,

…under these three terms [songs, hymns, spiritual songs] he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way – that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of; a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles.²²⁶

Calvin clearly concedes that instruments are biblical in the New Testament. On the other hand, he makes several comments in his commentary on the Psalms that defend a position of no instruments in worship, but on two flimsy assertions with no proof or argumentation. The first is that instruments belong to the era of the shadows. The second is that Paul commands us to speak in a known tongue. How speaking in a known tongue relates to instrumental accompaniment is beyond me. I am not a Calvin scholar, but I have wondered if he changed his views as he got older. The following quotes seem to show a greater openness to instrumental music in later years. Whether he changed his mind or not, his earlier views are unbiblical and seem to be governed more by peer pressure of current attitudes²²⁷ toward music than by exegesis. However, notice the progression of thought in the following quotes:

The Psalms were published in 1557

Under Psalm 71:22 Calvin says,

To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law, and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving. We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spirit, when Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we must praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue.

Daniel was published in 1561

Under Daniel 3:6-7 Calvin says, “Respecting the use of musical instruments, I confess it to be customary in the Church even by God’s command.” This is a clear statement in defense of instruments. Was he moving in his convictions based on his dialogues with other Reformers? We are not told, but this seems to be at least a theoretical openness to musical instruments.

Genesis was published in 1563

Under Genesis 4:20 he says,

Now, although the invention of the harp, and of similar instruments of music, may minister to our pleasure, rather than to our necessity, still it is not to be thought altogether superfluous; much less does it deserve, in itself, to be condemned. Pleasure is indeed to be condemned, unless it be combined with the fear of God, and with the common benefit of human society. But such is the nature of music, that it can be adapted to the offices of religion, and made profitable to men; if only it be free from vicious attractions, and from that foolish delight, by which it seduces men from better employments, and occupies them in vanity. (emphasis mine)

Note that Calvin does not simply affirm the lawfulness of the private use of musical instruments. Instead he affirms that they “can be adapted to the offices of religion.” Is this another indication of a move toward the position of the Lutherans and Anglicans? We are not told, but it is clear from the next point that not all of Calvin’s disciples were convinced of the a cappella position either.

Continental Calvinism & Anglicanism

The continental Calvinists followed Calvin’s later views. The organ was first allowed to accompany congregational singing at Leyden in 1637.²²⁸ It spread rapidly all over Holland. The extent to which instruments were used in the Continental Reformed churches and in Anglicanism can be seen by Richard Cameron’s lament:

The Jewish way under the law of praising the Lord was upon the timbrel, the harp, psaltery, and ten-stringed instruments, and other instruments of music that belonged to ceremonial worship that is now abolished. Christ, who is the end of the law, has torn or taken away the ceremonies of the law, and there is no warrant now to make use of the organs, as they do in the Popish Church, and in the Prelatical Church of England, and even among them that are more reformed, those over in Holland. Oh, but we have a great advantage in being free of these!²²⁹

Mixed views among the Puritans & Presbyterians

Though the vast majority of the Puritans and Presbyterians appear to be advocates of a cappella singing in worship, there was by no means unanimity.²³⁰ The 1563 harmonized psalter that was used by these Puritans and Presbyterians had on its title page, “sung to all musical instruments… for the increase of virtue: and abolishing of other vain and trifling ballads.”²³¹ Though the Protestant publisher (John Day) does not represent the whole Puritan movement, neither was there the outcry that one might expect if the viewpoint of non-instrumentation was as pervasive or as dogmatically affirmed as some books would have you believe.

Paul Baynes (1573-1617) is called a “radical Puritan” because of his strict adherence to Scripture and the Regulative Principle of Worship. He succeeded William Perkins in the pastorate at St. Andrew’s, Cambridge, and was a very influential Puritan. He was often quoted by Samuel Rutherford and is noted as having influenced such notables as William Ames and Richard Sibbes. Yet Baynes thought the exclusion of instruments from worship to be a legalistic and unbiblical tradition. He said in his commentary on Ephesians 5:20,

This doth rebuke a common practice among us who do run forth out of churches at psalms if sung with instruments-as the organ and others, comfortable and laudable-as if they were no part of God’s ordinances for our good; whereas we are expressly charged by God’s Spirit to praise Him both on stringed instruments and organs. If it were at a comedy, men would not lose the song and instrument or dance though played on divers pipe-instruments; yet the wind of one pipe in the organ will blow out their zeal in the church, and them from the church.²³²

Notice that Baynes rebukes his fellow Puritans by claiming that “we are expressly charged by God’s Spirit to praise Him both on stringed instruments and organs.” His view is that instruments are not simply allowed; they are commanded. Though this was a minority position, Joel Beeke (probably the world’s foremost authority on the Puritans) says that “some Puritans” believed in instruments in worship.²³³

For example, Richard Baxter, the pastor to pastors, gave the following five reasons why instruments should continue to be used in the churches to accompany psalms and hymns. This can be found in his monumental book, A Christian Directory.

For, 1. God set it up long after Moses’ ceremonial law, by David, Solomon, &c.

2. It is not an instituted ceremony merely, but a natural help to the mind’s alacrity: and it is a duty and not a sin to use the helps of nature and lawful art, though not to institute sacraments, &c. Of our own. As it is lawful to use the comfortable helps of spectacles in reading the Bible, so is it of music to exhilarate the soul towards God.

3. Jesus Christ joined with the Jews that used it, and never spake a word against it.

4. No Scripture forbiddeth it, therefore it is not unlawful.

5. Nothing can be against it, that I know of, but what is said against tunes and melody of voice. For whereas they say that it is a human invention; so are our tunes (and metre, and versions). Yea, it is not a human invention; as the last psalm and many others show, which call us to praise the Lord with instruments of music.

He gives some other admonitions related to this subject, but the following is an especially appropriate warning for those who impose legalism upon the church. Baxter says, “It is a great wrong that some do to ignorant Christians, by putting such whimsies and scruples into their heads, which as soon as they enter, turn that to a scorn, and snare, and trouble, which might be a real help and comfort to them, as it is to others” (cxxvii).

Having said all the above, it is admitted that the vast bulk of Puritans and Presbyterians believed in a cappella singing in worship. It has a long history supported by well-respected scholars. Having read their arguments, I do not believe they are Biblical, and it is ultimately the Bible that must drive our exercise of the Regulative Principle of Worship, not what the Puritans believed.

What about the synagogues – Were they instrument free? And does it matter if we hold to RPW?

The argument stated

It is often asserted that synagogues never had instrumental music until the late 1800’s, when Reform Judaism introduced it.²³⁴ Why would this be a relevant argument in favor of a cappella singing? Indeed, if the church fathers are not a standard for our worship, how much less so should the Talmudic synagogues? Yet many a cappella advocates use the following syllogism as part of their polemic against instruments:

• Premise A – The church follows the synagogue pattern of worship rather than the temple pattern of worship.²³⁵
• Premise B – Jewish synagogues did not used instruments until 1810.²³⁶
• Conclusion: therefore we should not use instruments.²³⁷

Hopefully one can see that the a cappella advocate has abandoned the Regulative Principle of Worship at this point. Premise B implicitly makes the antichristian post-cross practices of Talmudic synagogues a standard for how our worship services should be conducted.

Response #1 – the only synagogue information that should regulate our conclusions is the information about synagogues in the Bible, and the Bible allowed musical instruments in the synagogues

My response will be threefold. First, I believe the Scripture authorizes me to change premise B of the syllogism so that the argument goes as follows:

• Premise A – The church follows the synagogue pattern of worship rather than the temple pattern of worship.
• Premise B – Synagogues did indeed use instruments (see arguments in chapter 3 under “Illustrated in Psalm 68” and under “Problem two.”).
• Conclusion: therefore we may continue to use instruments since they are not distinctively temple instruments

First it is necessary to prove that synagogues even existed in the Old Testament. Many people have tried to deny that God instituted the synagogue in the Old Testament, and they say that the synagogue arose out of necessity for worship when the Jews were in exile in Babylon. The following Scriptures show that belief to be false. Acts 15:21 says, “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” This verse establishes that synagogues were a Mosaic institution, and that synagogues were in every city.

Leviticus 23:3 firmly establishes synagogues as a Mosaic institution, saying, “Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation.” The Hebrew word for “holy convocation” means “sacred assembly” (מִקְרָא־קֹ֔דֶשׁ see NIV translation). The Sabbath was to be a day of corporate worship throughout the land, not just in the temple. Compare 2 Kings 4:23.

Psalm 74:8 speaks about these “meeting places” throughout the land: “They have burned up all the meeting places (the Hebrew is מוֹעֵד) of God in the land.” Already in Asaph’s day there were synagogues everywhere.

The Levites were scattered throughout the land in order to provide teachers or scribes (2 Chron. 17:9; Deut. 18:6-8; Neh. 10:37-39; etc.). Levites were trained in the law as teachers. Though Levites also taught at the temple, and assisted in other ways (Deut. 18:6-8), most Levites taught in the cities (Deut. 18:6) in proto-synagogues (Lev. 10:11; Deut. 17:18; 31:9-13; 33:10; 2 Chron. 17:7-9; 30:22; 35:3; Neh. 8:17-13; Mal. 2:6-7). The Levites of the Old Testament were equivalent to the teaching and ruling elders of the New Testament with the Teaching Elders carrying the title of “scribe” (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kings 4:3; 2 Kings 12:10; 18:37; 19:2; 1 Chron. 24:6; 27:32; Ezra 7:6,11; Neh. 12:10; Jer. 36:12; Matt. 7:29; 13:52; 17:10; 23:2,3; etc.).

A distinction was made in the New Testament between the “synagogue (συναγωγή) of the Jews” (Acts 17:1,10) and the Christian synagogue (James 2:2 - the word for “assembly” is συναγωγή). Whereas the church was the synagogue of God, the Jewish synagogues are spoken of as “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9) or counterfeit synagogues. The reason the distinction was finally made was that even though the apostles taught in the synagogues (Acts 9:20; 13:5,14; 14:1; 17:1,10,17; 18:4,7,19,26; 19:8) and many of those synagogues as a whole became Christian synagogues, there were many other synagogues that refused to believe in Christ, and even began to persecute Christians in the synagogues (prophesied in Matt. 10:17; 23:34 and seen in Acts 17:5-9; 22:19; 26:11).

Where the authority for the Jewish synagogues had become the “traditions of men” that Jesus opposed,²³⁸ the authority for the synagogue of God²³⁹ is “the perfect Law of liberty” (James 1:25). We have already established in the first sections of this book that the law of God allowed for the use of instruments in worship outside of the temple ceremonial system. Instruments of music were played “in the congregations” of the Lord (Psalm 68), the Tabernacle of David being one such synagogue. (See earlier discussion.) So the synagogue argument actually works in favor of our position, not against it.

Response #2 – If the Biblical information on the synagogue is ignored and if the unbelieving synagogue becomes the pattern, then it proves too much.

Let us assume that our previous arguments are rejected. If centuries of silence with respect to instruments in Jewish synagogues proves that the church should not have instruments, what does the silence with respect to Psalm singing in those synagogues prove? James McKinnon says,

…the silence on psalmody appears increasingly significant. It is a silence of some five hundreds years extending from the New Testament period to the time of the final redaction of the Talmud [8^th century].²⁴⁰

Up until recently, scholarship has not been able to find any evidence of singing in the Jewish synagogues.²⁴¹ The reason for this is that as a result of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews among the nations, the Jews felt such shame²⁴² that certain rabbis commemorated the event by calling men to the shameful practice of wearing head coverings²⁴³ and placing a ban on all music - whether singing or instrumental; whether public or private.²⁴⁴ This initial consensus became codified by early rabbinic authorities.²⁴⁵ Resistance to the ban led to three additional reasons:

1. playing instruments might lead to the breaking of the Sabbath
2. playing instruments is joyful and therefore violates God’s mandate to mourn in exile
3. playing instruments might lead to immorality.²⁴⁶

A rabbi who was asked for the source for the ban on music gave an interesting insight – he claimed that one of the additional reasons cited in the Talmud was to avoid acting like the “heretics,” a reference to Christians.²⁴⁷ So this may be additional evidence that Christians at the time of that rabbinic edict did indeed use instrumental music.

These facts actually undermine the a cappella argument in three ways: First, they show that the Jewish ban had nothing to do with Scripture forbidding music, but rather reveal an attitude that is governed by tradition rather than the Bible. It was a commandment of man, not a commandment of God. Second, this ban revealed their shame, not normalcy. Third, it included abstinence from singing as well as instrumentation. This hardly proves the a cappella point. Though it is true that more recent scholarship has uncovered some evidence of resistance to the ban on singing, it also reveals resistance to the ban on instrumentation (next point).

This whole discussion illustrates the futility of informing the Regulative Principle of Worship from the Jesus-hating-Talmudic-traditions-of-man-synagogue-system. Instead, we should turn back to the Biblical evidence of instrumental music in the synagogues of the Bible, as this book has done.

Response 3 – the same scholarship that has recently found scant evidence of singing in the synagogues has also found instrumentation

In recent years there has been some evidence that at least some Jewish synagogues resisted the ban on both singing and instrumentation. Charlesworth cites several examples. The following should be sufficient:

[You] … have given (us) an articulate tongue for confession (of gratitude), and have undergirded (it with) a harmonious tongue, in the like manner of a plectrum, like a musical instrument…²⁴⁸