| FUNDAMENTALS |
321BibleStudy.net
| Instrumental Music in Worship Under the NT Part 5 Answers to Their Arguments: The OT |
There are a string of arguments which are advanced by those who use the instrument which
they believe justify the utilization of instrumental music in worship under the New Testament.
These arguments are consistent with all whom I have spoken (regardless of their
denominational affiliation). They all begin with the same arguments, and end with the same
arguments.
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT
Whenever the subject of instrumental music in worship in the church come up, the first
response is to refer to the Old Testament. Such passages as 1 Chronicles 15:16-24 and
16:4-6; 2 Chronicles 5:11-14; and psalm 150:3-5 are used to show that God commanded the
utilization of instruments of music in worship. Thus, the first response is to call it a command
of God found in the Old Testament.
The passage in 2 Chronicles cited above includes mention of instrumental music and the
Levitical priesthood, and the Temple (thus all that would be included in the worship which took
place in the Temple). They all have the stamp of God's approval. Are they all to be accepted in
the church? The obvious answer is no. In fact, I know of no group which would accept the
Levitical priesthood which would accept the Levitical priesthood and all that the Temple worship
included in the church. But, on what basis is instrumental music to be accepted because of
this passage and everything else rejected? Everything connected with the Temple worship
isnot specifically mentioned as being done away with except in general terms which would also
reject the instrumental music.
There is no verse of scripture which can justify the enforcement of any command of the Law of
Moses upon the Christian and the church. Paul did not say that Jesus nailed part of the law to
the cross, He nailed the Law (all of it) to the cross (Colossians 2:13-17). Jeremiah did not
prophecy of a time when there would partly be a new covenant; but, the time when there would
be a completely new convenant (Hebrews 8; Jeremiah 31:31ff). You cannot keep part of the
law, and do away with the rest. Either the Law of Moses is binding today, or it is not. One or the
other. The apostle under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said it was nailed to the cross -- that is
was abolished. Not part of it; but, all of it. In speaking of the Judaizers of the New Testament
period who wished not only to bind circumcision upon the church, but also the keeping of the
Law of Moses (Acts 15:5), the apostle Paul said: "For I testify again to every man that is
circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3). Either you keep the whole
Law, or none.
Upon what basis can part of the law be done away with, and keep another part? Only if it be
specifically said to have vanished? When then of incense? Is it commanded to be used of God
for the church? It is not specifically stated as being abolished. What of the death penalty for
violation of any of the commandments of the Old Testament? Where are they specifically
abolished? It can go on and on. When the Law is said to be "a shadow of good things to
come" (Hebrews 10:1), that means when the substance -- the New Testament (Colossians
2:17) -- is come, the shadow, the complete shadow, is gone -- it vanishes away (Hebrews 8).
Not only "certain aspects of the Old Testament", but all the aspects of the Old Testament are not
to be enforced in our day.
All of the arguments which are set forth in defense of the instrument of music are lacking in
substance. The instrument must be set aside to worship God correctly.
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 1
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 2
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 3
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 4
they believe justify the utilization of instrumental music in worship under the New Testament.
These arguments are consistent with all whom I have spoken (regardless of their
denominational affiliation). They all begin with the same arguments, and end with the same
arguments.
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARGUMENT
Whenever the subject of instrumental music in worship in the church come up, the first
response is to refer to the Old Testament. Such passages as 1 Chronicles 15:16-24 and
16:4-6; 2 Chronicles 5:11-14; and psalm 150:3-5 are used to show that God commanded the
utilization of instruments of music in worship. Thus, the first response is to call it a command
of God found in the Old Testament.
The passage in 2 Chronicles cited above includes mention of instrumental music and the
Levitical priesthood, and the Temple (thus all that would be included in the worship which took
place in the Temple). They all have the stamp of God's approval. Are they all to be accepted in
the church? The obvious answer is no. In fact, I know of no group which would accept the
Levitical priesthood which would accept the Levitical priesthood and all that the Temple worship
included in the church. But, on what basis is instrumental music to be accepted because of
this passage and everything else rejected? Everything connected with the Temple worship
isnot specifically mentioned as being done away with except in general terms which would also
reject the instrumental music.
There is no verse of scripture which can justify the enforcement of any command of the Law of
Moses upon the Christian and the church. Paul did not say that Jesus nailed part of the law to
the cross, He nailed the Law (all of it) to the cross (Colossians 2:13-17). Jeremiah did not
prophecy of a time when there would partly be a new covenant; but, the time when there would
be a completely new convenant (Hebrews 8; Jeremiah 31:31ff). You cannot keep part of the
law, and do away with the rest. Either the Law of Moses is binding today, or it is not. One or the
other. The apostle under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said it was nailed to the cross -- that is
was abolished. Not part of it; but, all of it. In speaking of the Judaizers of the New Testament
period who wished not only to bind circumcision upon the church, but also the keeping of the
Law of Moses (Acts 15:5), the apostle Paul said: "For I testify again to every man that is
circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3). Either you keep the whole
Law, or none.
Upon what basis can part of the law be done away with, and keep another part? Only if it be
specifically said to have vanished? When then of incense? Is it commanded to be used of God
for the church? It is not specifically stated as being abolished. What of the death penalty for
violation of any of the commandments of the Old Testament? Where are they specifically
abolished? It can go on and on. When the Law is said to be "a shadow of good things to
come" (Hebrews 10:1), that means when the substance -- the New Testament (Colossians
2:17) -- is come, the shadow, the complete shadow, is gone -- it vanishes away (Hebrews 8).
Not only "certain aspects of the Old Testament", but all the aspects of the Old Testament are not
to be enforced in our day.
All of the arguments which are set forth in defense of the instrument of music are lacking in
substance. The instrument must be set aside to worship God correctly.
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 1
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 2
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 3
Go to Instrumental Music in Worship Under the New Testament 4
| "It is a command in the Old Testament!" |