Music in Church?
- Thread starter JesusMyOnly
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The language in Eph 5:18,19 does not allow for soloists or choirs.
The command is to 'be filled with the spirit" v18, and one way of obeying that command Paul gives is by 'singing' v19. A soloist cannot sing for you thereby obey this command for you and be filled with the spirit for you (same with a choir). If you are to obey this command and be filled with the spirit then YOU must sing.
Also in verse 19, the phrase "one to another" is reciprocal. Dana & Mantey says it means an "interchange of action". Lightfoot says it means "idea of corporate unity". The idea is that everyone in the congregation sings "one to another", that is each person is exchanging the action, each person is reciprocating the action back to everyone else. This exchange, reciprocating of action does not take place among the congregation with a soloist.
==================
1 Cor 14:26 does not contradict Eph 5:18,19 that requires congregational singing, obeying the command to be filled with the spirit by EACH MEMBER.
This verse does not remotely provide what is needed to justify solo singing. First, the passage does not mention singing. A psalm can be read or quoted as easily as it can be sung. Further, a psalm could be presented to the congregation for learning without a solo being performed. It certainly could have been introduced phrase by phrase with the church joining in, much in the same fashion as with antiphonal or part singing.
If a verse does not explicitly state a truth, or at least necessarily imply it, no speculation should be made by which to justify some coveted practice. Imagination is a poor base upon which to construct an argument.
Second, while it may be reasonable to conclude that a spiritual gift, i.e., an inspired song, is in view in 1 Corinthians 14:26, the natural presumption would have to be that once the song was given by the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit and conveyed to the congregation, the subsequent use of the psalm would have been regulated in harmony with the apostle’s instructions elsewhere (e.g., Ephesians 5:18, 19; Colossians 3:16), and that would demand congregational singing—not a solo performance.
In this connection we would make passing reference to the case of the disciples as they assembled in Acts 4, celebrating the release of Peter and John from prison. The text states that they “lifted up their voice to God with one accord” (v. 24).
Macknight, coupling this passage to 1 Corinthians 14:26, comments that since it is said that the whole company “lifted up their voice with one accord,” it is evident that this utterance must have been delivered “by two or three sentences at a time (as Paul directed the Corinthians to do in the like cases) that all the company might join in it” (1954, 195).
Moreover, if a psalm were sung under the influence of the Spirit for instructive purposes, that would have no bearing upon what the church is allowed to do today. Hodge has noted:
It was only so long as the gifts . . . continued in the church that the state of things here described [1 Corinthians 14:26] prevailed. Since those gifts have ceased, no one has the right to rise in the church under the impulse of his own mind to take part in its services (1857, 300-301).
Third, it appears fairly obvious that Paul, in this context, is attempting to correct an abuse. H. K. Moulton, lecturer in New Testament studies at New College, University of London, classifies 1 Corinthians 14:26 as one of several Corinthian passages which reveal “selfish individualism” (cf. 1:12; 11:21) on the part of these saints, thus worthy of apostolic rebuke (1977, 37).
If such is the case, this verse is hardly one to be citing in support of the chorus-solo system. The truth is, the New Testament is void of authority for solo and choir music in church worship.
Why, then, has there developed this relatively modern craze for a new form of church music?
https://www.christiancourier.com/ar...-and-solos-authorized-for-the-church-assembly
Wayne Jackson
wow, that's interesting!
i looked up and saw that almost every translation except the KJV says "congregation" or "assembly" there, but the Greek word is "ekklesia" ! (talking about Moses at Sinai)
since some may think it a sin not to speak in anything other than hymns, here's another psalm:
And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord:
thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
(Psalm 89:5)
i wonder if the Complete Jewish Bible translation uses the same word for congregation/assembly, "biq-hal" in place of "ekklesia" in Acts 7:38 ?
i had trouble finding a CJB online that shows the Hebrew.
i looked up and saw that almost every translation except the KJV says "congregation" or "assembly" there, but the Greek word is "ekklesia" ! (talking about Moses at Sinai)
since some may think it a sin not to speak in anything other than hymns, here's another psalm:
And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord:
thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
(Psalm 89:5)
i wonder if the Complete Jewish Bible translation uses the same word for congregation/assembly, "biq-hal" in place of "ekklesia" in Acts 7:38 ?
i had trouble finding a CJB online that shows the Hebrew.
Let them praise his name with dancing,
making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!
For the Lord takes pleasure in his people;
he adorns the humble with salvation.
(Psalm 149:3-4)
a thought about this passage -- it seems like that if it is to be taken as a command, the command is not to dance and make music on tambourines and lyres in praise of God -- the textual command is NOT TO FORBID IT.
we're not under the ordinances of the OT, to be sure, but what can we learn from this? for all scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness.
the law may be taken out of the way, but the truth that the Lord takes pleasure in His people and adorns the humble with salvation -- this is by no means taken away, right?
making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!
For the Lord takes pleasure in his people;
he adorns the humble with salvation.
(Psalm 149:3-4)
a thought about this passage -- it seems like that if it is to be taken as a command, the command is not to dance and make music on tambourines and lyres in praise of God -- the textual command is NOT TO FORBID IT.
we're not under the ordinances of the OT, to be sure, but what can we learn from this? for all scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness.
the law may be taken out of the way, but the truth that the Lord takes pleasure in His people and adorns the humble with salvation -- this is by no means taken away, right?
You still refuse to understand we today are not under ANY of the OT at all. Christ took it all out of the way (including Psalms) upon His cross making in inactive, ineffective and you are trying to undo what Christ did on the cross by going back to the OT law for justification in using IM. You are simply promoting will-worship and not worship as authorized by Christ. You have lost all credibility on this for when Christ says "this do" you think that means you can NOT do as Christ said but do as YOU please.
if you can't show me where David was commanded to make music to God, as part of a law of ordinances, i can't see that you are being any more relevant than a fish saying "glub glub, bubble bubble."
furthermore not being under the law does not make the things called good in the scripture suddenly wicked to do. as someone pointed out many pages ago and was never addressed by you or any other follower of Campbellism, having sex with animals is prohibited in Moses' law, and is never mentioned at all in the NT epistles or gospels. so my dear, how do you justify not having sex with animals, if being instructed in righteousness by the OT is verboten?
anyway, you're not reading my post with any comprehension.
let me ask you again -- what are we as believers to learn by reading in the scripture that one should allow the saints to dance and make music in praise of the Lord's good name?
or do you contend that the OT is no longer scripture, and is not useful in any way for edification?
and why aren't you speaking in psalms, as Paul's epistles command you to?
Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
(Psalm 51:8)
To worship God is to worship Him in Spirit and truth. God said of Israel His chosen people that they worship Me with their lips but their heart is far from Me.
What now of music and what now of singing? How do the angels worship God? I think it was Schumann that opined that angel voices must sound like the beautiful instruments ever heard when they sing praise unto God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
What now of music and what now of singing? How do the angels worship God? I think it was Schumann that opined that angel voices must sound like the beautiful instruments ever heard when they sing praise unto God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Gives a whole new perspective......They had been redeemed by BLOOD (Passover) and had the Picture of Immersion (RED SEA and the later generation (lifted serpent) had faith and the picture of immersion (Jordon)......many overlook this massive picture and yes they are called the assembly in the wilderness!
When you hightlighted the "FORBIDDING" just made me think of all the "LET'S" in scripture (in contrast). Such as deceiving spirits are shown forbidding (for example, in marraige) verses what Paul said, that for the cause of fornication (which we should abstain from) LET every man have his own wife and wife an husband. The commandments of do not taste, do not touch and do not handle stuff comming from the men for the most part.
If one person sings a solo, then another sings a solo, and everyone sings a solo, then 'you' sings, and it's reciprocal. You are assuming the singing is all going on at one time, rather than in turn. Like I posted earlier, at least one Greek expert has written that it allows for the possibility for turn-taking solos. Your quotes don't support that congregational was the only way it could be done.
"Every one of you hath a psalm" describes turn taking solos, since each one has a psalm, and it is to be done unto edifying. This is still 'one another.' I'm not saying congregational singing isn't. But you don't have a specific case of it in post-Pentecost church experience or a specific command that should be interpreted only as congregational singing.
You may have heard that Luther added congregational singing during the Reformation. Apparently, there was an ancient practice of antiphonal singing, but we are looking at what the New Testament actually says and your rigid method of only allowing things for which you have a specific example.
Btw, where does it say that an evangelist is allowed to preach in church? What verse would you point to?
I get the impression that you think they were to sing the psalm. I'd admit you have a valid point. A psalm could be presented in the sense of reading the Psalms, a reference to a passage of scripture. But why would Paul only mention individuals having psalms as opposed to sections from the prophets or the Torah? That would seem odd. Several verses before, he said, "I will sing with the spirit, and with the understanding." (Which also sounds like a solo, doesn't it.) So singing, and singing a solo at that, is already mentioned in the passage. The idea that that psalm is a song that is sung seems more reasonable.
Presupposing that if one had a psalm, he'd suggest it for congregational singing or antiphonal singing is a supposition on your part. You are starting from the assumption that singing together as a group is the norm, something you also read into the Colossians and Ephesians passages.
I'm not against turn-taking solos or congregational singing. I believe there were choirs in the Old Testament. Jewish practice is to sing certain psalms after Passover 'congregationally', and Jesus sang a hymn after the Passover meal. But I'm going back pre-ascension before Pentecost for some background, and I don't mind doing that. I don't mind looking at groups singing in Revelation either (along with the harps, and the sound of harps, which doesn't bother me.)
"Every one of you hath a psalm" describes turn taking solos, since each one has a psalm, and it is to be done unto edifying. This is still 'one another.' I'm not saying congregational singing isn't. But you don't have a specific case of it in post-Pentecost church experience or a specific command that should be interpreted only as congregational singing.
You may have heard that Luther added congregational singing during the Reformation. Apparently, there was an ancient practice of antiphonal singing, but we are looking at what the New Testament actually says and your rigid method of only allowing things for which you have a specific example.
Btw, where does it say that an evangelist is allowed to preach in church? What verse would you point to?
I get the impression that you think they were to sing the psalm. I'd admit you have a valid point. A psalm could be presented in the sense of reading the Psalms, a reference to a passage of scripture. But why would Paul only mention individuals having psalms as opposed to sections from the prophets or the Torah? That would seem odd. Several verses before, he said, "I will sing with the spirit, and with the understanding." (Which also sounds like a solo, doesn't it.) So singing, and singing a solo at that, is already mentioned in the passage. The idea that that psalm is a song that is sung seems more reasonable.
Presupposing that if one had a psalm, he'd suggest it for congregational singing or antiphonal singing is a supposition on your part. You are starting from the assumption that singing together as a group is the norm, something you also read into the Colossians and Ephesians passages.
I'm not against turn-taking solos or congregational singing. I believe there were choirs in the Old Testament. Jewish practice is to sing certain psalms after Passover 'congregationally', and Jesus sang a hymn after the Passover meal. But I'm going back pre-ascension before Pentecost for some background, and I don't mind doing that. I don't mind looking at groups singing in Revelation either (along with the harps, and the sound of harps, which doesn't bother me.)
Again, David was not a Christian and did not worship as Christ's NT laws requires. The issues is where did Christ command Christians to worship as David did? Nowhere. Just because some form of worship was done under the OT law does not mean it is accepted under the NT, this is what you are assuming. Col 3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." What the Christian teaches and practices must be done by the name of, authority of Christ. Where does Christ give the Christian the authority to worship as David did under the OT law? Nowhere. Christ's NT commands NT Christians to sing. So the Christian has the authority from Christ to sing but no authority to play or dance as David.
Furthermore, indications are given from the OT that David did NOT have God's authority to use IM.
Amos 6:1,5 "Woe unto them....That chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of musick, like David;"
1 Chron 23:5 "Moreover four thousand were porters; and four thousand praised the LORD with the instruments which I made, said David, to praise therewith."
Adam Clarke on 1 Cron 23:5 "David made this distribution according to his own judgment, and from the dictates of his piety; but it does not appear that he had any positive Divine authority for such arrangements. As to the instruments of music which he made they are condemned elsewhere; see Amos 6:5, to which this verse is allowed to be the parallel."
2 Chron 29:25 "And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets."
Adam Clarke says "Moses had not appointed any musical instruments to be used in the divine worship; there was nothing of the kind under the first tabernacle. The trumpets or horns then used were not for song nor for praise, but as we use bells, i.e., to give notice to the congregation of what they were called to perform, etc. But David did certainly introduce many instruments of music into God's worship, for which we have already seen he was solemnly reproved by the prophet Amos, Amos 6:1-6. Here, however, the author of this book states he had the commandment of the prophet Nathan, and Gad the king's seer; and this is stated to have been the commandment of the Lord by his prophets: but the Syriac and Arabic give this a different turn - "Hezekiah appointed the Levites in the house of the Lord, with instruments of music, and the sound of harps, and with the Hymns of David, and the Hymns of Gad, the king's prophet, and of Nathan, the king's prophet: for David sang the praises of the Lord his God, as from the mouth of the prophets." It was by the hand or commandment of the Lord and his prophets that the Levites should praise the Lord; for so the Hebrew text may be understood: and it was by the order of David that so many instruments of music should be introduced into the Divine service. But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by Divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason, that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No: the whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this: and those who know the Church of God best, and what constitutes its genuine spiritual state, know that these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion; and that where they prevail most, there is least of the power of Christianity. Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires his followers to worship him in spirit and in truth, for to no such worship are those instruments friendly."
--
David made using IM an ordinance in the OT law and Christ took all of the OT law/ordinances made under that law out of the way, Col 2:14; Eph 2:15.
I confess that I have very low expectations that anything you post is worth reading but sometimes you surprise me with the depths to which you will stoop.
Of this I am certain that one day I will see David in the kingdom of God. I have no reasonable expectation of the same with you. You continue to strive against God and demand that God see things your way. I hope to be surprised and find you there but only because the body has many parts and some are evidently much more odious than others.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Of this I am certain that one day I will see David in the kingdom of God. I have no reasonable expectation of the same with you. You continue to strive against God and demand that God see things your way. I hope to be surprised and find you there but only because the body has many parts and some are evidently much more odious than others.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Evidently you did not read what I posted. Where did I post David would not be saved?
What I did post was to show what David did has nothing to do with how the NT Christian worships and that everything David did was not as God wanted it. As I see it God did not want IM used in worship to Him, God did not want men having multiple wives/concubines yet David did these things anyway but that does not make them right. Under the OT, God was longsuffering, tolerating some of the wrong things they did but God does not do this anymore, Acts 17:30.
What I did post was to show what David did has nothing to do with how the NT Christian worships and that everything David did was not as God wanted it. As I see it God did not want IM used in worship to Him, God did not want men having multiple wives/concubines yet David did these things anyway but that does not make them right. Under the OT, God was longsuffering, tolerating some of the wrong things they did but God does not do this anymore, Acts 17:30.