Instrumental Music Debate Thrasher-Weatherly JLW 1st Neg

Weatherly’s First Negative

          It is a privilege to examine the teaching of my friend, Dr. Thomas Thrasher. Thomas basically made THREE arguments in his affirmative: (1) “Where is NT Authority?” (2) “Generic and Specific Terms,” and (3) “Singing is the only kind of music authorized in NT worship.”

 

          Thomas introduced the argument of “generic and specific authority.” Thomas appealed to both Noah and Naaman as examples of “specific authority.” I will agree that Naaman was specifically told to dip “in Jordan,” however, I am not sure that “gopher wood” is as specific as Thomas thinks. Commentators have struggled for over a century concerning what species of wood “gopher wood” was. Terms like “oak, cedar, pine, etc.” are generic terms. “White pine,” “yellow pine,” “Southern pine” are the more specific terms. The “gopher wood” argument is weak indeed. The same is true with the word “sing.” Thomas stated:

 

“Singing is specific with respect to the kind of music...”

 

However, it is interesting that Webster (Thomas’ source) DID NOT use the term “singing” in defining the word “music!” Webster used the specific term “vocal” which means “uttered by the voice!” “Singing” IS NOT a specific term! Singing can be accompanied or unaccompanied and NOT violate the meaning of the term! No one would think it strange if a person said, “I’m going to sing you a song” and then all of the sudden they played the guitar while they sang. If the electric sign in front of our church building read, “Singing Sunday 7pm” no one in their right mind would think, “Huh, those Pentecostals must have gotten rid of their musical instruments.” “Sing” is generic, not specific.

 

          One definition of “sing” is “2. To vocalize songs or selections” (American Heritage/Yahoo), but another definition is “4. To produce sounds when played: made the violin sing.” By definition, the word “sing” does not exclude the playing of musical instruments! What excludes musical instruments from the word “singing” is the term “a cappella,” which means “without instrumental accompaniment” (Webster). Thomas and his brethren understand this because they qualify that their singing is “a cappella” on their websites. If “singing” automatically excludes musical instruments, then why must they qualify it with the term “a cappella”?

 

          The problem is Thomas reads the Bible with jaundiced eyes. So every time Thomas sees “sing” he thinks it means “a cappella singing,” but “a cappella” isn’t found anywhere in the Bible. Even in the Bible “sing” does not exclude musical instruments! In 1 Samuel 21:11, Achish said, “Is this not David, the king of the land? Did they not SING of him in dances, saying, Saul has killed his thousands and David his ten thousands.” Thomas would have you believe that the word “sing” in this passage excluded the playing of musical instruments. However, if you look at 1 Samuel 18:6-7, you will see that the women came out “singing and dancing” with tabrets and instruments of music and as they PLAYED they said “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” So the word “SING” in 1 Sam. 21:11 didn’t exclude musical instruments, in fact it included BOTH the vocal utterance and the playing of musical instruments! In Exodus 15:20-21, the women went out with timbrels, and Miriam said unto them, “SING ye to the LORD.” Just because Miriam said, “Sing” and not “sing and play,” did not exclude those women from playing their timbrels! In fact, “sing” INCLUDED the idea of playing their timbrels, because “sing” is a generic term! Even in the NT, “sing” does not exclude the playing of musical instruments. Three times in Revelation (Rev. 5:8-9; 14:2-3; 15:2-3) we are told of those holding harps, who “sing” a song before the throne. The fact that John used the term “sing” (ado) DID NOT exclude the playing of musical instruments. In fact, it included it! Thomas went on to state:

 

“However, when God specified singing in NT worship, then playing upon mechanical instruments was excluded as an addition to God’s word.”

 

          I’ve already shown that “singing” in both the OT and NT did not exclude the playing of musical instruments, but let’s consider Thomas’ argument here. In other words, Thomas is saying that a passage such as James 5:13, “…Is any merry? let him sing psalms,” that “sing psalms” would exclude the playing of musical instruments. Well, if that were the case, then what else would James 5:13 exclude? Notice, the context of James 5:13 is not dealing with the church assembly, but with the individual Christian life. If Thomas wants to challenge that this is talking about the church assembly, then he will have to allow solo singing during the worship service because James said, “Let HIM (singular) sing psalms.” Nothing is said about the congregation singing! Again, this is talking about the individual Christian life. So James said, “Is any cheerful? Let him sing psalms.” If “sing psalms” excludes playing musical instruments, would it also exclude whistling or humming? Is Thomas willing to tell us that if a Christian is cheerful, James 5:13 would exclude them from whistling or humming or smiling or anything else other than “sing psalms”? If James 5:13 excludes musical instruments, then it would exclude them in the Christian’s walk! This would be a total exclusion to musical instruments! This would mean that Christians could not play musical instruments in school band or the privacy of their home!

 

          James 5:13 also says, “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray…” Does “let him pray” exclude Christians from seeking counseling if they are afflicted? I think Thomas would say, “No.” James 5:14 says, “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” If “sing psalms” in verse 13 excludes playing instruments, does “let them pray over him” in verse 14 exclude Christians from going to the doctor? Does “let them pray over him” indicate that if a Christian goes to a doctor they “transgress the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9) by “adding to” the word of God (Revelation 22:18)? Again, I’m sure Thomas will say it does not. Well, if “let him pray” (James 5:13a) doesn’t exclude seeking counseling and “let them pray over him” (James 5:14) doesn’t exclude going to doctors, then how in the world can someone say that “let him sing psalms” (James 5:13b) excludes musical instruments? That doctrine is as inconsistent as can be!

 

          A major error to all this is when Thomas says “God specified singing” as if God breathed the English Bible. “Sing,” “sing praise,” and “sing psalms” are all English translations from the original. So, what needs to be determined is, did the English translators mean to express that musical instruments were excluded by their translations of “sing praise” or “sing psalms”? Young’s Literal Translation of James 5:13 states “let him sing psalms.” Thomas would want you to believe that because Dr. Young translated this “sing psalms” that this excludes musical instruments, but this absolutely is not the case! Dr. Young in his Analytical Concordance to the Bible, p. 893 defined “sing psalms” as “to sing praise with a musical instrument.” So, again we see that “sing psalms” does not exclude musical instruments, in fact to the English translator “sing psalms” included the idea of musical instruments!

 

          One thing that Thomas has overlooked in his assessment of NT worship is that Christians are encouraged to “admonish one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Colossians 3:16/Ephesians 5:19). What is a psalm? Joseph Thayer (p. 675), who was a translator of the ASV, defined a “psalm” as:

 

“a striking, twanging; spec. a striking the chords of a musical instrument; hence a pious song, a psalm, Eph. v.19; Col. iii.16.”

 

J.B. Lightfoot, another translator of the ASV, in Epistle to Colossians, p. 233 said:

 

“… the leading idea of psalmos is a musical accompaniment…”

 

Richard Trench (another ASV translator), Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 285 stated that a “psalm” was a “song sung with this musical accompaniment.” Three different translators of the ASV all defined a “psalm” a “song with musical accompaniment!” The translators of the American Standard Version understood Colossians 3:16, “admonish one another in psalms” as being a reference to playing musical instruments! When Paul instructed Christians to admonish one another in PSALMS, a psalm is a “song sung to musical accompaniment.” That is Biblical authority for musical instruments in NT worship!

 

          The first converts in Ephesus were Jews (Acts 19:1-6). Those Jewish converts would understand the term “psalm” by its normal usage from the OT (LXX). Consider Thomas’ illustration of Communion. Thomas indicated that “bread” and “fruit of the vine” are authorized in the Lord’s Supper, but roast lamb is not. Apparently Thomas understands that the NT authority of “bread” and “fruit of the vine” is based upon what was previously established in the OT Passover. Not just any bread will do for Communion. You cannot eat Wonder Bread or Mrs. Baird’s and scripturally observe Communion! The type of bread authorized for Communion is what was previously established in the OT as unleavened bread (Exodus 12:8)! The same is true with “fruit of the vine.” You cannot take tomato juice or blueberry juice just because they grow on a vine! Rather “blood” and “fruit of the vine” are terms previously established in the OT in reference to the pure (fermented) “blood of the grapes” (Deuteronomy 32:14; Isaiah 32:12 LXX)!

 

          When we take Thomas’ advice and “apply the same principle to music in worship” we find that Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 authorize “psalms” in NT worship, yet the meaning of “psalms” was already established in the OT (LXX) as a “song sung to musical accompaniment” (Job 21:12; Psalm 71:22; Amos 5:23).

 

 

We see from a passage such as 1 Corinthians 14:26 that when early Christians “came together” as an assembly that “psalms” i.e. “a song sung to musical accompaniment” were in ordinary use. Thus we see that Thomas is absolutely wrong in his claim that “the New Testament … nowhere authorizes us to use ‘mechanical instruments of music in New Testament worship’” or that First Century Christians “did not practice it.” Musical instruments in worship are authorized by the Scriptures and were in fact used by First Century Christians.

 

          The height of Thomas’ error is when he claimed that “Singing is the Only Kind of Music God has Authorized in N.T. Worship!” and dared to list Ephesians 5:19! Ephesians 5:19 (NIV) states “…Sing AND make music in your heart to the Lord.” “Sing” is not the ONLY action authorized in Ephesians 5:19! Both “sing” AND “make music” are authorized! “Sing” AND “make music” are TWO actions, not one! Thomas has already conceded that “make music” authorizes musical instruments!

 

“If God had only said, ‘Make music [generic] in NT worship,’ then a piano, organ, or guitar would have been included in the generic command.” (p. 4-5)

 

“Make music” is exactly what Ephesians 5:19 says! Thomas has acknowledged that “make music” includes playing a piano, organ or guitar! That’s NT authority for musical instruments in worship!

 

          In the remaining space, I too want to emphasize the importance of this discussion. The warning against “adding to” the word of God also warns against “taking away” from the word (Revelation 22:19). Those who “excluded” Christians from eating certain meats that God had authorized were labeled as teaching “doctrines of devils” (1Timothy 4:1-3). Anyone who excludes something that was authorized by the apostles (in this case musical instruments) does not truly serve the Lord Jesus (Romans 16:17-18). We must “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). I look forward to Thomas’ response.