Weatherly’s Second Negative
After restating his position Thomas stated:
“Every open-minded person knows
that ‘singing’ is not ‘playing’ on a
mechanical instrument.”
Thomas’ statement does not even begin to answer, or
represent the rebuttal that I made. No one is saying that “singing” IS playing. The rebuttal was that the
term “sing” does not EXCLUDE “playing,”
as I showed by the definition of “sing.” No “open-minded” person would think it strange for a person to say,
“I’m going to ‘sing’ you a song,” and
then play the guitar while they sang.
I pointed out
that what excludes musical instruments from “sing” is the term “a cappella.”
Thomas responded to this by saying:
“The term a cappella comes from the Latin … and means ‘in the manner of the
church.’ The classical form of church music was unaccompanied singing.”
Notice that in order for Thomas to explain “a cappella,” he
didn’t just say that the music was “singing.”
Rather, Thomas stated it was “unaccompanied
singing!” Even Thomas understands that “singing”
does not exclude musical instruments, and thus he had to qualify it as “unaccompanied.” If “singing” already
excludes musical instruments, then WHY
did Thomas have to qualify it as “unaccompanied?”
Thomas did not give the full story on the word “a cappella.” According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“The a cappella style arose about
the time of the composer Josquin dez Prez, in the late 15th century
… in the music he wrote for the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican. Because no
independent instrumental musical parts were written, later scholars assumed that the choir sang
unaccompanied, but the evidence is now that an organ or other instruments exactly
‘doubled’ some or several of the vocal parts.” (www.britannica.com)
The origin of “a cappella” indicates that the music “in the manner of the church” was ACCOMPANIED music, not unaccompanied! It
was only through misunderstanding that “a cappella” came to mean “unaccompanied
singing.” Again, “a cappella” and “unaccompanied” are found nowhere in the Bible. Thomas must insert
this into the text!
Thomas
totally overlooked the point I made from 1 Samuel 18:6-7 and Revelation 5:8-9,
etc. I understand that “instruments of musick” are mentioned, but this action
is described by the word “SING” (1
Samuel 21:11). Achish did not say, “Did they not ‘sing and play’…?” He
simply said, “SING!” According to
Thomas “sing” should have excluded the playing of musical instruments, but that
was not the case. “Sing” INCLUDED
the playing of those musical instruments! The same is true in Revelation where
they were holding harps, and the Bible says they “SING;” not “sing and play.” “Sing”
included the playing of musical instruments. Understand my argument here is on
the word usage of “sing,” not that harps “will be in heaven” as Thomas has
argued against. Although, there are commentators (Meyer) that understand “Mt.
Zion” (Revelation 14:1) as being the church (Hebrews 12:22) not heaven; but
again, that’s not even my argument.
Thomas
responded to my comments on James 5:13 by saying that NT worship may be
individual worship, but this does not answer the argument. James 5:13 is
dealing with the Christian life. If James 5:13 excludes musical instruments,
then it would exclude them from the Christian’s life, not just “individual
worship.” This would mean that not only couldn’t a Christian sing “Amazing
Grace” with a piano in the privacy of his home, he also could not play the
trumpet in the school band! Thomas DID
NOT tell us what else James 5:13 excluded! If a Christian is happy, does
James 5:13 exclude them from whistling or leaping (Luke 6:23)?
Thomas then
referred to my argument of whether James 5:14 excluded Christians from seeing
doctors as “weak.” If my argument was “weak,” his rebuttal was even weaker! I
agree that James 5:14 does not exclude Christians from seeing doctors, but not
because of Matthew 9:12, etc. “Physician”
in these passages is being used metaphorically in response to why Jesus ate
with sinners. If Thomas believes that Matthew 9:12 is authority to see a
doctor, then by the same token one could say Luke 15:25 is authority for
instrumental music and dancing in the Father’s house. If “let him pray” (James 5:13a) does not exclude counseling, and “let them pray over him” (James 5:14)
does not exclude doctors, then how can anyone claim that “let him sing psalms” (James 5:13b) excludes musical instruments?
That is as inconsistent as can be!
Thomas again
referred to his “gopher wood” argument, and stated that it doesn’t matter what
species of wood “gopher wood” is. Thomas missed the point. Terms like “pine,”
“cedar,” “oak” ARE NOT specific
terms! The Septuagint implies that “gopher wood” was not even a species, but referred to “four-cornered wood.” We
call this “squared-four-sides” (S4S), and can be ANY species of wood! It’s an incredibly weak illustration to try to
prove that “sing” is specific and excludes musical instruments. I have illustrated
from Exodus 15:20-21, 1 Samuel 21:11, and Revelation 15:3, “sing” is generic
and INCLUDED the playing of musical
instruments!
Thomas then
responded to my argument that the NT authorizes “psalms” i.e. “a song sung to musical accompaniment” by saying they
sang a psalm without musical accompaniment at a debate. Thomas might think he sang a “psalm” at that debate, but if there was no “musical accompaniment” he
no more sang a “psalm” than a
Presbyterian who sprinkles “baptized” a convert! What you think you did is in violation of the definition of the word! Thomas
went on to say:
“Furthermore, according to the NT a
mechanical instrument certainly is not required by the word psalm. Ephesians 5:19 states: “Speaking
to yourselves in psalms…”
Thomas implies that the participle “speaking” indicates that the noun “psalms” was something that was “vocal only.” Participles DO NOT determine the definition of nouns!
There is NO grammarian that will
back this up! “Speaking” no more
indicates that “psalms” are “vocal
only,” than “preaching” (Luke 3:3)
indicates that “baptism” was “verbal
only!” Also laleo (“speaking”) is not
limited to the human voice. Both Thayer and Eadie indicated that laleo was used in reference to animals
and musical instruments.
I presented the
testimony of three ASV translators (Thayer, Lightfoot, Trench) that “psalms” are “songs sung to musical
accompaniment.” Thomas responded to this by saying:
“However, he makes a serious error
by assuming that a word retains
exactly the same meaning throughout its entire history … That’s why we must
distinguish Classical Greek lexicons from NT Greek lexicons, which Jason has
failed to do.”
I DID NOT refer
to a “Classical Greek lexicon!” I gave the testimony of three NT translators!
Each of these men gave us the meaning of “psalms”
as used in the NT, and stated that a
“psalm” was a “song sung to musical accompaniment.”
The real
error here is Thomas’ handling of the lexicons. Instead of concentration on
Thayer’s definition of “psalmos”,
Thomas jumped over to “psallo”
thinking that Thayer indicated a contrast or change in the meaning of the word.
What Thomas wants Thayer’s lexicon to
say is this:
“[use to mean] to twang the strings of a musical instrument … [but] in the N.T. [means] to sing a hymn [unaccompanied]…”
There are a lot things Thomas must interpolate into Thayer’s
definition for it to state what he thinks it means. “In the N.T.” DOES NOT indicate a change in meaning
in the word “psallo.” When Thayer
indicated a change in meaning in a word, he did so by separating the meaning in
numerical order i.e. 1, 2, 3 (see “telos”
for an example of this). There is no numerical separation in the definition of
“psallo!” All of it goes together.
So, when Thayer said, “in the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of
God in song” that goes right along with all the things he said previously about
playing a musical instrument.
Thomas went
on to say:
“Other lexicons that define psallo in the NT as sing rather
than play upon mechanical instruments:” (bold emphasis mine JLW)
But NONE of the
lexicons cited stated “rather than play
upon mechanical instruments!” That is something Thomas must insert into the definition! “Sing praise” DOES NOT exclude musical instruments. Dr. Young translated “psallo” as “sing praise” (Romans 15:9 YLT), but he defined “psallo” as “to sing praise with a musical
instrument.” F.W. Gingrich (Shorter Lexicon) simply defined “psallo” as “sing, sing praise,” but
he by no means meant “unaccompanied singing” because he argued AGAINST the Gospel Advocate:
“It seems to me that you CANNOT EXCLUDE the possibility of
accompaniment in the New Testament passages, since psallo still means ‘play
on a harp’ in Lucian, who wrote in the second century A.D.” (Bales, Instrumental Music, pp. 115-116)
Abbott-Smith was once questioned concerning his and Thayer’s
definition of “psallo,” and he
replied:
“I am sure that Thayer, like myself, does no more than
group the New Testament passages together. If he meant to say that the idea of
instrumental music was excluded, he surely ought to have plainly said so.”
(Clubb, Boles, Is Instrumental Music
Scriptural, 1927, p. 36)
The problem is Thomas reads these lexicons with jaundiced
eyes, and does not take the total definition given by the lexicographers. Also,
I’m not sure which “Robinson” lexicon Thomas quoted, but Edward Robinson’s
lexicon defines “psallo” as:
“In Septuagint and N.T. to sing, to chant, properly as
accompanying stringed instruments.”
And that’s the “New Testament” meaning of “psallo,” not the “Classical!” In
answering my argument concerning “psalms”
why didn’t Thomas give us his lexicographers’ definitions of “psalmos?” Abbott-Smith defined “psalmos” as:
“A sacred song sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm
(LXX): 1 Cor 14:26, Eph 5:19, Col 3:16”
So the lexicon Thomas appealed to affirms that “psalms” are songs “sung to musical accompaniment” and even
cited 1 Corinthians 14:26, which shows that musical instruments were used in
N.T. worship!
It’s
interesting that Thomas skipped right over my rebuttal of his Lord’s Supper
argument. I took Thomas’ advice and applied the same principle he used for the
bread and wine and showed based upon established O.T. meaning that “psalms” are “songs sung to musical accompaniment.” Thomas may
not roast a lamb, but sure observed the Passover on that rebuttal!
Finally,
Thomas made the statement:
“I was disappointed that Jason,
referring to Ephesians 5:19, asserted
that ‘make music authorizes musical instruments’.”
Thomas, YOU are
the one who said,
“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.”
Ephesians 5:19 DOES
say, “make music,” and YOU asserted this would include a
piano, organ, or guitar! So, Thomas if you’re disappointed; be disappointed in
yourself for affirming that “make music”
(which is what Ephesians 5:19 says) includes a piano, organ or guitar! Thomas
tried to cover this by saying:
“We are doing it ‘in our hearts,’ not on a mechanical instrument
of music!”
David praised God “in his heart” (Psalm 9:1; 57:7; 111:1;
138:1), time and time again WITH
musical instruments (Psalm 33:2; 57:8; 71:22)! So, “in your heart” does not indicate “not on musical instruments.” “In your heart” (Ephesians 5:19) modifies
BOTH “sing” and “make music.” So
if the “heart” is the “instrument,”
it is the “instrument” for BOTH “singing” and “making music!” Colossians
3:16 literally says, “singing in your heart” (Interlinear, YLT).
If “in your heart” describes
something that is inward and silent, then “singing
in your heart,” would also have to be inward and silent! That would mean no
verbal singing in church! The truth is, “in
your heart” is a Biblical idiom meaning, “sincerely, heartily.”
Moffatt Translation (Ephesians 5:19),
“… praise the Lord heartily with
words and music.”
Thayer p. 325, “of things done from the heart i.e. cordially
or sincerely, truly”
That is, when Christians “sing” and “make music” (which
Thomas admits includes a piano, organ, or guitar); it is to be “in your heart”
that is “heartily” or “sincerely.”
Please give attention to Thomas’ response. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment