Gnosticism and the Forbidding of Musical Instruments in Worship

Does worship in the Hebrew Bible include musical instruments? Check. These mainly include membranophones like various hand drums and tambourines (e.g., Exod 15:20-21), idiophones like cymbals and bells (e.g., 2 Sam 6:5; 1 Chron 15:16; Exod 28:33-34), chordophones like lyres and harps (e.g., Ps 68:25; 81:2; 149:3; 2 Chron 20:28), and aerophones like various kinds of reed-pipes/flutes, horns, and trumpets (e.g., Isa 30:9; 1 Kings 1:40; 1 Chron 15:28; 2 Chron 5:12-13). Instruments are a major part of the worship of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Psalm 150, the last Psalm positioned as the response to the entire book of worship commands with multiple imperatives,

"Praise the LORD! 

Praise God in His sanctuary; 

Praise Him in His mighty expanse. 

Praise Him for His mighty deeds; 

Praise Him according to His excellent greatness. 

Praise Him with trumpet sound; 

Praise Him with harp and lyre. 

Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; 

Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. 

Praise Him with loud cymbals; 

Praise Him with resounding cymbals. 

Let everything that has breath praise the LORD. 

Praise the LORD!" 

The congregation assembled to see the ark brought up and worshiped God as follows:

"So all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, to the sound of the horn, atrumpets, and cymbals, and made loud music on bharps and lyres" (1 Chron 15:28; also see 13:8).

"When the priests came forth from the holy place (for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves, without regard to divisions), and all the Levitical singers, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and kinsmen, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps and lyres, standing east of the altar, and with them one hundred and twenty priests blowing trumpets in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one voice to praise and to glorify the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice accompanied by trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and when they praised the LORD saying, “He indeed is good for His lovingkindness is everlasting,” then the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God (1 Chron 5:11-14).

The theology of worship given to us in the Hebrew Bible is that when the congregation is in the presence of God, which is what the ark represents, singing and instruments (and dancing) are used in the celebration of His presence.

Are instruments used by the angels and God's people in heaven? Check.

In worship of the Lord Jesus Christ in heaven, the angels and men worship Him with instruments. 

"And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (Rev 5:6-10)

Notice that they sung to Him a new song, not a Psalm either. 

So, in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament depiction of heaven, those who are assembled in God's presence respond to His presence in the joy of music, using psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, old and new, with all sorts of instruments made of metal, wood, animal hides, stringed and unstringed.

So why do some make the argument that the church when assembled in God's presence should not use them?

I would argue it is due to Gnostic assumptions. The first Gnostic assumption is that of the principle described in the NT as "do not taste, do not touch." Colossians 2:21 speaks of these teachers as those who strictly deny the use of certain objects in worship because they are considered worldly. Certain foods, certain items in the world that would be considered unclean, are forbidden by the Gnostic ascetics because what is spiritual should not incorporate that which is physically viewed as defiled. 

Some make the argument that because instruments were made by wicked men and used in the worship of their pagan worship, these instruments should not be incorporated into the worship of God.

They argue that this is confirmed from the fact that the New Testament never speaks of musical instruments being used in worship services. 

This brings me to the second Gnostic assumption: the argument for a radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testament. The New Testament actually doesn't describe a first century church service in detail at all. It just describes the essential components of a church assembly (i.e., the teaching of the Word/the apostles, the fellowship of the saints, and the taking care of the poor). We're never told of how the church is conducted beyond this because we already have sufficient pictures of worship in the Old Testament. I liken this to morality. We don't have any new morality given to us in the New Testament. It simply emphasizes that the morality that we are taught in the Old Testament needs to be thought of within the framework of love of God and neighbor and applied in a more consistent manner than was tolerated by God in the Old Testament. But the moral principles are the same. I would argue that the pictures of worship we are given in the Old Testament communicate principles that are also the same. One of those principles is that every created thing can be used to worship God because all of creation should worship God and this includes forming created things into instruments for use in the worship of God by his assembly.

But the Gnostic tendency is to see creation as corrupt and therefore only the created things that God tolerates can be used to worship Him. Everything else is too unclean to use in the presence of God and this is proven by the fact that pagans use them in their false worship. Instruments are worldly. Voices are invisible. Voices are spirit and therefore spiritual. Hence, only voices should be used. 

I'm sure those who argue this way would not like the Gnostic label applied to them but this appeal to the regulative principle is misguided. The regulative principle has to do with not just what is explicitly referenced within the New Testament but rather what is explicitly and by good and necessary consequence referenced in the entire Bible as fit for the assembly to use in worship of God in His presence.

Hence, arguing that musical instruments get in the way of worship and that the New Testament tells us to use our voices, and this somehow means that we are only to use our voices, is negated by the use of instruments both throughout biblical worship here on earth and in heaven. All other pragmatic arguments should give way to the fact that we are commanded in the Psalms, the Word of God, to use instruments in our praise of God. 

The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace: Speaking in Terms that Relate to the Biblical World Rather Than Our Own

I'm trying to work through the biblical covenants using the frameworks of the biblical world instead of just the theological categories and definitions we have inherited. This post is my thinking out loud. I'm wanting to think more about how the new covenant fits into everything below, so I may refine these things at some point but here is where I am today.

There has been a massive debate raging for quite some time within Reformed circles concerning the nature of the covenants in the Bible. Some argue that there is a covenant of works and a covenant of grace but differ about where they appear in redemptive history. Others argue that there is no covenant of works but only a covenant of grace that is seen throughout Scripture. What I want to argue here is that much of the dispute is occurring due to theologians defining the nature of covenants apart from the biblical cultural and literary context.

But before we go there, let's list the places where covenants may or may not appear in the Bible.

1. The Adamic Covenant

2. The Noahic Covenant

3. The Abrahamic Covenant

4. The Mosaic Covenant

5. The Davidic Covenant

6. The New Covenant

I did not mention here the covenant of redemption, as this is not a genuine biblical covenant, as it is not founded upon the same principles. I would likely refer to what is typically called the covenant of redemption as a pact just to differentiate it in the terminology. I also don't divide up some of these covenants into sub-covenants or completely different covenants as some do because I simply think it's unnecessary and even incorrect to do so.

Here is what I would say about biblical covenants. They are familial covenants. By "familial covenant" I mean that they are covenants where one party is connected to another party by becoming a part of the first party's family. This is usually through adoption if one is not already a part of the family organically. Family members have particular obligations to one another in the ancient Near Eastern and biblical world. Fathers must protect and provide for their families. Sons must work to contribute to their fathers' families and interests rather than simply their own. Once a part of the family, via covenant, therefore, familial obligations kick in. The "father" in the family must provide for and protect the "son" in the family from chaotic forces. The "son" in the family has obligations to give himself as a contributor to the father's family as evidence that he is in that father's family. 

In this regard, the biblical covenants are framed along the lines of the suzerain-vassal treaty, which is where the stronger party agrees to protect the weaker party if the weaker party will show his allegiance to the stronger party by paying tribute in order to build up the stronger party's kingdom. His works display that he is a part of that kingdom. To not pay the tribute is to remove oneself from the covenant and its benefits. Likewise, if the stronger party attacks the weaker party it is a sign that the stronger party no longer considers the weaker party to be part of his family.

Some people argue that some of the covenants, at least, are grant covenants, where a stronger party, like a king, simply grants rights or gifts to a weaker party without requiring the weaker party to become a part of his family and pay tribute, which would be more of a universalist view. Some might argue that grant covenants function as adoptions into the family without conditions, which would be more of an antinomian view, but I would argue that this is not true of any biblical covenant, as God requires everyone in these covenants above to obey Him and be a part of His family in order to receive the benefits, i.e., the promises of the covenants. Law is a part of all of them.

In this regard, all covenants that are founded upon the structure of the suzerain-vassal treaty, which I would argue describe all of these covenants above, are conditional covenants, and therefore, all are the covenant of works. This includes the new covenant, which requires the evidence of works to show that one is a part of God's family, has God as Father, and therefore, is protected and provided for by God as the One who thwarts chaos from His sons. (The key difference with the new covenant is stated below.)

The problem is that the Bible also teaches that no one is faithful to these covenants, starting with Adam forward. Adam breaks it. Humanity in the Noahic covenant breaks that. Israel within the Abrahamic covenant that is expanded into the Mosaic covenant breaks that. The kings in David's line break the Davidic covenant. 

This is where the Lord Jesus Christ comes in. Instead of entering into covenants that require the tribute of hundreds of laws in order to display our familial allegiance with God, Christ fulfills all of those requirements for us. He pays the penalty for our transgressions when we should have given our allegiance and he fulfills all of the requirements of allegiance to God on our behalf. Christ, then, fulfills the covenant of works for us. But how does He do this?

He does this via federal headship. Federal headship is essentially where a stronger party is considered one entity with the weaker party so that the lot of the stronger party is the lot of the weaker. In other words, he does so through another type of suzerain-vassal treaty, one that is more organically familial than artificial, one that is more internally connected/united to the suzerain than externally. The key difference here is that this treaty only has one condition, one must have Christ as his Lord. Even though one's obedience to Christ displays that Christ is his Lord, forgiveness of disobedience to the suzerain stems from the very relationship one has with the suzerain Himself. In other words, the suzerain himself has protected the vassal from the wrath of the suzerain himself by paying the price of that wrath and fulfilling the obligations of the covenant Himself. So, although, at first, this may seem like the same thing as the previous covenant of works, it isn't. Because Christ has died to pay the penalties for any lack of allegiance displayed in our disobedient works, any show of disobedience, if confessed in repentance, is wiped away, and God does not see us as breaking the covenant so as to remove Himself from His obligations to us within the covenant. Furthermore, all obedience required has been given to God by Christ, and therefore, any lack in our allegiance has been achieved by Christ.

The only way to break this covenant is to refuse to repent. If one refuses to repent, then he shows that Christ is not his Lord, and therefore, the blood of Christ is not applied to his sins, and God therefore is not his Father. God has no obligations to this person to protect and provide for him because Christ is not his Lord and therefore the covenant he is left with is the covenant of works that has been broken by his sin. Having no protector/father stronger than chaos, he is then given over to the forces of chaos that will destroy him.

This federal headship relationship with Christ is rightly called a covenant of grace, not because works are not required to be a display of his allegiance to God but because the person in this covenant is covered by the favor of Christ that the Lord Jesus obtained from God so as to always be received into the family of God even when he fails to have the perfect allegiance he needs to remain within the family of God. This is why the church does not excommunicate a person for any sin except the sin of refusing to repent of sin. The only damnable sin that breaks this covenant, from a human perspective, is apostasy. As long as repentance is present, no sin can damn the person who is unified with Christ in this federal relationship.

In this regard, all covenants of works in the Bible are intermingled with the covenant of grace. There is law that curses and blesses, depending upon whether the person obeys it; but there is also grace that promises through the Messiah that the law is fulfilled so that blessing, and not curse, will be the lot of the one who is united to Christ. 

This informs us of the nature of the Christian life. Christ is our means of fulfilling the covenant of works that is over all of mankind. The Christian life, therefore, is a life of faith/allegiance to Christ as the means of unification to Him, and therefore, of our justification in the assessment of the covenant of works. Any works the Christian performs, and they should be in abundance, is evidence of our faith/allegiance to Christ, not the basis of the justification that we have in Christ (whether one wants to divide justification up as initial justification and final justification or not). Hence, works have no merit to keep us in the covenant with God nor to declare us as keepers of the covenant. They are simply evidences that Christ is our Lord, which is what actually keeps us in the covenant of grace and allows God to declare us as keepers of the covenant of works, truly adopted sons into the family of God and recipients of all of His blessings, provisions and protections.

This means the Christian life is a life of works that stem from our relationship with Christ as our Lord, and they are necessary in that they evidence our true relationship with Christ by confirming or denying our confession. But works are not merely the perfection of doing good but also the continual act of repentance in order to be acquitted of any claim that the covenant of works has gone unfulfilled by the individual and that his allegiance with God as his suzerain has been broken. The Christian life, then, is a life filled with good works and confession of sin that evidence one's right to receive the benefits of the covenant. 

[Side note: By "keep" the covenant, I speak from the human perspective, as many verses would argue that one who does not keep his allegiance to Christ as his Lord from the perspective of the visible church, from the divine view of things, was never "of us" (1 John and was never (lit. "at no time") known by Christ (Matt 7). His refusal to repent simply displayed that he was always under the condemnation of the covenant of works without the provisions of Christ.]

Federal Visionists and the Fundamentalist Cult of the "Truly Reformed"

 https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/the-federal-vision-and-reformed-theology/

Barbie Dreams

 Kill Your Baby, Get a Dream House

1 Corinthians 10:1-6 and It's Implications for Paedocommunion

10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.

It's clear that Paul wanted to teach here that going through the sea and eating the manna and drinking the water from the rock in the wilderness are the exodus' prefiguration of baptism and communion. 

Chrysostom noted, 

Just as the gifts are symbolic, so are the punishments symbolic. Baptism and holy Communion were prefigured in prophecy. In the same way the certainty of punishment for those who are unworthy of this gift was proclaimed beforehand for our sake, so that we might learn from these examples how we must watch our step (Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians 23.4).

Likewise, Ambrosiaster commented, "The manna and the water which flowed from the rock are called spiritual because they were formed not according to the law of nature but by the power of God working independently of the natural elements. They were created for a time as figures of what we now eat and drink in remembrance of Christ the Lord (COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES).

Origen argued that "These things were written as examples for us, so that when we read about their sins we shall know to avoid them (COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 4.46).

There are two major questions to answer here. The first is who partook in baptism and communion in the exodus according to this text? And the second is, How can one avoid the punishments of those who partook of these things in the wilderness?

The answer to the first is undoubtedly, "Everyone." All the men, all the women, and all the children went through the sea. All the men, all the women, and all the children ate of the manna and drank the water in one way or another. They were all partakers in it. 

This leads to the the answer of the second question. Paul says that the rebellion of the Israelites, not the partaking of the sacraments, caused God to bring wrath upon them in the wilderness and kill them. The answer was not that God's wrath was upon them because they partook of what was holy. They were supposed to do that. All of them. The problem is that they partook of what was holy and then rebelled.

Now, who rebelled? The children? One of the groups mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10 is the group that grumbled and were destroyed by the Destroyer, i.e., Satan. 

One of the groups that grumbled and rejected Moses' authority was the group of which Korah was the federal head. In fact, he was the one who led the rebellion. The text says that he and all of his household went down alive into the pit, his wife, his children, his cattle, his tent, and his infants. Yes, his infants. Why did his infants go down? Because they partook in communion? Nope. They would have survived on into the Promised Land had Korah not rebelled. So it was Korah's rebellion that landed his infants in that pit under the wrath of God. 

This then tells us that the answer is not to withdraw our households from the sacraments and what is holy but rather to be fully aware as federal heads that if we partake in what is holy and continue in sin, we place our households in grave danger. 

To withdraw from holy things in case we might sin is evil. We are commanded to partake in them. Hence, whether we have our children partake or not, they are partaking of what is holy through us either way and the remedy is not to act like they aren't partaking in them but rather to make sure that we, as the federal heads of our households, are not partaking in what is holy while indulging in the rebellion of the world at the same time. 

Don't save your children, therefore, by acting like they have no place at Christ's Table, but rather by following God through the wilderness rather than the devil, for if you are a Christian that is the only way to save them now, i.e., going all in rather than half in.

The Davidic Promise: Three Options for Jewish Interpreters

 The promise that God gave to David, that he would always have a descendent of David upon the throne, is a sticking point for Jewish theology because the throne of David was physically destroyed when the Romans leveled Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and then squashed the hopes of regaining the territory when the Bar Kokhba Revolt was finally put down in A.D. 136. 

The promise first appears in 2 Samuel 7.

12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’ ”

There are, as far as I can tell, only three ways to interpret this promise.

1. It's a false prophecy. The Bible is not really the Word of God and this is just a prophecy that was given to encourage an exiled people but it utterly failed in the end as the Jews were without a king as soon as Nebuchadnezzar destroyed what remained of the city in 587/86 BC. The monarchy was officially destroyed and never restored.

2. The promise is contingent upon Israel's obedience and since they are not obedient, the promise is never fulfilled. 2 Chronicles 6:16-17 seems to suggest this, and it is what some Jewish interpreters might point to in order to make sense of the problem.

16 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father what you have promised him, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk in my law as you have walked before me.’ 17 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you have spoken to your servant David. 

3. As containing both contingent and non-contingent elements to it. The contingent elements are not fulfilled and never can be since God already did not have a Davidic king on the throne since the time of the Babylonian Exile. The non-contingent element must be fulfilled.

The problem is that the original command seems to have both elements in it. It seems to be both contingent upon Israel's obedience and a promise that will be fulfilled by God so that the promise is not contingent upon Israel's obedience. In fact, in the midst of Israel's disobedience, God restates the promise in Jeremiah 33 as follows.

14 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’ 17 “For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.” 19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.” 23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 24 “Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. 25 Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, 26 then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.” 

In other words, the covenant is not contingent upon Israel's obedience, since God has said that His promise to David here is unbreakable. What are we to make of this? Chronicles seems to suggest that it is contingent and Jeremiah seems to suggest that it is not, but has two different promises in it. But notice also that there seem to be two promises here rather than just one. The first seems to suggest that the throne will be filled with succession after succession of David's offspring. This promise extends to the Levitical priests always having offspring to minister as well. The second promise that is parallel, however, refers only to "one of his offspring" to rule. Now, this could simply mean that one of his offspring will be chosen successively, but again, we know that this did not happen. So we are left with two options here. Either the promise is contingent on Israel's obedience and they were not obedient, and haven't been for the past 2500 years, or the promise has an aspect that is both contingent upon the people's obedience and not contingent at the same time. In other words, Israel will always have a Davidic king on the throne from the time of David into eternity (as long as the Hebrew word is understood to mean that) as a reward for their obedience, but if they disobey, God will still bring about His promise to David, but through the singular Messiah who will reign forever.  

The Jewish interpretation must now see that the contingent aspect of the promise is over. God did not continually place a descendant of David upon the throne. In fact, in the Jewish system, God never put another descendant of David upon the throne after He gave this promise in Jeremiah. Foreign kings, governors, high priests, and the Herods ruled over the throne, but never a Davidic king again. 

According to the New Testament, however, He did choose one to rule over Israel and when rejected as their king, He expanded Israel to include anyone within the entirety of the world who would receive Him as their king. Christ reigns over Israel, the throne of David, and has for the past 2000 years. He is the offshoot of Jesse, the branch of David. God has fulfilled His promise by establishing Him over the throne of David and has fulfilled His promise to expand David's throne to the ends of the earth (Zech 2:11-12; 9:10).

Why the Children of Every Communicant Christian in Every Christian Denomination Is Baptized and Partaking in Communion

 I have often said that I have no need to convince anyone to allow their children to partake in either baptism or communion since I believe in federal headship. My only purpose of teaching that they should is to be consistent with what is already happening and to stop the unnecessary vitriol and division that often occurs around these issues. But make no mistake, every child of every Christian for all time has, is, and will always partake in whatever their parents partake in, and that includes baptism and communion. Every child is baptized with his parent. Every child eats the bread and drinks the wine if his parent does. Every child is holy to the Lord if his parent is. Every child is a Christian if his parent is. Every. Single. One.

All of the Baptists, all of the Presbyterians, everyone is causing their children to partake in baptism and communion to the degree that they do. If federal headship is true then anyone who condemns these practices condemns themselves, for all are doing it whether they realize it or not. By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned. 

So you cannot avoid any harm to your little ones by barring them from the table or keeping them from baptism unless you yourself do not partake in those, but then you would fall under the warning of Christ, "Unless you eat of the Son of Man's flesh and drink his blood, you will have no life in yourselves" (John 6:53). If you do partake, therefore, which you must do so as a Christian, then your entire household is in danger if not taken in a worthy manner. It cannot be avoided except to take it in a worthy manner, i.e., not hoarding it. that seeks to love other Christians by allowing them to partake in it as well. And if all already are partakers in these sacraments then we ought to all be consistent in communicating that truth by allowing them to visibly partake in it with us whenever they can.