Music instruments in the church?

[for_his_glory]

Psalms 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
Psalms 150:2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
Psalms 150:3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
Psalms 150:4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
Psalms 150:5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
Psalms 150:6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

Where has the word of God changed?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Psalms 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
Psalms 150:2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
Psalms 150:3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
Psalms 150:4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
Psalms 150:5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
Psalms 150:6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

Where has the word of God changed?

Christ took away the OT law (Col 2:14) replacing it with His NT law making a change in law (Heb 7:12). Justification, authorization for IM and Christmas/Easter must be found within the NT. One cannot go back to the OT law for that justification/authorization (Rom 7:8-9)..one cannot go to another religion (as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism) to determine how NT Christians are to worship. Just because David (who was not a Christian but a Jew under a different religion) did some thing does not mean it was approved by God nor acceptable for NT Christians. David was a polygamists, so that makes it alright for Christians to practice polygamy? (Some Mormon groups would like that.) Psalms 109, 139 David hated his enemies, he prayed they be destoyed, he prayed " let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin." This does not agree with what Christ said in Matt 5:44.

Commentary on Psalms 109:
THE MOST TERRIBLE PSALM IN THE WHOLE PSALTER

We do not intend the title we have given this psalm to be disrespectful or critical. It is only that the bitter imprecations of this psalm appear to us as wholly antithetical to the true spirit of Christianity.

There was certainly a glimpse of this same bitter spirit that appeared in the lives of two of the blessed apostles, namely, "The Sons of Thunder," that is, "Boanerges" (Mark 3:17). These, of course, were James and John the sons of Zebedee.

The glimpse referred to is recorded in Luke 9:52ff. The apostles went before Jesus into a village of the Samaritans to prepare the way for Jesus, but the Samaritans did not receive him. James and John immediately asked, "Lord wilt thou that we bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" However, Jesus turned and rebuked them, and said, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:55,56 KJV). In the light of what Jesus said on that occasion, we cannot believe that our Lord would have concurred in the bitter imprecations of this psalm.

As Addis said, "These are further from the spirit of Christianity than anything else in the whole Psalter."Cross Reference

W. E. Addis, p. 391.
Kidner cautioned us that, "These things are written for our learning, not for our imitation."Cross Reference
Derek Kidner, Vol. II, p. 389.

All kinds of devices have been proposed by which scholars attempt to soften the bitterness of these words. We shall enumerate some of these, none of which appear to us as acceptable interpretations: (a) Rhodes understood the "enemies of the psalmist" to be the speakers in Psalms 109:21-31, not the psalmist.Cross Reference

The Layman's Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, p. 151.
[3] Jones speaks of those who consider the psalm a prophetic depiction of the maledictions heaped upon Christ by his enemies, and (c) of those who attribute the imprecations as the words of Christ, instead of the words of David.Cross Reference
Wilson Jones, Vol. II, p. 270.

Chrysostom stated that, "The imprecations are a prophecy in the form of a curse."Cross Reference
Ibid.

"All such devices," as Maclaren said, "Are too obviously makeshifts. It is far better to recognize the discordance between the temper of the psalmist and that enjoined by Christ than to try to cover it over."Cross Reference

Alexander Maclaren, Vol. III, p. 174.
That there is indeed an impassable gulf between the spirit of the Old Testament and that of New Testament was categorically stated by Christ himself, touching on this very point of one's attitude toward his enemies.

"Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:43-45).

Again, simply because something was done in the OT does not mean it was approved by God nor acceptable for NT Christians to do.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I have Coffman's commentary and they are not much more than his collection of others commentaries sprinkled with his own bias. I do not consider his commentary authorative.
That being said, he imposes sins on Aaron's sons they did not commit. You cannot find within the biblical texts any specific examples of the sins Coffman accuses them of. You need to understand that as sons of Aaron, they were authorized to perform all of the duties Aaron was authorized. This brings us back to offering strange fire. What is strange fire? BTW, Coffman was partially right on this part, but probably not where you think.

Aaron had four sons, what else does Scripture say about these two sons? What is their character?

Edited ....

Lev 10:1 "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD."

Clearly Nadab and Abihu did some thing they were not authorized to do. They were not consumed by fire for no particular reason. Exactly what wrong they did is not the issue, as Coffman said "The many speculations about what their sin actually was are idle. All that they did here was SINFUL."

Therefore the issue is that whatever it was Nadab and Abihu did it was done by their own presumption and was sinful in not having God's authorization to do it.

So where is God's authorization for IM or Christmas/Easter? There is none, those things are done by presumptions of men changing what God has said, they are in the same sense offering a strange fire before God, offering what God has not authorized.

Once again, the fire is called strange for it had no authorization from God.

 

[stovebolts]

the issue is that whatever it was Nadab and Abihu did it was done by their own presumption and was sinful in not having God's authorization to do it.

First, Coffman does not understand what they did, so he falsely accused them. That's called bearing false witness and propogating those lies pulls us into the same sin. I would suggest you start your studies on the matter from the Bible. Do a search on these two sons of Aaron and see what scripture has to say about them. You see, Moses was forbidden to enter the promised land because he hit a rock and commanded water to come out of it when God told him to speak to the rock. Moses disobedience was taking God's glory because it was God who provided the water, not Moses. For those who have been given much, much is expected.

Let's take this principal to Aaron's sons. First, we see after this incident that a new law is implemented speaking of the Priests and alcohol. Within the narrative, it is safe to link this commandment with Aaron's sons and their behavior. Second, God's desire is that we worship in Spirit and truth. Like Moses disobeying God and thereby taking God's glory for himself, Aaron's sons, while intoxicated did the same. They sought to glorify themselves for the duties they were ascribed to. This is the meaning of strange ? as it was not given to glorify God, but rather, it was done to glorify those who disobeyed while intoxicated.

Can we tie this to modern day worship? Certainly, but it is not a matter of musical instruments. It remains an issue of those who lead worship. Are they seeking glory for their service or are they giving that glory to God.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

First, Coffman does not understand what they did, so he falsely accused them. That's called bearing false witness and propogating those lies pulls us into the same sin. I would suggest you start your studies on the matter from the Bible. Do a search on these two sons of Aaron and see what scripture has to say about them. You see, Moses was forbidden to enter the promised land because he hit a rock and commanded water to come out of it when God told him to speak to the rock. Moses disobedience was taking God's glory because it was God who provided the water, not Moses. For those who have been given much, much is expected.

Let's take this principal to Aaron's sons. First, we see after this incident that a new law is implemented speaking of the Priests and alcohol. Within the narrative, it is safe to link this commandment with Aaron's sons and their behavior. Second, God's desire is that we worship in Spirit and truth. Like Moses disobeying God and thereby taking God's glory for himself, Aaron's sons, while intoxicated did the same. They sought to glorify themselves for the duties they were ascribed to. This is the meaning of strange ? as it was not given to glorify God, but rather, it was done to glorify those who disobeyed while intoxicated.

Can we tie this to modern day worship? Certainly, but it is not a matter of musical instruments. It remains an issue of those who lead worship. Are they seeking glory for their service or are they giving that glory to God.

--Knowing the exact sins they committed is not the issue. It is clear they what they did was sin, transgressing God's law (1 Jn 3:4) in doing what the Lord commanded not.

--You have not proven Coffman to be wrong. You just gave me your opinion on the subject. Lev 1:9 "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:" From this verse one may suppose or assume drunkenness was the issue but one cannot prove 100% that was the issue with Aaron's sons. This would be like the people who assume there were 3 wise men since there were 3 gifts. That would be a reasonable assumption (supposition) but it remains an assumption.

The issue remains that some thing done by presumption is sinful, it is not doing as God authorized.


If you don't like what Coffman has to say, here is what Albert Barnes has to say:
"Strange fire - The point of their offence is evidently expressed in this term. This may very probably mean that the incense was lighted at an unauthorized time. And we may reasonably unite with this the supposition that they were intoxicated (compare Leviticus 10:9), as well as another conjecture, that they made their offering of incense an accompaniment to the exultation of the people on the manifestation of the glory of the Lord Leviticus 9:24. As they perished not within the tabernacle, but in front of it, it seems likely that they may have been making an ostentatious and irreverent display of their ministration to accompany the shouts of the people on their way toward the tabernacle. The offence for which they were immediately visited with outward punishment was thus a flagrant outrage on the solemn order of the divine service, while the cause of their offence may have been their guilty excess."

(Notice Barnes' use of the words 'may very probably', 'supposition', 'conjecture', 'seems' and 'may have been'.)


So whatever it was they did it was a "flagrant outrage on the solemn order of the divine service".


So why would IM or Christmas/Easter not be an "outrage on the solemn order of divine service" for the Christian when neither have been authorized/commanded by God? Where does the leader of the service get his authorization from? God? Himself?

EDIT: You referenced Jn 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Worship is to be done "in truth". What is truth? God's word (Jn 17:17). So there is a standard (God's word) that authorizes and dictates how the "true worshipper" (Jn 4:23) worships. It is not left up to man to decide for himself how he worships God.

 

[for_his_glory]

Christ took away the OT law (Col 2:14) replacing it with His NT law making a change in law (Heb 7:12). Justification, authorization for IM and Christmas/Easter must be found within the NT. One cannot go back to the OT law for that justification/authorization (Rom 7:8-9)..one cannot go to another religion (as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism) to determine how NT Christians are to worship. Just because David (who was not a Christian but a Jew under a different religion) did some thing does not mean it was approved by God nor acceptable for NT Christians. David was a polygamists, so that makes it alright for Christians to practice polygamy? (Some Mormon groups would like that.) Psalms 109, 139 David hated his enemies, he prayed they be destoyed, he prayed " let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin." This does not agree with what Christ said in Matt 5:44.

Commentary on Psalms 109:
THE MOST TERRIBLE PSALM IN THE WHOLE PSALTER

We do not intend the title we have given this psalm to be disrespectful or critical. It is only that the bitter imprecations of this psalm appear to us as wholly antithetical to the true spirit of Christianity.

There was certainly a glimpse of this same bitter spirit that appeared in the lives of two of the blessed apostles, namely, "The Sons of Thunder," that is, "Boanerges" (Mark 3:17). These, of course, were James and John the sons of Zebedee.

The glimpse referred to is recorded in Luke 9:52ff. The apostles went before Jesus into a village of the Samaritans to prepare the way for Jesus, but the Samaritans did not receive him. James and John immediately asked, "Lord wilt thou that we bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" However, Jesus turned and rebuked them, and said, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:55,56 KJV). In the light of what Jesus said on that occasion, we cannot believe that our Lord would have concurred in the bitter imprecations of this psalm.

As Addis said, "These are further from the spirit of Christianity than anything else in the whole Psalter."Cross Reference

W. E. Addis, p. 391.
Kidner cautioned us that, "These things are written for our learning, not for our imitation."Cross Reference
Derek Kidner, Vol. II, p. 389.

All kinds of devices have been proposed by which scholars attempt to soften the bitterness of these words. We shall enumerate some of these, none of which appear to us as acceptable interpretations: (a) Rhodes understood the "enemies of the psalmist" to be the speakers in Psalms 109:21-31, not the psalmist.Cross Reference

The Layman's Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, p. 151.
[3] Jones speaks of those who consider the psalm a prophetic depiction of the maledictions heaped upon Christ by his enemies, and (c) of those who attribute the imprecations as the words of Christ, instead of the words of David.Cross Reference
Wilson Jones, Vol. II, p. 270.

Chrysostom stated that, "The imprecations are a prophecy in the form of a curse."Cross Reference
Ibid.

"All such devices," as Maclaren said, "Are too obviously makeshifts. It is far better to recognize the discordance between the temper of the psalmist and that enjoined by Christ than to try to cover it over."Cross Reference

Alexander Maclaren, Vol. III, p. 174.
That there is indeed an impassable gulf between the spirit of the Old Testament and that of New Testament was categorically stated by Christ himself, touching on this very point of one's attitude toward his enemies.



Again, simply because something was done in the OT does not mean it was approved by God nor acceptable for NT Christians to do.

The topic has nothing to do with the law and Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law. Matthew 5:17-20; 22:34-40.

What does Psalms 150 have to do with the law? Did David not repent of his sins and turn back to God as we read in Psalms 51? Did not Christ establish the throne of David forever through that of the the lineage of David through that of Mary who birthed the Christ child, Luke 3:31?

I don't even see what strange fire has to with us using musical instruments, singing praises to the Lord. God demands our praise, Hebrews 13:5; Colossians 3:16.

Commentaries are only as good as the person who has Spiritual knowledge to write them and we to Spiritually discern what has been written.

If you really think about it and truly listen the lyrics come from the heart of scripture through the heart of those who set scripture to music. It is uplifting and edifying as we give our sacrifice of praise unto the Lord. Some people like the old hymns and some like the contemporary as it all boils down to singing praises to the Lord.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The topic has nothing to do with the law and Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law. Matthew 5:17-20; 22:34-40.

What does Psalms 150 have to do with the law? Did David not repent of his sins and turn back to God as we read in Psalms 51? Did not Christ establish the throne of David forever through that of the the lineage of David through that of Mary who birthed the Christ child, Luke 3:31?

I don't even see what strange fire has to with us using musical instruments, singing praises to the Lord. God demands our praise, Hebrews 13:5; Colossians 3:16.

Commentaries are only as good as the person who has Spiritual knowledge to write them and we to Spiritually discern what has been written.

If you really think about it and truly listen the lyrics come from the heart of scripture through the heart of those who set scripture to music. It is uplifting and edifying as we give our sacrifice of praise unto the Lord. Some people like the old hymns and some like the contemporary as it all boils down to singing praises to the Lord.

Psalms is part of the law of Moses and has no binding effect today for Christians. Again, no one can go to another religion as Judiasm to determine how NT Christians are to worship. Paul in Rom 7:1-6 says it is sinful to go back and try and keep the OT law and NT at the same time comparing it to an adulteress woman keeping 2 husbands at the same time. So again, just because David did some thing does not mean it was approved by God nor right for Christians to do.

Justification to use IM must therefore be found in the NT. The NT commands singing not playing IM. (Nor does the NT allow for soloists or choirs.)

A reason many run back to the OT and David is because they cannot find justification for it in the NT.

Where in the NT is the Christian commanded by God to keep Christmas/Easter as religious holidays?

 

[stovebolts]

Ernest T. Bass ,
Bear with me as my weekend got a bit hectic. I will give you what I believe will be a well written and reasoned response with backing scripture tomorrow.

 

[for_his_glory]

Psalms is part of the law of Moses and has no binding effect today for Christians. Again, no one can go to another religion as Judiasm to determine how NT Christians are to worship. Paul in Rom 7:1-6 says it is sinful to go back and try and keep the OT law and NT at the same time comparing it to an adulteress woman keeping 2 husbands at the same time. So again, just because David did some thing does not mean it was approved by God nor right for Christians to do.

Justification to use IM must therefore be found in the NT. The NT commands singing not playing IM. (Nor does the NT allow for soloists or choirs.)

A reason many run back to the OT and David is because they cannot find justification for it in the NT.

Where in the NT is the Christian commanded by God to keep Christmas/Easter as religious holidays?

Christmas and Easter is another topic so will not derail this one.

Nor does the NT call for four walled buildings all fancied up with elaborate decoration and padded pews, let alone an organ. Where does it say in scripture this is a house built unto the Lord to worship and praise His name?

Why do we even build four walled churches where in Stephen's speech he said, "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands as saith the prophet. Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts Chapter 7.

The 150 chapters in the book of Psalms is ascribed to David and has nothing to do with the law, but is a book of poetry serving Judeo-Christian hymnology set to music as instruments were played back then and continue to be played today as we sing praises unto the Lord. The NT neither forbids or commands the use of musical instruments in the Church, especially when the Church is the body of Christ, not four walls.

 

[stovebolts]

Psalms is part of the law of Moses and has no binding effect today for Christians.

I will touch on this a bit heavier tomorrow but I will say this. Psalms is known part of what is known as Ketuvim and in English Ketuvim is translated as Scripture. The Pentateuch / Torah is refered to as Law. Finally there is Nevium known as the Prophets.

Paul instructs us to study the Ketuvim. He does not instruct us to study the Pentauch although he does tell us that the Torah is our school master.

This understanding will be the foundation of my reply. What I have outlined is not desputable as any study will affirm.

 

[jasonc]

I will touch on this a bit heavier tomorrow but I will say this. Psalms is known part of what is known as Ketuvim and in English Ketuvim is translated as Scripture. The Pentateuch / Torah is refered to as Law. Finally there is Nevium known as the Prophets.

Paul instructs us to study the Ketuvim. He does not instruct us to study the Pentauch although he does tell us that the Torah is our school master.

This understanding will be the foundation of my reply. What I have outlined is not desputable as any study will affirm.

hanging around jews again I see .

the t. the k and n .in the tanakh

 

[stovebolts]

Ernest,
At first I thought to give you a very verbose reply, but I have decided to keep this simple.
In regard to Coffman, he accuses Nadab and Abihu of sins they did not commit and he purgers the work of others without giving them credit. The copies of his commentary on my shelf are not deserving of the space they take. Thank you for reminding me of that. I shall take them to my fire pit during lunch and burn them. I can provide pictures of their destruction if you think I am speaking for the sake of drama.

The Churches of Christ purport to be "The New Testament Church" and follows the reasoning that we follow the patterns of the NT scriptures and prides it's tradition as a thinking mans church. Now, let us address the authorization of musical instruments. Please note that these passages are not simply being used as proof texts. They each have their own deep meaning within scripture.

Let us first address
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Paul wrote these words around 63-65 AD and this was considered a letter, not "scripture" when Paul penned it to Timothy. When Paul uses the word scripture, he is speaking of a portion contained within what we refer to in modern times as the OT. This is affirmed a few passages later.
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Paul also writes this to the Romans
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Regarding the words of Jesus to his disciples,
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

When the churches of Christ teach that all of the OT is law and is to be avoided goes against the NT writings of Paul and even Jesus. This is an error the churches of Christ have fallen into. It is time for that church to repent.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Make no mistake, 2 Timothy 3:16 is telling us that the OT contains viable scripture not to be neglected.

Earlier I told you that the Jews organize the Bible in three categories. I am putting the words of Jesus in parenthesis within their proper Jewish category which all Jews, even to this day use.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

1. Torah - The Pentateuch (Law of Moses)
2. Nevi'im - Prophets (Prophets)
3. Ketuvim - Scriptures (Psalms).

I think this is enough for you to digest for now. This is the foundation I will use to move forward and yes, I will address Leviticus 10 in detail and expose the error the church of Christ teaches on that matter as well. But for now, let us focus on what scripture clearly says and if what has been presented has pricked your heart in any way, it would be good to share that. One thing I've always wanted this forum to be able to do is soften hearts where it's a safe place to admit when we are wrong. I have openly admitted when I have been wrong and find no shame, only growth.

I hope this finds you well, and I will continue once we are in agreement with what I have written within this post.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Christmas and Easter is another topic so will not derail this one.

The reason I bring up Christmas/Easter is because there is no Divine authorization for them as there is none for IM.

So my argument is not solely about IM but more so about where does man get his authorization from to worship God. From himself? From God? 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." ("in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority)

Nor does the NT call for four walled buildings all fancied up with elaborate decoration and padded pews, let alone an organ. Where does it say in scripture this is a house built unto the Lord to worship and praise His name?

Why do we even build four walled churches where in Stephen's speech he said, "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands as saith the prophet. Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Acts Chapter 7.

The 150 chapters in the book of Psalms is ascribed to David and has nothing to do with the law, but is a book of poetry serving Judeo-Christian hymnology set to music as instruments were played back then and continue to be played today as we sing praises unto the Lord. The NT neither forbids or commands the use of musical instruments in the Church, especially when the Church is the body of Christ, not four walls.

Acts 20:7 "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

The verb 'come together' is passive voice meaning it was not the disciples idea to come together, they were brought together by a source outside themselves, that source being God. For disciples today to come together on the first day of the week requires a place to come together. Whether that place is in a building, a tent, in someone's home or outside under a shade tree does not matter as long as the disciples come together as God would have them. The meeting place is only a matter of expediency. Therefore a meeting place is necessary to carry out God's will therefore having a building to come together in does not violate God's will but the building is necessary to carryout God's will.

There are places in the Bible where Psalms is referred to as "law". Rom 3 where Paul proves the Jew is a sinner as the Gentile therefore no better than the Gentile. In proving so Paul quotes from several OT verses including Psalms in Rom 3:10-18. Then in Rom 3:19 Paul refers to all those verses he cites, including Psalms as "law". And Christ did take the OT law out of the way, all of it including Psalms.

Lastly, a thing does NOT have to be specifically forbidden for it to be wrong. For example the Jew was commanded to keep the Sabbath day and make it holy. By saying "Sabbath day" that automatically eliminated the other 6 days without have to specifically eliminate them. When God commands singing that also automatically eliminates playing, humming, whistling, etc without having to specifically forbid them.

 

[stovebolts]

There are places in the Bible where Psalms is referred to as "law". Rom 3 where Paul proves the Jew is a sinner as the Gentile therefore no better than the Gentile. In proving so Paul quotes from several OT verses including Psalms in Rom 3:10-18. Then in Rom 3:19 Paul refers to all those verses he cites, including Psalms as "law". And Christ did take the OT law out of the way, all of it including Psalms.

This is your misunderstanding on what Paul is saying. The passages you use is an example of Paul using Scripture (Psalms) to show that the law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) has been broken. He is not saying that Psalms is the law.

You need to keep in mind that Paul was a Jew and understood the Bible as a Jew. The Jews categorize the Bible in three areas and they have been categorized well before Jesus was born.
1. Law
2. Prophets
3. Scripture

What you see between Romans 3:10-18 and Romans 3:19 is an example of what he writes to Timothy.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
In regard to Romans 3:10-18, Paul is quoting scripture, not law. Paul does not preach law.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest,
At first I thought to give you a very verbose reply, but I have decided to keep this simple.
In regard to Coffman, he accuses Nadab and Abihu of sins they did not commit and he purgers the work of others without giving them credit. The copies of his commentary on my shelf are not deserving of the space they take. Thank you for reminding me of that. I shall take them to my fire pit during lunch and burn them. I can provide pictures of their destruction if you think I am speaking for the sake of drama.

The Churches of Christ purport to be "The New Testament Church" and follows the reasoning that we follow the patterns of the NT scriptures and prides it's tradition as a thinking mans church. Now, let us address the authorization of musical instruments. Please note that these passages are not simply being used as proof texts. They each have their own deep meaning within scripture.

Let us first address
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Paul wrote these words around 63-65 AD and this was considered a letter, not "scripture" when Paul penned it to Timothy. When Paul uses the word scripture, he is speaking of a portion contained within what we refer to in modern times as the OT. This is affirmed a few passages later.
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Paul also writes this to the Romans
Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Regarding the words of Jesus to his disciples,
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

When the churches of Christ teach that all of the OT is law and is to be avoided goes against the NT writings of Paul and even Jesus. This is an error the churches of Christ have fallen into. It is time for that church to repent.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Make no mistake, 2 Timothy 3:16 is telling us that the OT contains viable scripture not to be neglected.

Earlier I told you that the Jews organize the Bible in three categories. I am putting the words of Jesus in parenthesis within their proper Jewish category which all Jews, even to this day use.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

1. Torah - The Pentateuch (Law of Moses)
2. Nevi'im - Prophets (Prophets)
3. Ketuvim - Scriptures (Psalms).

I think this is enough for you to digest for now. This is the foundation I will use to move forward and yes, I will address Leviticus 10 in detail and expose the error the church of Christ teaches on that matter as well. But for now, let us focus on what scripture clearly says and if what has been presented has pricked your heart in any way, it would be good to share that. One thing I've always wanted this forum to be able to do is soften hearts where it's a safe place to admit when we are wrong. I have openly admitted when I have been wrong and find no shame, only growth.

I hope this finds you well, and I will continue once we are in agreement with what I have written within this post.

Hi,

Thank you for the nice words.

The Bible does not give the specific sin(s) Nadab and Abjhu committed but we do not they did what God commanded them not. Yourself and Coffman can give reasonable explanations to the sin(s) they committed and I could not say you and Coffman are both wrong or both right. To me the issue is not the specific sin(s) committed but the issue is doing what God has not authorized/commanded.

Christ took ALL the OT law out of the way, Col 2:14; Eph 2:13-14. It was the OT law that created a wall between jew and Gentile and by taking it out of the way Christ brought Jew and Gentile together under His NT law in the church. Again, Paul says it is sinful to go back to the OT law, it would be for the Christian trying to keep two laws like the adulteress woman keeping two husbands. Nothing in the OT law is therefore binding upon the Christian today. If one can go back to the OT law to justify IM, then one can use the OT law to justify polygamy, slavery, etc. The book of Galatians is all about Paul condemning Christians for leaving the NT to go back to the OT to find justification. If one can find justification from the OT then no need for Christ or His NT. The book of Hebrews is warning Hebrew Christians about backsliding into Judiasm. So justification for IM Christmas/Easter MUST be found within the NT and not another law or religion as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

The NT would be hard to understand without the OT but the OT is not binding law for the Christian to follow but must follow the NT. It pleased God under the OT law that the Jew would go to Temple so many times a day and pray. Is that an example for Christians to follow today since it pleased God under the OT? No. It pleases God for Christians to follow NT Christianity not OT Judaism.


All the OT is law. In a previous post I showed where Paul called verse in Rom 3 he quoted as law, including Psalms. Jn 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalms calling Psalms 'law'. Psalms was therefore taken out of the way by Christ just as all other OT books.

Jesus' point in Matt 9:16-17 is that the NT was not just a 'patch' to go on an an old garment (OT law) but the NT would replace the OT entirely. NT Christianity was a new religion with its own set of laws. And the the OT and NT do not mix with each other, that is, Jesus did 'pour' His NT teachings into old bags but into new skins (disciples).

 

[stovebolts]

Hi,

Thank you for the nice words.

The Bible does not give the specific sin(s) Nadab and Abjhu committed but we do not they did what God commanded them not. Yourself and Coffman can give reasonable explanations to the sin(s) they committed and I could not say you and Coffman are both wrong or both right. To me the issue is not the specific sin(s) committed but the issue is doing what God has not authorized/commanded.

Christ took ALL the OT law out of the way, Col 2:14; Eph 2:13-14. It was the OT law that created a wall between jew and Gentile and by taking it out of the way Christ brought Jew and Gentile together under His NT law in the church. Again, Paul says it is sinful to go back to the OT law, it would be for the Christian trying to keep two laws like the adulteress woman keeping two husbands. Nothing in the OT law is therefore binding upon the Christian today. If one can go back to the OT law to justify IM, then one can use the OT law to justify polygamy, slavery, etc. The book of Galatians is all about Paul condemning Christians for leaving the NT to go back to the OT to find justification. If one can find justification from the OT then no need for Christ or His NT. The book of Hebrews is warning Hebrew Christians about backsliding into Judiasm. So justification for IM Christmas/Easter MUST be found within the NT and not another law or religion as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

The NT would be hard to understand without the OT but the OT is not binding law for the Christian to follow but must follow the NT. It pleased God under the OT law that the Jew would go to Temple so many times a day and pray. Is that an example for Christians to follow today since it pleased God under the OT? No. It pleases God for Christians to follow NT Christianity not OT Judaism.


All the OT is law. In a previous post I showed where Paul called verse in Rom 3 he quoted as law, including Psalms. Jn 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalms calling Psalms 'law'. Psalms was therefore taken out of the way by Christ just as all other OT books.

Jesus' point in Matt 9:16-17 is that the NT was not just a 'patch' to go on an an old garment (OT law) but the NT would replace the OT entirely. NT Christianity was a new religion with its own set of laws. And the the OT and NT do not mix with each other, that is, Jesus did 'pour' His NT teachings into old bags but into new skins (disciples).

Show me specifically my error in post 52 or post 54. What you have provided above does not address the categories Jews use within the Bible. We do not call the writings to Timothy the Gospels in the same way the Jews do not call the Psalms the Law of a Moses.

The error the churches of Christ teach is that the entire OT is the Law. This simply is not true.

please address specifically what I have written in post 52 or 54.

 

[stovebolts]

Jn 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalms calling Psalms 'law'. Psalms was therefore taken out of the way by Christ just as all other OT books.

Let's take a closer look at this.
John 10:32-33 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.
The Gospel of John: John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?
What is Jesus referring to?
The Scriptures: Psalms 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
And where does this derive from?
The Law of Moses: Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
We can go deeper into this if required as it includes Israel and Sinai.
In John 10:34, Jesus is referring to Exodus 7:1 because it was through Moses that great signs and wonders were performed which Pharaoh sought to kill him and the Israelites. This is why Jesus says, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? and his prior discourse was about His sheep who hear his voice. Just like Moses and his flock, the Jews would kill Jesus and Christians. You cannot deny the parallel and if you add in that John writes from the perspective of New Exodus though out his Gospel, this solidifies it.

 

[for_his_glory]

The reason I bring up Christmas/Easter is because there is no Divine authorization for them as there is none for IM.

So my argument is not solely about IM but more so about where does man get his authorization from to worship God. From himself? From God? 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." ("in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority)

I and others have already given the scriptures where God wants us to worship and praise Him and scripture says nothing about forbidding musical instruments in the sanctuary.

I will use the word Passover as Easter, even found in the English Bible and never should have been added, is a pagan festival, Just as Christmas being on the 25th of Dec. You can look this up as it is a fascinating study.

Paul gives directions regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1Corinthians 11:23-29. Some have misunderstood verse 26, which says: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup," and interpret it to say "take it as often as you please" But it does not say that! It says "as often" as we observe it, "ye do show the Lord’s death till He come." And Jesus commanded, "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." We do it in remembrance of the Lord’s death as a memorial of His death. And memorials of momentous occasions always are observed annually, once a year, on the anniversary of the event they commemorate.

Jesus instituted this New Testament ordinance on the eve of His death. It was the 14th Abib/Nisan, March/April Hebrew Lunar calendar. He was our Passover, sacrificed for us and He was sacrificed on the same exact day of the year that the Passover lambs always had been slain, Exodus 12:1-6. As the Old Testament Passover commemorated Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, a type of sin, so the New Testament Lord’s Supper is a continuation of the Passover with different emblems commemorates Jesus' death, and our deliverance from sin. Immediately after the last Supper, Jesus and His disciples went out to Gethsemane, where later that night, Judas Iscariot led the bloodthirsty mob who seized Jesus, and led him away to be crucified during the morning of the 14th day of the month of Abib. Matthew 26:1-5.

The Passover is described in Exodus 12 being the 14th of the first month of the new year being Nisan (March April) according to the Jewish Lunar Solar Calendar. The Feast of Unleavened Bread is the 15th day of Nisan/April, Exodus 12:6, which begins Thursday after sundown and ends Friday at sundown. Nisan 15 being a Sabbath never changes even if current dates do not match up year after year.


As far as Christmas, Jesus was not born on the 25th of Dec and the roots for that day goes back to pagan festivals. When you study the scriptures, history of the Temple Priest and dates using the Lunar Solar Calendar Jesus was conceived during Chisleu/Chislev/Kislev (Nov/Dec) and born sometime between Ethanim/Tishhri (Sept/Oct).

King David on God's instructions (1 Chr 28:11-13) had divided the sons of Aaron into 24 groups (1 Chr 24:1-4), to setup a schedule by which the Temple of the Lord could be staffed with priests all year round in an orderly manner. After the 24 groups of priests were established, lots were drawn to determine the sequence in which each group would serve in the Temple. (1 Chr 24: 7-19).

John the Baptist was born six months before Jesus.

Beginning with the first month, Nisan, in the spring (March-April), the schedule of the priest's courses would result with Zachariah serving during the 10th week of the year. This is because he was a member of the course of Abia (Abijah), the 8th course, and both the Feast of Unleavened Bread (15-21 Nisan) and Pentecost (6 Sivan) would have occurred before his scheduled duty. This places Zachariah administration in the Temple as beginning on the second Sabbath of the third month, Sivan (May-June).

Having completed his Temple service on the third Sabbath of Sivan, Zachariah returned home and soon conceived his son John. So John the Baptist was probably conceived shortly after the third Sabbath of the month of Sivan.

Acts 20:7 "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

The verb 'come together' is passive voice meaning it was not the disciples idea to come together, they were brought together by a source outside themselves, that source being God. For disciples today to come together on the first day of the week requires a place to come together. Whether that place is in a building, a tent, in someone's home or outside under a shade tree does not matter as long as the disciples come together as God would have them. The meeting place is only a matter of expediency. Therefore a meeting place is necessary to carry out God's will therefore having a building to come together in does not violate God's will but the building is necessary to carryout God's will.

There are places in the Bible where Psalms is referred to as "law". Rom 3 where Paul proves the Jew is a sinner as the Gentile therefore no better than the Gentile. In proving so Paul quotes from several OT verses including Psalms in Rom 3:10-18. Then in Rom 3:19 Paul refers to all those verses he cites, including Psalms as "law". And Christ did take the OT law out of the way, all of it including Psalms.

Lastly, a thing does NOT have to be specifically forbidden for it to be wrong. For example the Jew was commanded to keep the Sabbath day and make it holy. By saying "Sabbath day" that automatically eliminated the other 6 days without have to specifically eliminate them. When God commands singing that also automatically eliminates playing, humming, whistling, etc without having to specifically forbid them.

Acts 20:7, the names of those disciples are found in Vs. 4. After the riot in Ephesus, Acts 19:21-41, these disciples laid wait in Asia for Paul to come to preach to them. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

I agree that the assembling can be anywhere, even in this forum, where two or more are gathered in the name of Jesus as He is there in the midst of us as we are not to forsake the assembling. What I was referring to is about the lavishness and traditional rituals of whatever denomination/non-denomination imagines in their mind as it becomes pleasing to man, but not pleasing to the Lord as what they do is not found in the NT Church.

Romans 3:10-19, vs. 10 is a referenced to Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3 and vs. 14 a reference to Psalms 10:7 which is about none being righteous as they do not seek God. I don't see how this relates to the Leviticus law.

The book of Psalms was gradually collected and originally in the Hebrew was never named, perhaps due to the great variety of material. It came to be known as Sepher Tehillim (Book of Praises) because most every psalm contains some note of praise to God. The Septuagint uses the Greek word "Psalmoi" as its title for this book. meaning poems sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments. It's also calls it the "Psalterium" (a collection of songs) and this is the basis for the term "Psalter". The Latin title is "Liber Psalmorum" (Book of Psalms)

 

[for_his_glory]

Hi,

Thank you for the nice words.

The Bible does not give the specific sin(s) Nadab and Abjhu committed but we do not they did what God commanded them not. Yourself and Coffman can give reasonable explanations to the sin(s) they committed and I could not say you and Coffman are both wrong or both right. To me the issue is not the specific sin(s) committed but the issue is doing what God has not authorized/commanded.

Christ took ALL the OT law out of the way, Col 2:14; Eph 2:13-14. It was the OT law that created a wall between jew and Gentile and by taking it out of the way Christ brought Jew and Gentile together under His NT law in the church. Again, Paul says it is sinful to go back to the OT law, it would be for the Christian trying to keep two laws like the adulteress woman keeping two husbands. Nothing in the OT law is therefore binding upon the Christian today. If one can go back to the OT law to justify IM, then one can use the OT law to justify polygamy, slavery, etc. The book of Galatians is all about Paul condemning Christians for leaving the NT to go back to the OT to find justification. If one can find justification from the OT then no need for Christ or His NT. The book of Hebrews is warning Hebrew Christians about backsliding into Judiasm. So justification for IM Christmas/Easter MUST be found within the NT and not another law or religion as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

The NT would be hard to understand without the OT but the OT is not binding law for the Christian to follow but must follow the NT. It pleased God under the OT law that the Jew would go to Temple so many times a day and pray. Is that an example for Christians to follow today since it pleased God under the OT? No. It pleases God for Christians to follow NT Christianity not OT Judaism.


All the OT is law. In a previous post I showed where Paul called verse in Rom 3 he quoted as law, including Psalms. Jn 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalms calling Psalms 'law'. Psalms was therefore taken out of the way by Christ just as all other OT books.

Jesus' point in Matt 9:16-17 is that the NT was not just a 'patch' to go on an an old garment (OT law) but the NT would replace the OT entirely. NT Christianity was a new religion with its own set of laws. And the the OT and NT do not mix with each other, that is, Jesus did 'pour' His NT teachings into old bags but into new skins (disciples).

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are laws that were especially written just for the Hebrews pertaining to the rituals of the Temple, sacrifices, festivals, Torah, Kohanim and Levites, the King and the Nazarite and then there are the existing moral laws for us to still follow as in prayers and blessings, love and brotherhood, the poor and unfortunate, treatment of the Gentiles, Marriage, divorce and family, forbidden sexual relations, business practices, employees and servants, vows, oaths, swearing, Court and Judicial procedures, injuries and damages, property and property rights, Criminal laws, prophecy, idolatry and all its practices as the moral laws keep us in line with the will of God that we present ourselves a vessel of honor that God delights in as we allow that light of Christ shines in us and through us as a testimony of Gods grace and mercy as it is not ourselves that do any good thing, but Gods Spirit working in us and through us as we surrender our will to that of Gods will to be done.

 

[Susannah]

I have been on both sides of the fence. My husband played the drums in church and while it was beautiful it distracted me from my prayer and mediation which I learned in the Quaker Church I attended. I have experienced both, "Make a joyful noise," and "Be still and know that I am God." I think there is room for both. My personal preference is a silent worship. That is when I feel the real depth of God's word without going through the pastor. That does not mean I don't love a good sermon. I do. I just have my own preference. I have no idea what God refers. I think he likes both since he created them both.