|
The divisive issue of the use of instrumental music in worship to God can be settled only by proper use of hermeneutics when disciples who understand and respect Bible authority love truth and seek unity. It can be settled based upon what the Bible says. Unfortunately, some members of the church have decided that instrumental music (IM) is a matter of opinion, i.e., that God does not care whether we simply sing or play instruments to accompany our singing. Others argue that those who teach that the use of instruments is not authorized and therefore sinful are binding where God has not bound. The truth regarding this matter is not hard to ascertain.
The evidence that the use of instrumental music in worship is a doctrine of men, having been added centuries after the Lord's church was established, is enormous. Of course, you will not find evidence in the New Testament that it was added because, well, it wasn't yet introduced - not by God or men. God's having specified singing as the kind of music for the New Testament church to engage in when worshipping Him is a lethal blow to the claims of IM advocates. Other evidences, which are not insignificant, are the comments from early Christian writers and scholars. Follow the link below to see the list: https://www.bible.ca/H-music.htm.
Perhaps the most common argument made to show that IM is not authorized is the example of God's command to Noah that specified gopher wood as the kind of wood to use in building the ark (Gen. 6:14). The point often made is that since Noah understood that other kinds of wood were prohibited, we should understand that when God specified singing (a kind of music), other types of music are prohibited. When one honestly considers how authority works (as illustrated in the example), it becomes apparent that the old argument "God did not say not to use IM in worship" serves only to show the ignorance and/or desperation of one who seeks to justify doing what pleases men rather than God. To further illustrate the point, consider the following example: An army sergeant tells a platoon of men to take a certain truck and drive to a specified place. The men understand, without a doubt, that they are not authorized to take the sergeant's family car. They understand that ALL other means of transportation were excluded when the sergeant gave the specific command.
One "scholarly" member of the church who purports to be "conservative" has come to the conclusion that we should "leave them alone," i.e., those who use IM in worship. This person thinks that by showing that gopher is not a kind of wood, the argument that IM is an unauthorized practice is defeated.
After I posted part one of this paper to Facebook someone made several arguments, evidently hoping at least one would stick. The first was as follows: "If you look at the Septuagint, they translated it as squared timbers. Gopher seems to be a process more than a type of wood."
The Septuagint has been shown not to be trustworthy - it in fact contains many errors. The following is a link to a site that points out numerous obvious errors in this Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible:
https://www.layittoheart.com/septuagint.html
For the sake of argument, let's just say the Septuagint is accurate - that "squared timbers" is a correct translation. The same argument stands. God specified "squared timbers" as opposed to round or rectangular timbers.
The author continued: "But here's the bigger problem with the use of the ark in your argument...that word occurs only once...and we're creating a rule based on the use of one word in one verse...and using it to condemn others."
God has, of course, provided several examples that illustrate that we must not make our own choices when He has specified something. And we are not "using it to condemn others" but to TEACH others. If they are wrong in disobeying God, it is the duty of sound teachers to expose the error and the possible consequences.
The author made another argument:
"Another point we ignore is that gopher is apparently a root for gophrith which refers to brimstone (sulphur). Boat builders know that you use a variety of woods to build...they all have sulphur (lignin)."
The following is a quote from Bible Central that explains that "some Hebrew scholars" have expressed an opinion, but that they were "not sure what kind of wood was being described."
Bible Central
"The phrase 'gopher wood' only appears once in the Old Testament in reference to Noah's ark, meaning that it is unclear from Genesis what kind of wood the ark was built out of. The word 'gopher' is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew word. Some Hebrew scholars have suggested that it derives from a word meaning 'pitch' or 'resin,' so the term 'gopher wood' could then refer to some kind of resinous wood. The Aramaic Jewish translations known as the Targums understood 'gopher wood' to mean 'cedar wood.' The ancient Greek translation of the Bible translates 'gopher wood' as 'squared wood,' indicating that those ancient translators were also not sure what kind of wood was being described in Genesis 6."
Again, for the sake of argument, let's grant that God specified some kind of resinous wood rather than, say, cypress. The illustration still stands because it would be understood that other kinds of wood (woods that do not contain resin) would be excluded because of the specific command.
What do Jewish scholars think?
The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia
Gopher-Wood
"The material of which the ark of Noah was made."
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) "Make yourself an ark of gofer-wood."
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) "make thee an ark of gopher wood."
The Hebrew - Scholar Keil and Delitzsch writes:
"Gopher-wood (ligna bituminata; Jerome) is most likely cypress. The άπ. λεγ. gopher is related toֵ resin, and κνπά́ρισσος; it is no proof to the contrary that in later Hebrew the cypress is called berosh, for gopher belongs to the pre-Hebraic times."
STRONG
H1613
gôpher
go'-fer
"From an unused root, probably meaning to house in; a kind of tree or wood (as used for building), apparently the cypress: - gopher."
gôpher
BDB Definition:
"1) cypress?, gopher, gopher wood
1a) wood of which the ark was made
1b) meaning and exact type unknown"
Versions:
Below are all the versions that come up on my E-Sword:
(ASV) Make thee an ark of gopher wood;
(BBE) Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood
(CEV) Get some good lumber and build a boat.
(DRB) Make thee an ark of timber planks:
(ESV) Make yourself an ark of gopher wood.
(GNB) Build a boat for yourself out of good timber
(GW) Make yourself a ship of cypress wood.
(JPS) Make thee an ark of gopher wood
(KJV) Make thee an ark of gopher wood
(LITV) Make an ark of cypress timbers for yourself.
(MKJV) Make an ark of cypress timbers.
(RV) Make thee an ark of gopher wood
I looked up numerous other versions and the overwhelming majority used the word "gopher." Some said "cypress", some said "timber planks," a few said "wood," and one said "pine trees."
Reasons why God specified the kind of wood
We know that a variety of woods could have been selected if God had simply said to build an ark of wood. These would include cypress, cedar, pine, ebony, fir, wicker, juniper, acacia, bulrushes, and boxwood. But let us suppose that cypress was the kind of wood meant by the Hebrew word most often translated gopher. Cypress was/is durable and strong and would resist worms and insects. Does it not seem reasonable that God would specify the kind of wood to use in building the ark, rather than leave it up to a man who had never built a boat or even seen water? God specified a lot of things that pertained to the ark, all of which He apparently deemed important for various reasons. Yet some endeavor to teach that God does not specify items for the purpose of setting an example to defeat unauthorized behaviors such as the practice of adding a kind of music in addition and opposition to what God did authorize.
Conclusion
Virtually all respected translators translate the passage in Genesis 6:14 as either gopher wood or cypress wood. Some, however, seek to give support for the idea that God's specific authority (in this text) does not exclude other choices in carrying out the general command by making up the idea that gopher refers to boards, beams, wood, or a category of wood. In other words, the text does not say what it appears to say. But even if this is true, we still have scripture to illustrate the exact same argument that teaches that specific commands exclude other things that might be added or done in the class. God specified wood. We all agree on that. There were not a lot of choices of materials with which to build a boat, but there was metal and today there is fiberglass. You can't miss the point. When God specified wood, it excluded all other materials. So, what is the point in laboring to explain away the idea that gopher is a kind of wood? There are other examples that serve just as well to make the point. When God specified the "fruit of the vine" and "unleavened bread" (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23) as elements He wanted in the Lord's Supper, this excluded the use of any other elements. God had a preference on these matters and Christians must respect God's preferences and endeavor to teach others to do the same. Those who generally are known as "Church of Christ" are unique in following God's authority and rejecting the human tradition of adding instruments to God's command to sing. Efforts to bring in instruments will inevitably result in division and, when practiced, will remove the unique characteristic by which the Lord's church is known.
Perhaps the best Bible example that shows the need to do what God said, exactly the way He said, is found in 2 Kings 5:1-15. In this example various things and ideas come into play: pride, unbelief, suggestion of other possible choices instead of what God specified, anger, help from someone who saw and cared, common sense, reasoning, repentance, obedience, and cleansing. This important text was not put there to fill up space but to teach all regarding the need to do what God says without addition, subtraction, or substitution.
We can have unity only when we follow the commands, examples, and necessary inferences contained in God's word. Instrumental music was not commanded for the church, no example of its use is given, and we cannot rightly infer that God is pleased with its addition to our worship.
|
