The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 6:19–20

In the last article we considered Romans 8:9–11, now I would like to consider 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 and what it teaches about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. While verses 19–20 are our focus, I will include some of the preceding verses for context:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:15–20)

First, we must head off an objection: isn’t Paul referring to the “body” of the corporate Church and not to the bodies of individual Christians? It is true that earlier in the letter (1 Corinthians 3:16–17) Paul speaks of the entire Church as being the temple of the Spirit; however, the context of the verses above demands that Paul be speaking of the bodies of individual believers, not to “the body” of the Church as a whole. Paul is speaking of the individual bodies that make up the “body” of the Church. That this is the case is made certain by Paul’s instruction to flee from sexual immorality – a sin unique to the bodies of individuals and impossible for an abstraction such as a “corporate body” to commit. So, throughout these verses Paul is certainly referring to the bodies of individual believers.

Now, let’s consider verses 19–20; what does Paul say? Paul says that the body of the believer “is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you.” Paul is clearly offering the reader an analogy: just as God literally dwelt in the temple through His Spirit, so now He literally dwells in the believer through His Spirit. If Paul does not mean to indicate a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, why does he use such language? The natural reading of “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God” is that 1) the Spirit is from God, 2) He is within the Christian, and 3) He is within the Christian literally and personally so that the Christian’s body can even be referred to as a temple. If Paul does not want the reader to think that the Spirit actually dwells within the Christian, he is choosing all of the wrong words.

Like we discussed with Romans 8:9–11, Paul could have written something else. Paul could have written that “your body is a temple of [the truth] within you” or something like that, but the fact is he did not. In fact, like in Romans, Paul makes no qualifying statements and allows the plain reading of the text, with all of its implications, to remain clearly before the reader. According to Paul, the Holy Spirit is “from God,” is “within you,” and therefore “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” Again, I am constrained by Scripture. I read that the Spirit dwells within the Christian in an analogous way as He previously dwelt in the temple, and I must accept that testimony.

“But!” some will say, “the Bible also says that Christ is in us and that we are in Christ and we don’t take those statements literally. The Holy Spirit is in us in the same figurative way that Christ is in us and we in Christ.” This, in my opinion, is the best biblical objection to a literal, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Lord willing, we will consider it next week.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: Romans 8:9–11

In the last article I made some general points regarding the question, “Is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit literal or figurative?” As I mentioned, I am convinced the Bible teaches a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit within Christians. While there are many passages that point to a literal indwelling, there are two to which I would like to give special attention: Romans 8:9–11 and 1 Corinthians 6:19–20. In this article we will focus on the former.

Romans 8:9–11 reads, “9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”

In these verses Paul repeatedly says that the Holy Spirit “dwells in” the Christian. I think it is fair to say that the natural reading of the text points to a literal indwelling; that is, the Holy Spirit “in fact” dwells in the Christian. Paul makes his point both positively, “the Spirit of God dwells in you,” and negatively, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” How many ways does Paul have to say that “the Spirit dwells in you” before we take him at his word? Also note that Paul makes no qualifications such as the Spirit dwells in us “through Scripture” or anything along those lines (in these or other verses). So, the repeated insistence that the Spirit dwells in the Christian combined with the lack of any qualification or clarification is a strong indicator that Paul wished to be understood as saying that the Spirit of God “in fact” (not figuratively) dwells within the Christian.

But consider especially verse 11. How does this passage make sense if Paul does not actually mean that the Spirit dwells in the Christian? If Paul actually meant that it is something like our belief in the truth or our holy living that “dwells in us” and will be the means through which God will give life to our mortal bodies, why does he not say so? Further, can we legitimately change Paul’s wording from “through his Spirit who dwells in you” to “the truth you believe” or “your holy living” or something of the sort? Would such a change even make sense in this context? I do not see how it could. And besides, whether or not it makes sense, it is not what Paul said.

In looking for a counterargument to my position, I checked The Mission and Medium of the Holy Spirit by Foy E. Wallace (who opposed the idea of a literal indwelling of the Spirit). Even though he has a section on Romans 8, comment on verse 11 is conspicuously absent. I cannot help but wonder if he failed to address verse 11 because it is so resistant to any reading that denies the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Wallace quotes from R. L. Whiteside approvingly, so I checked Whiteside’s Romans commentary, assuming he would also argue against a literal indwelling. Instead, what I found was this: “But the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. He dwells in the Christian; that is plainly affirmed. And I dare not deny what Paul here affirms” (Commentary on Romans, R.L. Whiteside, 173). I could not have said it better myself. Let us affirm everything the Bible affirms and reject everything the Bible rejects. After all, the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and who knows better than the Spirit whether or not He indwells the Christian.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: Preliminary Observations

The debate over the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – whether it is a literal indwelling or figurative – has been going on since almost the beginning of the Restoration Movement. Personally, I am convinced that the Bible teaches a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit within Christians and I would like to discuss why in this and subsequent articles. But, before looking at any texts, I would like to make a few preliminary observations.

First, there is nothing that would make a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit impossible. The Bible places no such restriction on the Spirit and for us to insist on the impossibility of a literal indwelling is to stand on nothing more than our own authority. If we are convinced that the Bible teaches a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then we should believe and teach a literal indwelling. Likewise, if it is shown to be the clear teaching of Scripture that the Holy Spirit does not literally, but only figuratively dwell within the believer, then that should be our belief and teaching.

Second, whether or not we understand how it is possible for the Holy Spirit to indwell us is beside the point – we simply want to know if God tells us that the Spirit indwells us. There are many things I do not fully understand, but I still believe they are true because the Bible teaches them. We should not at all be surprised when we do not fully understand God – after all, He is God and we are but men. As Moses declared in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

Third, we cannot be reactionary and allow fear of errors (whether of Calvinists or Charismatics) to determine our beliefs. Yes, there is error taught in regard to the Holy Spirit just as there is error taught about practically every doctrine of the Church. There is always a temptation to overreact to one error and find ourselves in the opposite error, but that is a temptation we must studiously avoid. Our task is not to define ourselves against others, but to define ourselves by exactly what the Bible teaches.

Fourth, it is a good rule of thumb to remember that the more obvious and “on the surface” an understanding of the text is, the more likely it is to be the correct understanding. Likewise, if an understanding of the text is subtle or requires fine-grained arguments and re-writing of the text, it is likely to be wrong. Take Acts 2:38 for example. We insist that “for the forgiveness of sins” means exactly that and rightly call out attempts to make the text say something else. I suggest we take the same approach to texts such as Romans 8:9–11 and 1 Corinthians 6:19–20.

Finally, the slogan “Let us say Bible things in Bible ways” contains wisdom. The Bible says that “the Spirit of God dwells in you” and that “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you.” I am happy to use the phrases precisely as given in the Bible without any qualifications.

Nevertheless, the question of whether such phrases are to be taken in their plain sense or modified with qualifications cannot be avoided. In subsequent articles, Lord willing, I would like to explain why I am convinced that a plain, unqualified understanding of such phrases as “the Spirit of God dwells in you” is the correct understanding of the text.

Deaconesses: Acts 6 and Romans 16

Last week we considered 1 Timothy 3:11 and the debate around women deacons (deaconesses). As I explained, I am convinced that Paul is referring in that verse to the wives of elders and deacons, not to deaconesses. In this article I’d like to consider two more points in the debate over whether the New Testament sanctions an office of deaconess: the selection of deacons in Acts 6 and Phoebe in Romans 16. The first is strongly in favor of limiting deacons to men; the second is often used to argue for an office of deaconess.

In Acts 6, we encounter the beginning of the office of deacon in the Church (even though the men chosen are not referred to explicitly as deacons, it makes sense to identify them as such). In that chapter, we read of a problem with the distribution of food among the widows of the church. The issue is brought to the apostles who respond, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:2–4). As it relates to our discussion, note that the apostles instruct the Church to pick out seven men to be appointed. This is even more interesting when the nature of the work is considered: the distribution of food among widows. So, at the beginning of the office of deacon we find instructions for men to be appointed, even though the work could very appropriately be done by women. Were women at all involved in this food distribution ministry? I suspect that they were. Nevertheless, it was the seven men who were appointed by the apostles to oversee the work.

On the other side of the argument is Phoebe in Romans 16:1–2 which reads, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.” The reason this passage is brought up in the debate is that the word “servant” is our word “deacon.” Keep in mind, deacon is a transliteration of the Greek word diakonos (meaning “servant,” or “helper”) and, like “elder,” can be either a personal description or the title of an office, depending on context. Also, remember that we are all called to be servants of the Church, even if we are not all “deacons” in an official sense. So, the question before us is this: is Paul simply describing Phoebe as one who serves, or is he referring to Phoebe as one holding the office of deaconess?

Credit where credit is due, Romans 16:1 is perhaps the strongest verse for the office of deaconess; however, I am not convinced that is the correct conclusion to draw from it. First, I believe that Paul is describing Phoebe as a servant in a general sense before going on to describe the nature of her service as being “a patron of many and of myself.” By being a patron – perhaps by providing financial assistance, hosting the Church in her home, etc. – Phoebe is rightly called a servant of the Church, even if not a deaconess in an official sense. Second, when placed on the scales of reason, I do not think Romans 16:1 outweighs the combination of Acts 6, 1 Timothy 3:1–13, and the Bible’s repeated pattern of male leadership in home and Church (next week’s topic, Lord willing). Taken in isolation, Romans 16:1 may be convincing for an office of deaconess; however, we must always keep the entirety of Scripture in mind when drawing conclusions. Phoebe is an important reminder, however, that we are all to be servants of the Church, and that God smiles upon faithful service, regardless of any official title.

Women, Wives, and Deacons: A Study of 1 Timothy 3:11

There is debate over whether the Bible permits female deacons, and one of the verses under the most scrutiny is 1 Timothy 3:11, “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things” (ESV). You may be thinking that “Their wives” seems pretty clear! But here’s the catch: “their” is not explicit in the Greek and the Greek word for “wife” is the same word as “woman,” depending only on the context. So, strictly speaking, the beginning of 1 Timothy 3:11 reads, “Wives / Women likewise …” If you read a few Bible translations and pay attention to their footnotes, you’ll see the translation issue. What I would like to do here is give some reasons for why I am convinced that Paul is referring to the wives of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11, and not to women deacons.

Regarding the lack of “their” in Greek, I believe that Paul deliberately leaves it general so that “wives” applies to the wives of both elders and deacons, not just to deacons’ wives. As to the question of translating it “wives” or “women,” and whether female deacons are in view, I am convinced that “wives” is the proper translation and that Paul is not referring to women deacons for the following reasons:

First, by using the word “likewise” to introduce deacons (3:8) and then again to introduce “wives / women” (3:11) Paul gives the impression that two different groups are in view. The second “likewise” introducing the “wives / women” creates a group different from the deacons he has already “likewise” introduced.

Second, Paul specifies deacons in verse 8, “wives / women” in verse 11, and then deacons again in verse 12. If Paul wanted to speak of female deacons and male deacons, it seems he would have introduced the category of deacon in verse 8, and then subdivided that category by speaking of “women” in verse 11 and of “men” in verse 12. As it is, Paul speaks of deacons, then “wives / women,” and then again of deacons (not “men”), giving the impression that “wives / women” are separate from the category of deacon.

Third, Paul specifies that elders are to have “dignity” (3:4) and deacons are to be “dignified” (3:8); however, he then says that “women / wives” are to be “dignified.” If “women” is simply a sub-category of “deacons,” why would Paul repeat the same qualification?

Fourth, Paul specifies that both elders and deacons are to be “the husband of one wife” (3:2, 12). Why then, is there no parallel statement that women deacons must be “the wife of one husband”? (See also 1 Timothy 5:9, where Paul requires widows to be “the wife of one husband”).

Finally, the same word for “wife / woman” is used three times in this passage: verses 2, 11, and 12. Verses 2 and 12 refer, without debate, to the wives of the elders and deacons. For Paul to use the same word in 3:11 without any clarification would indicate that he still has the same group in mind: the wives of elders and deacons.

Over the next few weeks, Lord willing, I would like to delve into this topic further. For now, I hope this has been a helpful study of 1 Timothy 3:11.

Latent Talent

The other day I came across the phrase “latent talent” and it struck me that those two words – “latent” and “talent” – share the same letters. Not only do they share the same letters, but they are further connected in that far too much talent remains latent. While it’s always a shame when useful and enjoyable talents remain untapped, the problem of latent talents is especially acute within the Church. God has given each of us abilities, and He desires that we use them for the building up of His kingdom. In Romans 12:4–6, Paul writes, “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them.”

God has provided the personnel and skills necessary for the flourishing of His Church. The problem is that so often, the talents that God has provided the Church through its members remain latent. Potential song leaders remain silent, potential leaders remain seated, potential encouragers / teachers / maintenance technicians / etc. for whatever reason fail to identify and take advantage of the talents that God has given them for the benefit of others. We do not all have the same abilities, and that is exactly why we need everyone to work together for the growth of the Church.

If the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30) has entered your mind, know that it has been in mine as well. Now, admittedly, the “talents” of the parable are units of weight (1 talent = about 80 pounds). Nevertheless, the number of “talents” given to the individuals represents resources: time, money, and also talents. The five and the two talent men were praised for their wise use of their talents. They took the resources given them by God and put them to work for the Lord’s benefit. But what of the one talent man? Was he reprimanded because he did not have as many resources as the other two. Certainly not! He was reprimanded because he buried his talent instead of using it to the benefit of the Lord. His talent remained latent!

God does not ask us to do what He has not equipped us to do, but He absolutely expects us to use whatever talents He has blessed us with to His glory and the building up of His kingdom. He has equipped His church with people possessing a variety of skills which together make a well-functioning whole. It is not just “people” that He has equipped, it is YOU and ME that He has equipped. Our responsibility is to identify the skills He has given us and to make use of them for the building up of the Church. God forbid that we allow the talents He has given us to remain latent. “But how,” some may ask, “do I identify my talents?” Here are a few suggestions:

  1. Reflect on your own resources and interests
  2. Listen to what others say you are good at or how you have helped them
  3. Identify the needs of the Church: remember, God has provided the people and skills that the Church needs. If you can identify what the Church needs, it may be that YOU are the person with the skill to take care of it.
  4. Finally, pray that God would show you how you might benefit the Church. Having prayed, pay attention to what others are saying and to what the Church needs. You never know how God will answer a prayer.

AD 70: The Year the Temple Fell

One of the most significant dates in world history is 70 AD. In that year the Roman army destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and much of the city. The events surrounding the siege and destruction of Jerusalem are recorded most fully by Josephus in his book The Jewish War. While the history of the Jewish rebellion and its defeat is fascinating in and of itself, the destruction of the temple has significance that still impacts us today.

First, the destruction of the temple is the final nail in the coffin of Judaism. While the Mosaic Law and the Jewish religion as such technically came to a close at the death of Jesus, there was somewhat of a transition period in which Christians still interacted with the temple. That is why, for example, we read of Paul going to the temple as part of a vow (Acts 21). With the destruction of the temple, this transition period is brought to a permanent close. There is no more temple, no more animal sacrifice. The shadows are done away with because the true form has come. As if to make this even more clear, God in His providence allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque (The Dome of the Rock) on the temple mount, so far preventing any new temple to be built.

Second, the destruction of the temple is an example of fulfilled prophecy. Jesus, in his Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25, Mark 13, Luke 21) speaks clearly about the pending destruction of Jerusalem. He mentions specifically that it would happen within one generation (i.e., about 40 years) and that “there will not be left here one stone upon another” (Matt 24:2). Both of these things happened: the temple was destroyed in 70 AD and the temple was completely demolished; the elevated plateau on which the temple stood was wiped clean. Now, some people wonder about the large rocks at the temple mount they see in pictures, commonly called the Wailing Wall. Those rocks are not part of the temple complex itself, but are part of a retaining wall at the bottom of the plateau on which the temple complex sat. Not only did Jesus foretell the destruction of the temple, but He warned His disciples to flee Jerusalem as soon as the signs pointed to the coming destruction. While difficult to prove with certainty, the historical tradition tells of the Christians in Jerusalem fleeing North to safety in Pella before Jerusalem was put under siege by the Romans.

Finally, and related to the point above, the destruction of Jerusalem is a key component of the debate over Jesus’s deity and the date of the New Testament’s writing. Skeptics point to Jesus’s prophetic words and argue as follows: “There is no such thing as prophecy; the gospels record Jesus speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem; therefore, the gospels must have been written after 70 AD.” Christians, on the other hand, accept the historical accuracy of the gospels, including the accuracy and historicity of Jesus’s words in the Olivet Discourse. We can look at Jesus’s words and see that what He declared would happen did indeed come true. He was a prophet, and more than a prophet. The fact that the New Testament never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem – not even to say, “This fulfills Jesus’s words” – is a good indicator that the entire New Testament was written before 70 AD and that Jesus’s words are genuine, not put into His mouth after the fact. Ultimately, it comes down to presupposition. If you begin with the assumption that there is no God and therefore no prophecy, then you must have the words of the Olivet Discourse written after 70 AD and put into Jesus’s mouth after the fact. If, on the other hand, you hold open the possibility of God and prophecy, then 70 AD is one more piece of evidence that Jesus is the Son of God and was able to foretell events that would occur decades later.

“If Only We Had Miracles!”

Why doesn’t God act miraculously to bring people to faith? Why doesn’t He act miraculously to validate my faith? It is true that God acts providentially to bring people to faith: “coincidences” in life, a timely conversation or sermon, etc. But wouldn’t it be so much easier if God were just constantly creating miraculous events? And wouldn’t people be more inclined to put their faith in Him? While we may be tempted to think along these lines, what we actually find in history is rather paradoxical: miracles generally do not lead people to put their faith in God.

Take, for example, what is probably the most miracle-saturated generation in history: the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt. These individuals witnessed God’s plagues upon Egypt, participated in the crossing of the Red Sea, witnessed God’s glory on Mount Sinai, and were miraculously provided for in the wilderness. You would think that these people more than any others would be inclined to put their faith in God. But, as Paul writes about this generation in 1 Corinthians 10:5, “Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” Despite the abundance of miracles, the people groaned and complained; they created for themselves a golden calf to worship; and once they made it to the promised land, they refused to trust God and enter it. The generation witnessing the most miracles proved to be an exceptionally faithless generation.

We see this pattern also in Jesus’s time as well. While some individuals were convinced about Jesus based on His miracles, many people saw His miracles simply as a good way to get free food (John 6:26). Despite seeing so many miracles, the Jewish leaders asked for more (John 12:37). Even on the cross, they demanded “just one more sign” so they would believe in Him (Matthew 27:42).

You see, even if we think they will – and even if someone claims to simply need to see one in order to become a Christian – the fact is that miracles are not the cure for unbelief. When Jesus speaks of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man insists that if only someone would rise from the dead, then his brothers would heed the warning and repent. What is the response? “[Abraham] said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31).

The answer to unbelief is not miracles, but the Word of God: “Moses and the Prophets” and the writings of the New Testament. “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). God tells us that His very words have power. The Holy Spirit is able to wield His sword (Ephesians 6:17) and strike the heart of those who hear, “piercing to the division of soul and spirit.” The question for us is, do we trust the power of God’s words? If we do trust that power, then we will recognize that we do not need miracles, but the faithful proclamation of Scripture. We proclaim God’s words, and pray that those who hear might have their hearts pierced with the truth and power of the Word of God. May we pray for faithful proclamation and that God would use that proclamation to add ever more people to His kingdom.

Why We Sing A Cappella in Church

Over the past several weeks, a brief history of the use (or non-use) of instruments in the Church’s worship has been sketched. The main point I wished to drive home was that, while a cappella worship is strange in our culture today, it is absolutely not strange when the entire breadth of Christian history is taken into account. In this article, I would like to briefly sketch three reasons why we, along with many others throughout history, choose to worship with a cappella singing in our assemblies.

Silence of the New Testament

When it comes to the New Testament Church, the silence on musical instruments is deafening. In the Old Testament, musical instruments are associated especially with David and the temple. Many of the Psalms make refer to instruments and instructions were given for the Levites to play musical instruments within the temple. But when we read through the New Testament, we find no reference to instruments in the worship of the early Church. There is mention of Jesus and the disciples singing, and of the early Church singing, but absolutely no mention of them making use of musical instruments. Why is that? This silence should be a red flag causing us to inquire further, not plow forward without a second thought. The fact that the New Testament mentions singing and prayer, but makes no reference to the early Church using instruments certainly gives the impression that the early Church was in fact not using instruments.

The True Instrument of Praise is the Heart

Not only are instruments not mentioned, but where singing is explicitly mentioned, it is the heart that is identified as the true instrument of praise (Eph 5:17–21, Col 3:16). It’s also worth noting that Paul contrasts intelligible speech with “lifeless instruments” in 1 Cor 14:7. As Paul makes clear in all of these passages, it is the meaning and understanding of spiritual words, not merely sounds being produced, that constitutes the true spiritual worship of the Church. The addition of instruments, while entertaining and emotionally moving, cannot add to the intelligibility of the words sung, but can only detract. Therefore, they have no place in our worship service.

Maturity of the Church

A final reason for excluding instruments from the Church’s assemblies is recognizing that the Church is the mature form of God’s people. The Mosaic Law, animal sacrifice, the temple, incense, Levites, priests, etc. were given for a period of time in order to teach the people, lead up to the Messiah, and to serve as foreshadows of what was to come (see Galatians 3:19–24 and practically all of Hebrews). With the death and resurrection of Jesus and the establishment of the Church, the old “immature” things were done away with. This included the Mosaic Law, the sacrifices, and the temple with its ordinances. Now, here is the question before us: do the musical instruments of the Old Testament fall within the category of “immature” things that are done away with in the Church? The Church for several hundred years answered in the affirmative, and I believe they are correct. The harps and lyres and cymbals – all of the musical instruments associated with the temple – are in the same category as the temple sacrifices, incense, Levites, and priesthood. While there is not a specific verse stating this explicitly, the book of Hebrews, combined with passages such as Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:17–21, would certainly seem to point in this direction.

While there is more to be said on this subject, that’s all I’m going to say for the time being. I hope this series on instruments in worship has been beneficial to you. God bless.

A Cappella Worship Service: Setting the Context, pt. 3

Over the past couple of weeks, the history of musical instruments in worship service has been briefly surveyed. This week, we’ll consider specifically the Restoration Movement.

As with other reform movements, the Restoration Movement began with a rejection of instruments in worship. The movement was based on a call to strict faithfulness to the Bible for the sake of truth and unity. Therefore, what is done in worship must be approved of in the New Testament. For the first several decades there was no great controversy regarding instruments in worship. Nevertheless, by the 1850’s the seed of the future controversy was growing. In 1851, after hearing of some congregations adding instruments to worship, Alexander Campbell publicly denounced the practice and concluded that “to all spiritually-minded Christians, such aids [i.e., instruments] would be as a cow bell in a concert” (Millennial Harbinger, September 1851). Which congregations had added instruments is not known, and they must have been few in number.

The first congregation of the Restoration Movement on record for adding instruments to worship was the congregation in Midway, KY which added a melodeon in 1860. The addition was not made without controversy both internal and external. Internally, though in the minority, there were many members opposed to instruments in worship. One such member, Adam Hidler, went so far as to break into the church building at night and steal the melodeon (The Search for the Ancient Order, vol. 2, pg. 312). While his method of protest is morally questionable, his zeal is admirable. Externally, the addition of the melodeon at Midway led to a flurry of articles and counter-articles in the various brotherhood journals. Perhaps it could be called the first battle of Midway.

The debate over instrumental worship was sidelined shortly after it began by the American Civil War. During the war years, focus was turned to the question of participating in the war and to efforts at maintaining unity in the Church as the nation was torn in two. In the decades following the Civil War, however, the debate resumed. More and more congregations began adding instruments to worship and the argument grew more and more heated.

For several decades, efforts were made to keep the congregations of the Restoration Movement united, but the reality of “irreconcilable differences” continued to exert itself. At the heart of the matter were two conflicting approaches to Scripture; the addition of instruments was really a symptom of the deeper issue. Was anything not expressly prohibited by the New Testament acceptable in worship? Or, must any practice included in worship have express New Testament permission? How one answered such questions in large part determined one’s opinion on instruments in worship. Over time, the difference in these two approaches led more and more congregations to split or break fellowship due to the addition of instruments. The division was a reality for many years before becoming official in 1906, when the U.S. census for the first time split the Restoration Movement into two groups: Disciples of Christ (those with instruments) and churches of Christ (those without instruments).