# Pliny's Hymn



## Kaalvenist (May 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> ...


Here is the pertinent section of Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan, in the original (_Ep._ 10.96):


> Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire *carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum in vicem* seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria, committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium...


Here are a couple different translations of this section:


> However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this: -- That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, *and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately;* and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal...





> They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn *and sing responsively to Christ as to a god,* and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food -- but ordinary and innocent food.


It should be noted here that this information given by Pliny to Trajan consisted of the testimonies of Christians who had apostatized from the faith (as is mentioned in the sentences immediately preceding this paragraph). Be that as it may, most (including EP'ers) are agreed in judgment that this is a fair and accurate representation of the conduct of early Christians.

This letter, dating to around A.D. 110-113, has been frequently referred to in a number of debates (Deity of Christ, Lord's Day observance, etc.), but also enters into the debate of exclusive psalmody. It is the position of those opposed to exclusive psalmody that this is an early reference to the practice of uninspired hymnody. It is the position of defenders of exclusive psalmody that there is nothing in this letter contrary to the view that the early church practiced exclusive psalmody.

That having been said, I invite my illustrious opponent (or any others who are interested) to begin the argumentation from this passage.


----------



## Kaalvenist (May 23, 2006)

Since nobody else wants to address it (although it has been touted several times as indisputable evidence of the use of uninspired hymns in the early church, and will undoubtedly continue thus), I will address this section of the letter.

1. The passage does not state conclusively that the songs they were accustomed to sing either were or were not Psalms.

2. We know that the church sang Psalms at this time. The exclusivity of their singing Psalms is under debate, but not their singing of Psalms. This fact seems to get overlooked by those arguing for uninspired hymns. If this section is making explicit mention of singing an uninspired hymn, why does it not also mention the fact that they sang the inspired Psalms (which is indisputed)? Wouldn't the early Christian apostates from whom Pliny was getting his info have mentioned something about how they "sang a hymn to Christ as God, as well as songs from the ancient Scriptures"?

Again, nobody (Psalm-singers or hymn-singers) argues as to whether or not the early church was in the practice of singing Psalms. The only question is whether they sang songs not appearing in the Book of Psalms, written by men not acting under divine inspiration. Why would we not conclude that this reference in the letter (the only reference to singing) was in fact a reference to this indisputed practice of psalmody; and not, rather, to the disputed practice of uninspired hymnody, without making any reference whatsoever to the indisputed practice?

3. The force of the argument made by those opposing exclusive psalmody rests upon the fact that it is a hymn "to Christ as to a god," or as God. I might mention that this is similar to the argument made from Col. 3:16, that the "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" cannot all refer to the Psalter, because it is prefaced by "Let the word of Christ dwell in you," etc. The entire argument rests upon the idea that the Psalms do not speak of Christ, or do not speak clearly of Christ, or do not refer to Him as God. But once admit that the Psalms speak freely, frequently, and fully of Christ, and speak of Him as God, and this argument comes to nothing.

4. I therefore conclude that there is nothing in this selection of Pliny's letter which forces us to the conclusion that the early church sang uninspired hymns. Furthermore, in consideration of the early church's understanding of the Psalms as speaking of Christ and His Deity (Luke 24:44; Acts 2:25-28, 34; 4:11, 25, 26; 13:33, 35; Eph. 4:8; Heb. 1:5, 8-13; 2:6-8, etc., etc.; see also Athanasius's Letter to Marcellinus); the fact that all confess the early church sang Psalms, and on the hymn-singers' interpretation this would provide a reference to singing uninspired compositions without any mention whatsoever of singing Psalms; and the fact that no historian has yet been able to point us to any hymns or hymnal used by the early church outside the Psalter; I conclude that this selection of Pliny's letter is a reference to the singing of Psalms in the early church.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 18, 2006)

> But once admit that the Psalms speak freely, frequently, and fully of Christ, and speak of Him as God, and this argument comes to nothing.



This is a weak argument. You are arguing from ignorance and asserting based on your presuppositions.

A clear understanding based on the biblical text, Paul's guidance to the church and the histo-cultural context refutes your assertion.



> I conclude that this selection of Pliny's letter is a reference to the singing of Psalms in the early church.



Again - you don't conclude, you assert.

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > But once admit that the Psalms speak freely, frequently, and fully of Christ, and speak of Him as God, and this argument comes to nothing.
> ...


JD, please carefully read my two previous posts. Does it really sound like I am ignorant of the situation that existed at that time?

Was I wrong or incorrect in stating that *your* argument is based upon Christ not appearing in the Psalms, or not appearing in the Psalms clearly, or frequently, or fully? If the Psalms speak of Christ (Luke 24:44); if all of my worship is to be offered in Him and to Him; then is there a problem with saying that I sing the Biblical Psalms to Christ (as I will do this morning at my church)?


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> A clear understanding based on the biblical text, Paul's guidance to the church and the histo-cultural context refutes your assertion.


JD,

1. This is not a biblical argument. This is an historical argument. You are trying to say, based upon this letter from Pliny to Trajan, that the early church sang uninspired compositions; and use that to assist in the interpretation of Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. But now, it seems you're trying to assert the very opposite: that, because we must understand Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 ("the biblical text, Paul's guidance to the church") to command the singing of non-canonical songs, we must understand this as speaking of an uninspired composition. In other words, you are claiming that the "hymn to Christ as God" leads us to understand Paul to command the singing of uninspired compositions; and you are likewise claiming that, because Paul commands the singing of uninspired compositions, we must understand the "hymn to Christ as God" to be an uninspired composition. That is circular reasoning if I ever heard it. Both of your assertions are being claimed as proof for each other.

2. You have made no argument whatsoever from the historico-cultural context -- simply made a very broad assertion. In making this assertion, you continue to ignore the fact that this is a Christian ordinance, not a pagan ordinance. Pliny is not using the word _carmen_ to refer to the singing of a hymn to Athena or Zeus; he is referring to Christians singing to Christ as to a god. Remember also, there are two levels of separation between the actual observance of this ordinance, and the account we have here: (1.) It is the account given by apostates from Christianity to Pliny, and (2.) It is recorded and recounted from them by Pliny to Trajan, both of whom were pagans who were simply trying to understand Christianity. Is there any mention in the account of the Scriptures at all? Why, then, would we suppose that he would specifically mention the Psalms, if they were being sung? We likewise read that they ate "a common but innocent meal" -- plainly a reference to the Lord's Supper, but it does not say that they ate "bread and wine." The action itself is recorded, not the particular content of that action. Likewise, the action of "singing to Christ as to a god" is recorded, without particularly identifying the content of the song.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > I conclude that this selection of Pliny's letter is a reference to the singing of Psalms in the early church.
> ...




I ask any impartial observer to compare my two opening posts with yours, and tell us which of us is making careful observations and conclusions based upon the actual text of the epistle, and which of us is making unfounded, unproven assertions. Your reply of 43 words did not even begin to scratch the surface of my argument.

Tell you what. Look at the passage in question. Ignore my posts, and make your own careful, unbiased case from the text of the epistle, and we can then have more to work with. Until you do that, your brief cavils against my arguments are empty, hollow, and rather pointless.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 18, 2006)

As an historian, I don't see how Pliny's assessment is determinative of the nature of the songs sang by Christian congregations. 

How would Pliny know the difference between a hymn and a Psalm? 

What did Pliny know of Scripture? What did any elite Roman actually know about Scripture and Christianity other than rumors and the like?

If a pagan, with no knowledge of Scripture walked in on a Psalm-singing congregation today (as I might have done 30+ years ago), and he knew of "hymns" generally, how would he tell the difference? I certainly knew nothing of the Psalms and had far more exposure to Christian things than Pliny ever did!

Further, even if we impute to Pliny sufficient knowledge to distinguish between Psalms and hymns, what was the source and sample of Pliny's information? If someone walked into a Calvary Chapel or an AOG today and said, "Christian worship is like this..." most of us on this board would dispute that assessment rather vigorously. 

Pliny would have known about hymns of allegience to Rome and military songs etc. The use of the noun "president" suggests that he interpreted the proceedings according to patterns with which he was familiar. 

We don't know with certainty that the songs sung were uninspired or portions of the NT. I realize that exclusive exclusive Psalmodists typically deny the existence of NT "hymns," but it seems to me not impossible that the early churches sang portions of the NT and if so they would have been singing inspired rather than uninspired texts. Even if the songs sung were not Psalms (again, just an hypothesis) the "hymns" in view weren't necessary uninspired or accompanied by instruments.

What we can deduce fairly from the letter (assuming the pattern described was broadly representative) is that the early Christians employed the elements of worship: Word (preached and sung), sacrament, and prayer. 

Pliny's letter is interesting and suggests an outline of what transpired, which we might fairly impute to more than one congregation, but let us be careful about pressing the details. 

rsc


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 18, 2006)

> Pliny's letter is interesting and suggests an outline of what transpired, which we might fairly impute to more than one congregation, but let us be careful about pressing the details.



Good guidance. Thank you, sir.

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> > Pliny's letter is interesting and suggests an outline of what transpired, which we might fairly impute to more than one congregation, but let us be careful about pressing the details.
> ...




I admit that, in my conclusion that they sang Psalms, I was primarily relying upon other considerations. All admit that they sang Psalms at this time; whether they sang other compositions along with those Psalms can't be determined from this text (maybe I should have stuck with my first point!).

Dr. Clark, I know that you're in the URCNA, which allows for the singing of non-canonical songs (colloquially termed "hymns"). I also know that certain other Dutch churches, following Article 69 of the Dordt Church Order, sing only or almost only from the Psalter. If I might ask, what is your position on this subject?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 18, 2006)

Hi,

Article 39 of the URCNA church order says:



> The 150 Psalms shall have the principal place in the singing of the churches. Hymns which faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity may be sung, provided they are approved by the Consistory.



This is usually interpreted to mean that we may sing uninspired hymns. It was adopted by a body most of which has been singing from a Psalter-Hymnal for several decades. 

The Dort Order (as I have it anyway) says:



> Article 69
> 
> In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments,
> the Lord´s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Song of Mary,
> ...



In the light of the Dort order, and since the URC claims to be derived from Dort and since the URC order does not say, "uninspired hymns" a congregation would certainly be within their rights to sing only inpsired songs and that would be my preference. 

Having made some strides in recent years toward recovering the Reformed hermeneutic (law and gospel) and doctrine of justification (sola gratia, sola fide) and covenant theology (pactum salutis, covenant of works and covenant of grace) we have yet to recover the Reformed principle and practice of worship. I have some hope that perhaps we are at the beginning stages of such a recovery. I certainly was not challenged to think confessionally about worship for some years, until about 1991 or so when Bob Godfrey began to challenge me. It took some time to come 'round. Even my dear friend Jim Carson, a long time RPCNA minister, did not entirely succeed while he was here. Like Calvin, I was "too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of" evangelicalism to embrace the RPW fully.

Today, however, I would be perfectly happy to sing only Psalms and that without instruments. That was the historic practice of our churches, it's what we confess in the WCF and it's what the WDPW seems to require. It was the historic practice of the Dutch churches. 

At present, I can see how one could say that no consistory/session could impose a non-inspired song or musical instruments upon a congregation. 
As a matter of principle, however, I cannot how one can say that a congregation may not sing an inspired text such as the Magnificat or Phil 2 or some other inspired text beyond the Psalter per Dort CO Art 69.

I understand that there is doubt over whether such are actually songs or were sung in the Apostolic church. There is some question by responsible scholars over whether all the Psalms were sung corporately. It seems to me that so long as we confine ourselves to inspired texts no one can say that we're singing anything other than God's Word. 

By this, I'm not arguing for the use of the repetitive and tedious ditties that pass for "Scripture songs." I would think that there are appropriate tunes that could be found for appropriate NT and OT passages.

So far as Pliny goes, even if the argument can be made that they sang uninspired songs, we don't base our practice on purely on precedent. The early church made all sorts of mistakes. We have always been sympathetically critical of the fathers. We follow them when they are correct and we correct them according to the Word where they were incorrect or immature.

We must base our practice on the Scripture but we must read Scripture with confession in hand and with the churches.

I hope that helps.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> ...


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr. Clark,

Thanks. I remember talking with David a while back about your views, and that was about where he said you were on the subject.

I was just explaining to someone today why I believe it is that regulated worship, unaccompanied exclusive psalmody, etc. seem to be making something of a comeback. Reformed theology itself has been making a comeback in the last generation or so, largely through the republishing of Puritan works (Banner of Truth, Soli Deo Gloria, etc.); and it's only a matter of time before people who become immersed in the Puritans begin to inquire as to how they worshipped.

I love reading Dr. Godfrey on psalmody. He was the only non-EP guy that had a blurb on the back of Bushell's "Songs of Zion"; and his paper in the book "The Worship of the Church" was outstanding. (That was also where I read of his description of most CCM songs as being "4 notes, 3 words, 2 hours.)

BTW, Jim Carson's brother, David, was mentioned briefly in our service this morning -- Jerry O'Neill was preaching, and Denny Prutow was in attendance, having preached the two previous Lord's Days. During the study hour, they talked about what's going on at RPTS, especially with the 200 year anniversary coming up in a few years.

I'm looking forward to the day when you and I are in the same denomination -- it's not _too_ far a drive for you to San Diego RPC, is it?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 18, 2006)

I should be clear that I don't sing uninspired songs and I'm willing to become an exclusive, a capella Psalmodist. I've more study to do. 

I have a lot of appreciation for the RP's. They were very kind to me (and my family) in Kansas City. I'll never forget the evening Wilbur Copeland showed up at my door to build shelves for my study! I had no idea who he was and he thought it was funny that I didn't and he didn't tell me for a while until he had been building shelves for a while. 

The first time I preached in an RP congregation I was terrified. I knew they had some "strange" (or so it seemed to me then) views on worship and I was sure that I would do something of which they did not approve. At the end of the service I got to the benediction and suddenly I lost all confidence that the RP's meant by "benediction" what I understood by benediction. So I I stopped in mid blessing, leaned over from the pulpit to ask Wilbur, "Is this what you mean by benediction?" He nodded "Yes!" and I finished. I don't remember going back to preach. 

The San Diego RP's are quite a ways from us. We worshiped with them several years ago and enjoyed it very much. The minister is the brother of Brent England, one of our recent grads. 

I'm looking forward to being with the RP's on 30 June in Pittsburgh. Dave and I and some others are supposed to get together on Sat for lunch. 

blessings,

rsc



> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> Thanks. I remember talking with David a while back about your views, and that was about where he said you were on the subject.
> ...


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I should be clear that I don't sing uninspired songs and I'm willing to become an exclusive, a capella Psalmodist. I've more study to do.





> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The first time I preached in an RP congregation I was terrified. I knew they had some "strange" (or so it seemed to me then) views on worship and I was sure that I would do something of which they did not approve. At the end of the service I got to the benediction and suddenly I lost all confidence that the RP's meant by "benediction" what I understood by benediction. So I I stopped in mid blessing, leaned over from the pulpit to ask Wilbur, "Is this what you mean by benediction?" He nodded "Yes!" and I finished. I don't remember going back to preach.





> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I'm looking forward to being with the RP's on 30 June in Pittsburgh. Dave and I and some others are supposed to get together on Sat for lunch.


Yay Synod!  I've only been to our Presbytery meeting, back in 2003; I've got to go there one of these years.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 18, 2006)

Dr. Clark,

Thank you very much for your thoughts here. I appreciate both the tone and content of your posts.

I resonate with your reasoning and perhaps, I too, am <i>"too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of" evangelicalism to embrace the RPW fully.</i>

Perhaps in time I will come to see that, what is to me, the strictest application of the RPW on song singing is indeed the clearest and best path for congregational worship.

I know that I would be perfectly happy to sing the Psalms, unaccompanied (albeit with rich harmonies!). My graduate degrees are in Voice Performance and Vocal Pedagogy and I *know* that there is no more versatile or more suitable instrument for which to worship the Lord! 

I would also agree that there are songs for "itching ears" composed for and used in modern and traditional worship, but I have also heard some of the most beautiful, textually rich and spiritual songs that appeal to the mind, heart, soul and strength to worship God through Christ.

What guides my thinking on this subject, though, is what Paul said in Romans 15 - <i> 1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.</i>. 

If we can, through canonical and non-canonical songs exhort and edify our neighbor as well as, and most primarily, lead the focus of worship to God, then I _must_ continue to sing and lead in singing these songs, utilizing the guidance of Scripture and the promptings of the Holy Spirit to discern/divide their content and context, because I believe that ALL our best intents to refine worship will only be as fruitful as they are made acceptable through Jesus Christ.

Thanks again for your posts and thank you, Kaalvinist, for a passionate exchange. It edifies me to be reminded of the thoughtful reasoning behind other viewpoints.

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 18, 2006)

JD,

There is no question that there is some lovely and moving hymnody. I give up "A Mighty Fortress" (at least in stated services, I reserve the right to sing it privately and in "chapel" etc). The question here is whether a session/consistory is free to impose that lovely and moving uninspired hymnody on a congregation. As one who worships weekly in a non-EP congregation, I have been made more senstive to this problem.

Your expression, "best intents" is central to this question. There is no question that God is free to do what he pleases. He is certainly free to use our "best intents." 

The question, of course, is what has God revealed to us? 

Are our "best intents" the best test? 

Andy Cammenga once preached a brilliant sermon about the "new cart." Some skilled craftsmen made a beautiful new cart to carry the ark instead of Yahweh's ordained homely poles. That beautiful cart, however, cost Uzzah his life. That sermon might have been another way point on my journey toward the RPW.

Blessings,

rsc



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> Thank you very much for your thoughts here. I appreciate both the tone and content of your posts.
> ...


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 18, 2006)

> Your expression, "best intents" is central to this question. There is no question that God is free to do what he pleases. He is certainly free to use our "best intents."
> 
> The question, of course, is what has God revealed to us?
> 
> ...



Ha! Right now, kaalvenist is smiling, that is one of his favorite Scriptural illustrations, too. 

The question I struggle with is that while God has acted punitively as it regards acceptable worship, why does He not still?

Is a sign of acceptable worship that God destroys/punishes those that do *not* do it in an acceptable manner? 

What about the propitiative work of Christ in this regard? Doesn´t He, as the author and perfector of our faith, perfect our worship as a component of our faith? Can you have faith without worship? I know you can have the reverse.

Wasn´t Uzzah sinning by *touching* the ark, not by building the cart? _edited to add_ - oops, fixed what I meant to say - and doesn't that presuppose that they did *not* set the ark on the cart with the poles? I will go back and see if it mentions that...



> 1 Chronicles 13:10
> And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.



Were David and the troupe "œmaking merry before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals" around the ark sinning? 

Why didn´t He kill them?

Not trying to be contentious, just seeking to understand.

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 18, 2006)

> <i>by JD</i> Wasn´t Uzzah sinning by *touching* the ark, not by building the cart? _edited to add_ - oops, fixed what I meant to say - and doesn't that presuppose that they did *not* set the ark on the cart with the poles? I will go back and see if it mentions that...



Found this:



> Hence, when Uzzah touched the ark, he was profaning it and disobeying God; he should have grabbed the poles used for carrying the ark instead, for that was their purpose (Ex 25:14-15). And as Glenn Miller points out in his response (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ark), the ark shouldn't have been on a cart anyway, but should have been carried on people's shoulders (1 Chr 15:15)



I think I understand better what you were saying.

I am surprised that God did not kill ALL of them. What a blessing His mercy is!

Which goes back to my struggle - has not the grace and mercy of God become even MORE manifest through the incarnation of His Son?

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 18, 2006)

JD,

Good and fair questions.

As I understand Scripture, the Ark was meant to be carried with poles (Ex 25:14). 

The Israelite decided to carry some other way. I'm sure the cart was really well made. 

Arguments are frequently made about the quality of hymns etc. If quality or ability to cause some affect in the worshiper is what counts, then the cart was fine. Except it wasn't. The cart was strictly contrary to the revealed will of God. Ultimately it wasn't good enough was it? The ark tipped out and Uzzah died.



> The question I struggle with is that while God has acted punitively as it regards acceptable worship, why does He not still?



On analogy with 1 Cor 10 and Heb 4 (where it quotes Ps 95) we understand that while we are NOT the temporary, national people of God, we are the people of God and such passages are to be instructive to us. We're not thinking about the land, but we do want to take warning from such passages. They tell us about God's nature and especially his holiness.

No, we don't expect, outside of the canon of Scripture and the history of redemption, God to strike folk dead. That sort of thing ended with the apostles, but God does not change. If he was willing to strike dead people for touching the ark (it wouldn't have fallen had they listened to God! Uzzah wouldn't have had to try to make a diving catch and defile the ark with his unclean and unauthorized hands, had they listened to God) then we understand from this and other such passages that God continues to hate well intended, but disobedient worship. The Puritans called such "will worship." That gets right to the point. Do we worship according to God's will or ours?



> What about the propitiative work of Christ in this regard? Doesn´t He, as the author and perfector of our faith, perfect our worship as a component of our faith?



Yes, Christ as, as it were, absorbed the divine wrath for us who believe. It has been exhausted in Christ. 

The question is not whether God will strike us dead, but how we ought to approach him in gratitude for his marvelous grace.



> Were David and the troupe "œmaking merry before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals" around the ark sinning?



As I understand this passage, and here I might disagree with Calvin, there doesn't seem to be any moral scandal attached to David's rejoicing per se. He is so absorbed with the joy of the Lord that he forgets himself.

I agree with the older interpreters who see this episode as belonging to the Mosiac epoch and typical for us but not prescriptive for us in the sense that we are not authorized to dance like David (nor are we authorized to play tamborines like Miriam in Exodus).

Notice how Paul and Hebrews use such passage, _mutatis mutandis_.

As to a recording of the sermon, contact the Escondido United Reformed Church at http://www.escondidourc.org and someone there can help you. They have a tape/cd library and should be able to find the sermon and send it to you. I don't know what the cost is, but it's not much.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 18, 2006)

> Which goes back to my struggle - has not the grace and mercy of God become even MORE manifest through the incarnation of His Son?
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]



We are not under the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace and we're not in temporary national relation to God relative to the land, so yes, there is change in the administration, but God hasn't changed and his moral expectations for his people haven't fundamentally or essentially changed.

The civil and ceremonial laws are fulfilled (i.e., their function in redemptive-history has been completed) so we are no longer under that administration. We're "free" in that regard. We're free from the curse of those laws and from the penalty of those laws, but the RPW still abides.

Yes, his grace and mercy is more manifest, but it's the same grace and mercy. They were looking forward and we look back (and forward to the parousia).

rsc

[Edited on 6-19-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Ha! Right now, kaalvenist is smiling, that is one of his favorite Scriptural illustrations, too.


No, it's not. I've never used that illustration or text of Scripture when explaining the RPW (for OT acts of judgment, I prefer the incident with Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10:1-3).


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 19, 2006)

Oh, yeah! The "strange fire" - sorry, I forgot, but I remember now. 

-JD


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_2. You have made no argument whatsoever from the historico-cultural context



Yes he has, but you continue to consistently ignore the point, even when I was making it. I have scoured the Psalms from beginning to end. The name of Christ is not in it...even in the NIV! So one is forced to conclude that they were not singing Psalms in the sense of the Jewish Psalter. I pointed this out to you in our last exchange but, since it does not square with your presuppositions, you act like it is no point at all


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_2. You have made no argument whatsoever from the historico-cultural context
> ...


Kevin,

1. An argument that "they couldn't have been singing the Psalms because they don't say 'Christ'" is not an argument from the historico-cultural context.

2. They quote does not say, "The songs they sang contained the name of Jesus," or "the name of Christ." You seem to be relying upon such a misreading of the text in question. Dr. Clark (the historian among us) is persuaded that we cannot determine _what_ they were singing based upon Pliny's statement, i.e., whether they were singing a Psalm, or a New Testament canonical song, or a non-canonical song. Why don't you take issue with his statements?

3. Psalm 2:2 (LXX): _parestÄ“san hoi basileis tÄ“s gÄ“s kai hoi archontes sunÄ“chthÄ“san epi to auto kata tou kuriou kai kata tou *christou* autou diapsalma_

Acts 4:25, 26 (AV): "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his *Christ* (_parestÄ“san hoi basileis tÄ“s gÄ“s kai hoi archontes sunÄ“chthÄ“san epi to auto kata tou kuriou kai kata tou *christou* autou_)."

The word itself is _christou,_ and the early church (under the Apostles, no less) took it to be referring to Christ Jesus. I remind you that the early church did not use the NIV, they used the LXX, as evidenced by their exact quote of that passage from that translation.

So even based upon your misreading of the text (that the song they sang must have had the actual word "Christ" in it), we see that the translation of the Psalms that they used *did* have the word "Christ" in it, so that they still could have been singing one of the Psalms of the Bible.

But since I began this thread because of your constant reliance upon this statement from Pliny, would you be willing to examine the quote in question and vindicate your interpretation thereof?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 20, 2006)

I would ask only, that if the phrase "to Christ" does not mean that they were invoking the name of Christ, then how could their singing be differentiated from Jewish psalm sining? Pliny certainly would not have naturally made the distinction since at that time Christianity was still largely viewed as a Jewish sect (though this was changing).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 20, 2006)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this argument, but it seems to me that the apostles had no trouble finding "Christ" in the Psalms! Ps 110 is the most quoted passage from the Heb Scriptures in the NT with 22 references or allusions and every use or allusion is taken as a reference to Christ. It's the chief proof of his divinity and messianic office and of his fulfillment of the _pactum salutis_.

_Christos_, as you know, is Greek for "_Meshiach_" which occurs 10 times in Psalter. Of these instance 2 times seem to have reference to more than one person, so 8 of the instances would seem to be direct references to Christ. 

So, since Jesus is the the Anointed and he is the proper owner of that title (it's not a proper name) I'm not sure what this argument is about.

Further, based upon the way the Apostolic church used/read the Psalms there can be little question that they saw Christ everywhere in the Psalms. 

Finally, as Bob Godfrey has pointed out to me in response to the argument that by singing the Psalter only were omitting Jesus from our worship, even the song of Moses in Rev 15 doesn't mention the name of Jesus! 

The name of Jesus is not a talisman. If we read Scripture with Paul in 1 Cor 10 and Jesus in Luke 24 (and John 8 etc) then "finding Jesus" in the Psalter isn't really a problem. The problem is when we read Christ OUT of the Psalter (or the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures altogether).

If the argument is:

1. X mentioned Christ
2. The Psalms don't mention Christ
3. Ergo X wasn't a Psalm

then I think the middle premise is false and the argument fails.

If I've misunderstood the argument, then, in the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind."

rsc 



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_2. You have made no argument whatsoever from the historico-cultural context
> ...



[Edited on 6-20-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 20, 2006)

Psalm 2:2
The kings of the earth set (8691) themselves, and the rulers (8802) take counsel (8738) together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 

paresthsan oi basileiv thv ghv kai oi arxontev sunhxqhsan epi to auto kata tou kuriou kai kata tou xristou autou diayalma

This Psalm is not to Christ as unto a god - this is to God *and* His anointed one (xristou) - again your presuppositions are leading your analysis.

Besides - there are lots of reference to the Anointed throughout the OT.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible...on=1&it=nas&ot=lxx&nt=tr&Enter=Perform+Search

Maybe they sung a song from Isaiah, since Christ referenced this verse directly?

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted *, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; 

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I would ask only, that if the phrase "to Christ" does not mean that they were invoking the name of Christ, then how could their singing be differentiated from Jewish psalm sining? Pliny certainly would not have naturally made the distinction since at that time Christianity was still largely viewed as a Jewish sect (though this was changing).


I'm saying that it was not distinct or differentiated from Jewish Psalm-singing, except in the fact that they offered their worship (including their Psalm-singing) to Christ as God, and through Christ as the God-man. And Pliny does not seem to be discussing their practice _*as contrasted*_ with the practice of the Jews.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Psalm 2:2
> The kings of the earth set (8691) themselves, and the rulers (8802) take counsel (8738) together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
> 
> ...


JD,

Keep reading in the Psalm. This Psalm is particularly mentioned by the author of Hebrews (incidentally, I hold to Pauline authorship), chapter 1, as proof of the Deity of Christ (along with Psalm 45).


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 21, 2006)

kaalvenist - I don't dispute the messianic Psalms. I know that Christ can be found there. I would also agree that the deity of the Christ can be recognized in the Psalms.

I also agree with Dr. Clark:



> As an historian, I don't see how Pliny's assessment is determinative of the nature of the songs sang by Christian congregations.
> 
> How would Pliny know the difference between a hymn and a Psalm?
> 
> ...



I also agree with you:



> I admit that, in my conclusion that they sang Psalms, I was primarily relying upon other considerations. All admit that they sang Psalms at this time; whether they sang other compositions along with those Psalms can't be determined from this text (maybe I should have stuck with my first point!).



-pax-


-JD

[Edited on 6-21-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_I'm saying that it was not distinct or differentiated from Jewish Psalm-singing, except in the fact that they offered their worship (including their Psalm-singing) to Christ as God, and through Christ as the God-man. And Pliny does not seem to be discussing their practice _*as contrasted*_ with the practice of the Jews.



OK, I'll grant your point. On further reflection, we are both arguing from silence. Pliny does not prove as much as either of us would wish.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_(incidentally, I hold to Pauline authorship



Really? On what basis? Read 2:3-4 and meditate on it. The author never saw Jesus, something Paul would not have said. The only think we can be certain regarding authorship of Hebrews was that it was not Paul who wrote it. But this is a subject for another thread.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Aug 31, 2006)

*Pagan Roman talks about hymns?*

Greetings:

A pagan Roman makes a comment that the church sings "hymns" and we are supposed to believe that he is an authority on exactly what the church was doing? Give me a break!

A pagan might not make a distinction between a psalm and a hymn that modern "hymnists" like to make. To him they may be all the same thing.

To rest your views of "hymnody" on this statement by Pliny is making a sandcastle indeed.

-CH


----------

