John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
The structure of the passage. Not saying it is definitively a hymn, but possible, even likely. 2:5-11.
Exclusive Psalmody vs Free Hymnal Worship
- Thread starter Mr. Edward Bryant
- Start date
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Even if it was, that still wouldn't be warrant to use in the public worship of God. And then, even if you're Inspired Praise Only, it still wouldn't warrant uninspired praise in God's worship. As formerly mentioned, and it's worth repeating, neither of these positions can ever give birth to the uninspired praise position. I often see this argument on internet blogs as a way to try to wedge open the door to 'What a friend we have in Jesus' etc. It's really just an irrelevant talking point, to be blunt.
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
What portion of the structure of Philippians 2 makes you think its a hymn. I have attached Codex Sinaiticus a very early manuscript - what structurally marks it out as a hymn? If its not the structure, or puncutation (which btw. there is none!) , then it must be the wording. What about the wording? Vocabulary etc. marks it out as a hymn....even "probably"?
Folks talk about this stuff, write about this stuff. But evidence is pretty much non-existant. Dare I say it..."Wishful thinking/"
Folks talk about this stuff, write about this stuff. But evidence is pretty much non-existant. Dare I say it..."Wishful thinking/"
Attachments
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
If that doesn't work...click here ....https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=42&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I'm no linguist, but I have seen those who point out that verses 6-11 are written in couplets, and that there are also other poetic/hymnic features such as alliteration, parallelism, meter and chiasm present. A Google search will bring up some info. In any case, that understanding is not something simply pulled out of thin air or merely wishful thinking.
Last edited:
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
The presence of some poetic features doesn't make a text a song. You could look at innumerable passages in OT Wisdom and prophetic literature, etc. for examples. To claim that such NT texts are hymn fragments is pure speculation.
Given that such texts are often used as axiomatic or authoritative statements of doctrine, I think it's more likely that they are creeds than hymns.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
My point is that the hymn understanding has a linguistic basis, with some scholars even thinking it likely, so to try and dismiss it as merely wishful thinking is to be ignorant or at best dismissive of certain pertinent facts.
John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Can’t read Greek (yet, God willing), just going with what I’ve heard.
My thinking was that if it is a hymn, then there was a hymn in circulation which was uninspired, possibly being used in worship, and Paul shows his approval of it. Of course, it’s speculation. Just wanted to know how some take this possibility into their thinking.
I can get behind this. The posts I’ve already read have established that there is a difference between creeds and song in worship, explaining why one need not be inspired (creed), while the other must (song/psalm).
My apologies, I was simply wondering the rationale of the position, if indeed Philippians 2 is a hymn. I’m not sure this was explained, but I retreat. Thanks all for your explanations.
Edit: I shall study up on past posts
Here are some excerpts from The Psalms in Worship, edited by John McNaughter, that help clarify:
IV. Are there traces of hymns in the Epistles? It is affirmed with much positiveness that there are fragments of hymns found in the Epistles, and that these must have been in use in the Apostolic Church...
...[but] in all the historical records that have been consulted there is not a hint that this text [i.e., any text in any Epistle] is the fragment of a Christian hymn. Assertions by interpreters there are in plenty; of historical evidence there is none.
The chief, if not the only, proof adduced in support of the view that it [any supposed hymn text in the Epistles] is the fragment of a “Christian hymn” is its poetical structure. It has the parallelism that distinguishes Hebrew poetry. Accordingly, the American Revision prints it as verse. Is the plea well founded? [Consider the truth that] all intense thought, whether of writing or public speech, falls into rhythm. This is true of the best writing of uninspired men; it is preeminently true of the penmen of Scripture. There is often a measured beat in the sentences that the reader feels, can almost hear.
There are many such rhythmical passages in the Epistles... [Mr.] Winer furnishes thirteen instances of poetical parallelism, 1 Timothy 3:16 being one of the thirteen. Green’s Handbook, the second, gives seven more. Thus, in all, we have twenty such rhythmical texts in the Epistles. If we include the whole body of New Testament Scripture, the number will exceed thirty. These all have the poetical structure of 1 Timothy 3:16. Are they all “fragments of Christian hymns?”
1 Timothy 3:16 does not by any means stand alone as to poetical structure; it is only one of many passages of the like form. Therefore no weight can attach to its parallelism as proof of its being a "Christian hymn." The argument breaks down totally because it proves too much. If such exegesis should prevail, then no limit scarcely can be fixed to the hymnal fragments of the New Testament; the Book abounds with them.
[One] passage must be briefly noted—2 Timothy 2:11-13: "Faithful is the saying: for if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him; if we shall deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself" (RV). This great sentence has rhythmical arrangement; its parts balance each other as in genuine parallelism; it is as poetical in its structure as 1 Timothy 3:16. But yet it is not the fragment of a hymn, nor a brief creed, nor yet a liturgical fragment, although it has been called all these. The words, "faithful is the saying" seem to denote a quotation, but in the other places where they occur they cannot be thus understood (1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 4:9).
All these 'sayings' of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles belong to a time of extreme danger and persecution. These Letters were written in martyr times. Nero’s persecution of Christians began in AD 64; it lasted till 68—four years of indescribable torture and suffering for the people of God. 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus were written almost certainly after Nero’s atrocities had begun. The peril was that Christians would quail before the dreadful trial, that they would deny Christ. Hence Paul writes to these young ministers of the Gospel to be steadfast, faithful, true even in death.
Read in the light of martyr fires, his sayings glow with intensity of feeling, with the pathos and the entreaty of one who himself faces death as a witness for Christ. His words ring like a battle shout, like the sharp, abrupt orders of the commander on the field:—"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life" (1 Timothy 6:12); "watch thou in all things, endure afflictions" (2 Timothy 4:5); "hold fast the form of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13); "great is the mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16); "if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us" (2 Timothy 2:12). Every one of these texts, and many more like them, have something of cadence; they ring like sharp steel, and there is a rhythm in their ring.
Accordingly, they are not fragments of hymns, nor short creeds, nor quotations of any sort. They are the impassioned words of Christ’s servant who appeals to his fellow-saints by the Spirit of God to hold fast, to fight bravely, and to hope to the end.
There are fourteen songs in the Book of Revelation: Revelation 4:8,11; Revelation 5:9-10,12-13; Revelation 7:10,12; Revelation 11:8,17-18; Revelation 12:10-12; Revelation 15:3-4; Revelation 19:1,2,5-8. The American Revision of the Bible marks these songs [sets them apart typographically] as distinct and different from the rest of the Book. Sometimes these songs are cited as a justification for the use of other songs than the Psalms in God’s worship. Let the following points be noted as a reply to the assertion referred to:
1. These songs are all inspired by the Spirit of God. More than any other Book of the New Testament Canon, the Revelation insists on its being from God, that in it God unveils His purpose touching the future of this world, of His people, of their enemies, and of His Kingdom. Therefore these inspired songs can afford no ground whatever for the use of uninspired compositions in the worship of God.
2. They are sung almost exclusively by angels and glorified saints. The only apparent exception is Revelation 5:13—the song of creation. But even this does not contradict our statement. The voices of angels and saints are joined by the voice of creation, animate and inanimate, now made vocal in its praise to the Lamb. The tuneful utterances of the glorified and of angels before the Throne hardly belong to sinful mortals on earth.
3. They are sung in heaven. Hence, they do not pertain to this world.
4. There is not a shadow of a hint that these and the like songs in the New Testament are divinely authorized to be employed in the worship of Christ’s Church.
5. They are an essential part in the structure of the Apocalypse; they move within the circle of those mighty events which mark the winding up of the world’s affairs, which characterize the final struggle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Hence, in the judgment of some of the most earnest students of the Book, they do not pertain to this dispensation.
IV. Are there traces of hymns in the Epistles? It is affirmed with much positiveness that there are fragments of hymns found in the Epistles, and that these must have been in use in the Apostolic Church...
...[but] in all the historical records that have been consulted there is not a hint that this text [i.e., any text in any Epistle] is the fragment of a Christian hymn. Assertions by interpreters there are in plenty; of historical evidence there is none.
The chief, if not the only, proof adduced in support of the view that it [any supposed hymn text in the Epistles] is the fragment of a “Christian hymn” is its poetical structure. It has the parallelism that distinguishes Hebrew poetry. Accordingly, the American Revision prints it as verse. Is the plea well founded? [Consider the truth that] all intense thought, whether of writing or public speech, falls into rhythm. This is true of the best writing of uninspired men; it is preeminently true of the penmen of Scripture. There is often a measured beat in the sentences that the reader feels, can almost hear.
There are many such rhythmical passages in the Epistles... [Mr.] Winer furnishes thirteen instances of poetical parallelism, 1 Timothy 3:16 being one of the thirteen. Green’s Handbook, the second, gives seven more. Thus, in all, we have twenty such rhythmical texts in the Epistles. If we include the whole body of New Testament Scripture, the number will exceed thirty. These all have the poetical structure of 1 Timothy 3:16. Are they all “fragments of Christian hymns?”
1 Timothy 3:16 does not by any means stand alone as to poetical structure; it is only one of many passages of the like form. Therefore no weight can attach to its parallelism as proof of its being a "Christian hymn." The argument breaks down totally because it proves too much. If such exegesis should prevail, then no limit scarcely can be fixed to the hymnal fragments of the New Testament; the Book abounds with them.
[One] passage must be briefly noted—2 Timothy 2:11-13: "Faithful is the saying: for if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him; if we shall deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself" (RV). This great sentence has rhythmical arrangement; its parts balance each other as in genuine parallelism; it is as poetical in its structure as 1 Timothy 3:16. But yet it is not the fragment of a hymn, nor a brief creed, nor yet a liturgical fragment, although it has been called all these. The words, "faithful is the saying" seem to denote a quotation, but in the other places where they occur they cannot be thus understood (1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 4:9).
All these 'sayings' of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles belong to a time of extreme danger and persecution. These Letters were written in martyr times. Nero’s persecution of Christians began in AD 64; it lasted till 68—four years of indescribable torture and suffering for the people of God. 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus were written almost certainly after Nero’s atrocities had begun. The peril was that Christians would quail before the dreadful trial, that they would deny Christ. Hence Paul writes to these young ministers of the Gospel to be steadfast, faithful, true even in death.
Read in the light of martyr fires, his sayings glow with intensity of feeling, with the pathos and the entreaty of one who himself faces death as a witness for Christ. His words ring like a battle shout, like the sharp, abrupt orders of the commander on the field:—"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life" (1 Timothy 6:12); "watch thou in all things, endure afflictions" (2 Timothy 4:5); "hold fast the form of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13); "great is the mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16); "if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us" (2 Timothy 2:12). Every one of these texts, and many more like them, have something of cadence; they ring like sharp steel, and there is a rhythm in their ring.
Accordingly, they are not fragments of hymns, nor short creeds, nor quotations of any sort. They are the impassioned words of Christ’s servant who appeals to his fellow-saints by the Spirit of God to hold fast, to fight bravely, and to hope to the end.
There are fourteen songs in the Book of Revelation: Revelation 4:8,11; Revelation 5:9-10,12-13; Revelation 7:10,12; Revelation 11:8,17-18; Revelation 12:10-12; Revelation 15:3-4; Revelation 19:1,2,5-8. The American Revision of the Bible marks these songs [sets them apart typographically] as distinct and different from the rest of the Book. Sometimes these songs are cited as a justification for the use of other songs than the Psalms in God’s worship. Let the following points be noted as a reply to the assertion referred to:
1. These songs are all inspired by the Spirit of God. More than any other Book of the New Testament Canon, the Revelation insists on its being from God, that in it God unveils His purpose touching the future of this world, of His people, of their enemies, and of His Kingdom. Therefore these inspired songs can afford no ground whatever for the use of uninspired compositions in the worship of God.
2. They are sung almost exclusively by angels and glorified saints. The only apparent exception is Revelation 5:13—the song of creation. But even this does not contradict our statement. The voices of angels and saints are joined by the voice of creation, animate and inanimate, now made vocal in its praise to the Lamb. The tuneful utterances of the glorified and of angels before the Throne hardly belong to sinful mortals on earth.
3. They are sung in heaven. Hence, they do not pertain to this world.
4. There is not a shadow of a hint that these and the like songs in the New Testament are divinely authorized to be employed in the worship of Christ’s Church.
5. They are an essential part in the structure of the Apocalypse; they move within the circle of those mighty events which mark the winding up of the world’s affairs, which characterize the final struggle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Hence, in the judgment of some of the most earnest students of the Book, they do not pertain to this dispensation.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
It's a far cry from the Canticle to "Shine Jesus Shine." Why even bring that in?
Do you believe the Song of Solomon is NOT the word of Christ? Should it not dwell is us richly? Is it not spiritual, that is, by the definition given upthread, inspired by the Holy Spirit? How is it excluded from the Psalms, hymns, spiritual songs rubric, given its title, its subject, and its authorship?
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Brother, I already gave my reasons in an answer in #17 primarily, alongside the other aforementioned posts. The problem is not that I didn't give an answer, the problem is your discontentment with the answer. Your question presumes Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs are 3 different categories, of which we do not agree, nor did the prefatory material to the 1650 Psalter, which was signed by many, and received its stamp of approval from the Westminster Assembly.
"..to us David’s Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” which the apostle useth (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)."
Last edited:
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ben you know fine well that we who are Exclusive Psalm singers believe that what Paul means in the relevant texts is that all three terms are referring to the psalms. Every verse in Scripture has a context and singular meaning, and I do not believe that Paul means us to understand "spiritual song" as being any song in Scripture but only those in the psalms. That is not an uncommon position. So I would be glad if you would read both Paul and my words in the context in which they are written. I think you know all that given your many, many interactions on this subject in the past.
So just to be plain, in case I wasn't plain enough....the Song of Songs is the Word of Christ, but it is not one of the spiritual songs that Paul is describing in Col 3:16.
You are free to disagree with that. You are not free to misinterpret my words.
Last edited:
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
You may find this helpful: https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/exclusive-psalmody/
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
Really?
That amazes me. I honestly could not count the number of sincere believers who have made it clear that they cannot - in good conscience - sing exclusively songs that do not name Jesus. (I know all the arguments that He is named in the Psalms. I am simply stating that I find it incredulous to have never encountered anyone who would say that He is not explicitly named therein.)
Before
Puritan Board Freshman
I would agree singing the psalms is a great practice, but I'm a bit confused as to the necessity of 'inspired by the HOLY Spirit as part of worship'. Is not the preaching of the Word an integral part of worship, yet who would say the preacher is always inspired by the Holy Spirit during his sermon?
Friend, people may find benefit in discussing these questions and seeing for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of a position and its conformity to scripture.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
We have Christmass threads every year, last year I remember more than one person who came to a conviction of abstaining because they were able to have a dialogue about their thoughts. Really no different here.
Edit: typically the people who insist upon not creating new threads are against the positions set forth (EP, abstaining from holy days, etc.) — the church is in a state of declension, and I think it is important to discuss them repeatedly now more than ever.
Edit: typically the people who insist upon not creating new threads are against the positions set forth (EP, abstaining from holy days, etc.) — the church is in a state of declension, and I think it is important to discuss them repeatedly now more than ever.
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
That may be true. But I did not in any way mention the issue of the name "Jesus" not being in the Psalms. Yes, I have had people bring that up, but after a brief conversation and showing them that Christ ( מָשִׁיחַ / messiah) is specifically mentioned multiple times (whether we translate it that way or not - Psalm 2 comes to mind: "The kings of the earth band themselves, and the Princes are assembled together against the Lord, and against his Christ." v.2, Geneva Bible; see also Psalms 18, 20, 28, 84, 89, 105, 132), along with all the other arguments you already know, they admit that their conscience would not trouble them to sing Psalms instead of hymns, your incredulity aside. I've never understood the "but Jesus isn't mentioned in the Psalms" argument from those who sing uninspired hymns that don't all mention Christ...
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
EP’ers. If a singing of Psalm 72 was modified to replace instances of He or His, to refer to Christ directly, is it permissible or not? If impermissible, what is the principle
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Would that be an accurate translation of the original Hebrew? Sounds like it would be taking interpretative latitude with translating the Psalm, which would put it into the category of a paraphrase and thus impermissible from an EP perspective. This is despite the fact that I think that interpretation is right, the Psalm is about Christ, but changing the text to explicitly read our interpretation is wrong.
I get that. At the same time, I haven’t seen anything asked or said in this thread that hasn’t been asked or said—sometimes literally verbatim—in dozens of past threads.
But, fair enough, I’m not a moderator. Plus, I was under the impression that starting virtually the same thread over and over again was against the rules. Upon further searching, it appears that is not the case. My apologies.
Both positions are being set forth in this thread.
And, yes, the church is in a state of declension, and worship is a big part of it, but I think some folks drastically overestimate the effect of this particular worship issue in that declension, and often come dangerously close to the slippery slope fallacy.
Last edited:
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
So your argument is not from logic, but from tradition. That's fine.
I'm simply trying to understand why a God-inspired spiritual song is banned in your scheme of things, when spiritual songs are commanded.
Maybe it all rests on what Paul meant when he named three types of songs to sing. I have seen nothing in all these threads that shows that Paul meant to limit his statement to the Psalter. It seems mostly a matter of opinion among good men whether his words warrant such limit.
But this "only book that contains songs" thing just seems like a prevarication. There is no reason from Scripture to limit singing because of that.
It’s helpful to remember that Christ = messiah/anointed and Jesus = salvation, so he is sung about directly throughout the Psalms. Psalm 2 immediately in the Psalter sets up the reality of everything else to follow: “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his anointed…”
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
In your perspective, my argument is from tradition, sure, but I provided a slew of reasons as did others, and you were not satisfied with the answers. Hezekiah commanded the people of Israel to sing the Psalms of David in public worship, but never the song of Solomon, though he had both in hand. The fact is it's never authorized in the public worship of God.
You haven't really engaged with the rest of the arguments presented here, so to me at this point it just seems like nitpicking.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
But why is it excluded? Because if it is, the EP position falls apart? There's a lot of talk about the burden of proof falling on those who would sing uninspired stuff. Fine, let them prove that. But here I believe the burden of proof must rest on the one who would exclude an inspired Spiritual Song, in a book containing no other material (again, the mind boggles at this proviso of Mr. Hess), which is the word of Christ, given that it meets all the criteria Paul spells out in the verses being applied to.
What is this context of Paul's words that excludes the Canticle?
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Your profile indicates you're baptist, so I presume your congregation sings uninspired praise, no? Where do you get the warrant for that? I have less of an issue with an inspired praise only position, but you aren't actually of that persuasion, are you? My real grub is with points 1 & 6 in my original post, of which you haven't engaged at all.