The agap?
Now, let’s return to the image of the pagan banquet, characterized by drunkenness, gluttony, and sexual immorality. This is debauchery. In contrast is the Christian love feast, the agap?. While Paul’s instructions aren’t limited to the agap?, you can’t help but figure this is the setting he had in mind as he wrote these words. The agap? is the obvious contrast. Moreover, it’s a place where Christians would gather, and because they’re gathered, would sing.
The agap? was a key part of the early Christian community (Jude 12; 2 Pet 2:13), from the very beginning of the church —
(Act 2:46-47 ESV) 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
What does this mean if not: they met in homes, ate together, and sang praises to God? Now, we want to extract some commands from this passage, but it’s more about the fulfillment of prophecy, associated with the realization of the long-promised Kingdom.
(Isa 25:6-9) On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine – the best of meats and the finest of wines. 7 On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; 8 he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. 9 In that day they will say, “Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”
(Jer 31:13-14 ESV) 13 “Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. 14 I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD.”
Jesus tells us more about God’s great banquet–
(Luke 14:16-24) “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’
18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. …
21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’
22 “‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’
23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”
Jesus tells us that not only will God provide for his children in abundance, but he’ll invite, plead, and cajole the poor and the stranger to join in. The early church took communion as part of a weekly common meal — a covered dish dinner — where the congregation enjoyed fellowship and ate well. The meal was called the agap?.
We translate this “love feast,” but the word just means love. And as Thanksgiving shows us, eating together is the most natural way there is to enjoy and bestow love within a family.
But the early church did more than eat a meal and show love to each other. The love feast was also an occasion of sharing with the poor. As Tertullian wrote around 210 AD,
Our feast shows its motive by its name. It is called by the Greek word for love. Whatever … the cost, money spent in the name of religion is gain, since with that refreshment we benefit the needy. … As is so with God, there is a greater consideration for the lowly.
Everett Ferguson explains,
The love feast … was the social, convivial aspect which perhaps especially attracted many persons. The sharing of food by the wealthier with the poorer was an important means of charity.
The Lord’s Supper prefigures the heavenly meal we’ll all eat with God. And just as God seeks the forgotten, lowly of society to join in his meal, this meal must be a remembrance of our obligation to the needy in our society.
Therefore, the contrast of Eph 5:18-19 is a contrast of the pagan banquets, filled with licentiousness, where slaves girls were abused for their masters’ pleasure, with the agap?, where all classes ate together as one, where slaves ate with masters, and where the poor were implored to join with the rich in a celebration of God’s bounty, prefiguring the feast the church will enjoy at the end of time —
(Rev 3:20 ESV) 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
(Rev 19:7-9 ESV) 7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; 8 it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure” — for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. 9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
Paul, therefore, writes,
(Eph 5:18b-21) but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
He is speaking of congregational life, symbolized by the agap?, to demonstrate how the church must live as a Spirit-filled community. Being filled with the Spirit means we speak to each other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs — all kinds of religious songs. The triad of terms emphasizes the wide scope of musical forms allowed. It’s not just psalms. It’s not just hymns. It’s all sorts of spiritual songs! Paul is opening the floodgates of creativity — sing however the Spirit moves you in praise of God!
“Singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks” is borrowed from —
(Psa 108:1-6 ESV) My heart is steadfast, O God! I will sing and make melody with all my being! 2 Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn!
3 I will give thanks to you, O LORD, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations.
4 For your steadfast love is great above the heavens; your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
5 Be exalted, O God, above the heavens! Let your glory be over all the earth!
6 That your beloved ones may be delivered, give salvation by your right hand and answer me!
How do you sing and make melody with all your being? With the harp. With the lyre. Giving thanks. Singing praises. It all fits!
Although I am also tired of discussing the IM issue. The following was brought to my attention while reading the fresh material in New Wineskins:
So the context of Eph. 5:18-21 is:
This is the exact reason given by the early church fathers for acappela. They appeal to the context rather than the precise verse. This gives more credence for their interpretation of Paul's writing. It was not a cultural argument but one of following scripture.
Jay, This blog continues to be a tremendous blessing to me. My heart is overflowing with praise to God for seeing His hand at work in so many quarters of our restoration heritage. I recently read the book,'More Than Music' by Corbett which I learned about at this site.Incredible book! I found it informative and convicting in how we deal with disputable matters and how we look at worship. There was one question I was hoping you could help me with. On p.21,he includes a quote from Clement as an example of one who wrote about praise with accompaniment and then footnotes the quote with McKinnon as his source. Do you know which work of Clement was the source for this quote? Thanks again for your insights which along with others is helping to sharpen me as "iron sharpens iron". Because of His love. Les.
The Instructor, Book II chapter IV … and Danny Corbitt completely misses Clement's point …
That's the point Bruce Morton tried to make continually; and I share the same conviction.
That's true, but only when served as a full meal. Otherwise it has hardly any resemblance with the heavenly meal. And this urges for small churches, where you can share meals together …
Alexander
I'm not sure what you mean by Corbitt missing Clement's point but I do appreciate the information on the source. Because of His love.
I discussed it with Danny at New Wineskins – it may take some time till you find our dialogue there. In short: You can misuse the ECF as proof text, or you can try to understand the context.
I encourage you not to focus on this one sentence about playing the lyre alone, but envision the scene. Try to understand the Christian Agape in the light of Ancient Greek Banquets – as Clement is making references to these. You might have to read more about Christian assemblies in the first and second century to get a fuller picture … One of the key problems in the debates is, that we automatically read our worship traditions back into these documents unless we put our traditions aside in a forceful act of will. Early Christian Worship was VERY different from what we consider "biblical" worship. That's why it does not work to come with the question "May we use instruments" only. We have to understand the whole setting to understand the answer they give. And the ECF do give great answers to this question.
I'm not a person who would stand up to die for church of Christ-traditions as if they were undoubtedly scriptual. In fact, we differ greatly from the practice and ethos of the churches of Christ in the 2nd century. But I am convinced that singing a-cappella was the original practice – and we should not give that up only because our contemporary culture (and mainstream Protestantism) seems to press us into their direction.
To sing a-cappella does therefore not mean, that we do everything according to the original practice of the church. It's just one correct practice, many others should be restored as well. So I am not against change at all, but it must be change into the right direction.
Alexander
Appreciate your comments Alexander. I found Clement's 'Paedagogus' online and downloaded it. I read chapter 4, 'How to Conduct Ourselves at Feasts' which contained the quote I was looking for. Thanks again. I found the chapter fascinating reading. Clement does indeed seem to contrast the pagan feasts of his day which he describes as "a theater of drunkenness" with the "temperant banquet" of those filled with the Spirit. Clement speaks of such instruments as the flute and the pipe being "banished from the temperate banquet". The same is true of the burlesque singing and songs. "Amatory songs" and "liquid harmonies" are to be banished. Immodest and vulgar music is to be abandoned. Clement is opposed to any music, both instrumental and vocal, that charms and seduces and leads to licentious behavior. Both the music and drinking that was common in the pagan feast of his day are described as works of darkness that must be put off. In contrast, music that is Spirit prompted and that praises and gives thanks to God seems to be wholly appropriate to Clement. His preference is clearly vocal music but there seems to be at least two instances in his chapter that allow instrumental music in praise in their feast where Jesus was their guest.
The first is, "And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame. You shall imitate the righteous Hebrew king in his thanksgiving to God. Rejoice in the Lord, you righteous; praise is comely to the upright, says the prophecy. Confess to the Lord on the harp; play to Him on the psaltery of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song. And does not the ten-stringed psaltery indicate the Word Jesus, who is manifested by the element of the decad?"
The second is , "…let our songs be hymns to God. Let them praise,it is said, His name in the dance, and let them play to Him on the timbrel and psaltery. And what is the choir which plays? The Spirit will show you: Let His praise be in the congregation(church) of the saints; let them be joyful in their King."
I think, I, at least inpart, understand Clement's preference for vocal music in their agape because of cultural considertaions. But he also seems to envision times when it would be wholly appropriate for our music to be both vocal and instrumental. When it is Spirit prompted and when it consist of praise and thanksgiving to God. I appreciated your comments and welcome any input. When I get the chance, I will read your dialogue with Danny Corbitt. God's blessings upon you. Les.
Clement seems a bit hard to understand. Prior to the quotes you present, he had redefined all of the musical instruments in Psalms to represent various parts of the human body. Under that context, there is no blame to use the lyre since that phrase represents the "mouth being struck by the Spirit".
Rich W,
I agree that the contrast with Hellenistic pagan music was sometimes the stated reason for insisting on a cappella worship. Other reasons were given at varying times.
I don't believe that fact leads to the conclusion that IM in worship is necessarily sinful. I mean, if the argument is that IM is necessarily sinful in worship, then how do we explain God's commanding the use of the instrument at the Temple? Or use of IM in heaven?
No, the conclusion has to be that the IM these writers were familiar with was wicked — but not that all IM in worship is wicked. After all, the ECFs likely only heard IM in pagan contexts. The synagogue had no instrumentation, and the Temple had been destroyed. Sheet music wasn't yet invented.
Therefore, it's easy to see how a Christian in the Third Century would only know IM that is idolatrous and worldly and so tell his church to stay away from it.
But music has changed more than we can imagine since then. Christians have endeavored for centuries to find ways to praise God in reverent, submissive ways using instruments — and many have been extremely successful.
I doubt that the ECFs would have condemned all instrumental music had they heard Handel's "The Messiah" or Bach's "Sleeper, Awake!" or, for that matter, Chris Tomlin. These are all musical styles that are created for the sake of Christian praise, and the ECFs would never have heard anything remotely similar.
Indeed, it's common this time of year for people to gather to sing the "Hallelujah Chorus" together, with instruments. And they sing heartily — with instruments — in praise to God. To argue that the instruments make such worship worldly or "pagan immorality" is quite unjustifiable.
This is the flaw I find in Bruce's and Alexander's argumentation. It likely was true that many ECFs saw all instrumental music as pagan — in private devotion, weddings, worship, common meals, etc. — because in their culture, the IM was indeed idolatrous and wicked. But that doesn't mean that all IM should be condemned as equivalent to First Century idolatrous music. It's just not the same thing.
Les,
Clement of Alexandria wrote around 200 AD. The language at issue is from chapter 4, book 3 of The Instructor —
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.ii.i…
The context is Christian conduct at feasts. He specifically approves singing to and playing instruments — "there is no blame" if we "imitate the righteous Hebrew king."
However, Clement is part of the allegorical school of interpretation, and so he feels entirely justified in re-interpreting the Psalms to be non-instrumental —
Clement ignores historical and textual context and, to suit his desired ends, invents fictitious meanings for the cymbal, lyre, etc. This form of scriptural interpretation would not be accepted in any Church of Christ today! And yet some see him as convincing authority on the issues he addresses.
Scholars disagree as to whether his references to singing to an instrument as David did approves IM. Calling David "righteous" in his playing would seem to approve imitation of his form of worship. But it could be argued that Clement meant we can imitate David, but only as allegorically re-interpreted by Clement, that is, by singing a cappella. This would not be imitation and wouldn't treat David as righteous, but it could be his meaning.
A reading of Clement is helpful, however, in that he clearly shows the cultural context that gives rise to his disdain for IM. He doesn't argue from the scriptures or use the Regulative Principle. He simply shows how pagan revelry is wrong — including the use of IM by the military! (When have you heard a CoC preacher condemn the use of IM by John Phillip Sousa by the Marines?) And he just assumes that all instrumental music partakes of the evils he describes — surely because he'd never heard any other kind of IM.
It's just amazing to me that many among us want to treat Clement of Alexandria as a true expositor of the scriptures when it comes to IM. His methods are plainly invalid and he draws unwarranted conclusions from the evidence he provides.
This is performance-music not congregational worship. There is a huge difference between these two. And we might askn whether the Early Christians would have put the Gospel on a stage …
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept of types and antitypes here, Jay?
Again: It is not about being sinful in the first place. Sinful might be the desire to introduce instruments, but not instrumental worship per se. Let me give you an illustration from my other "hobby horse":
Is it sinful that the sisters in the assembly pray without a head-covering? I mean: Will they be damned to hell because of that?
The answer to this is threefold:
a) It is definetely WRONG for women to pray unveiled.
b) Where there is no law sin is not impiuted (so when the subject is never taught, or when the sisters are misles by falste interoretations of 1 Co 11 they won't be judged)
c) If they refuse the head-covering out iof a rebellious heart ("You'll never put a scarf on my head!") then they are in great danger – not because of praying uncovered, but because of their rebellious attitude.
And according to Jas 3 teachers of the word will be held responsible for not teaching correctly the things God has put in His word. That't Why I'd rather go with 1900 years of unanimous understanding of this passage than with modern interpretataion fueled by egalitarianism.
Back to the IM: Here it works the same way:
a) Using instuments in worship is clearly NOT the original apostolic practice
b) Where there is no law, sin won#t be imputed (which means, if people never thaought or heard about this, God will not damn them because of this):
c) If however people want to introduce instruments (and CCM – the two go hand in hand today) out of a worldy desire ("I want my MTV") or out of conformity to the world ("no one sings a-cappella today" – which is clearly not true) then they are in great danger. Not because of the instruments per se, but because of their attitude.
Alexander
Clement uses the same analogies as the Odes of Salomo from Syria, that are almost 100 years older than his writings. Barnabas – writing around 70/80 AD used the same hermeneutics … the book of Hebrews or Paul in Galatians (Hagar is mount Sinai) as well.
Jay, the Early Christians were not Westerners. They all used this kind of interpreting the scriptures (not exclusively, but as one common tool of understandng God's word). And it is in line with Apostolic hermeneutics.
So maybe, Jay, or maybe for sure, WE are the ones who should rethink our approach to the scriptures. Or are we bold enough to say: The way we approach the Holy Text is superuior to the way of those who learned from th Lord Himself or the Apostles? No wonder, we don't understand them and differ from them, since we don't read the Bible the way they did. Again: It is very likely, that WE have to change.
Alexander
Jay,
You asked a good question, “How do you sing and make melody with all your being” [according to Paul]. You answered with an interpretation (1) It is “borrowed” from Psa 108 and (2) we sing with the harp and lyre. However, another plausible interpretation is that Paul (3) did not borrow, but “contrasted” Psa 108 or any other Psalm and (4) we sing with our heart leaving the harp and lyre to the Jewish covenant. How can we test these two very plausible interpretations to see which is correct and to what interpretive authority will we adhere? I believe we once again find ourselves in the conversation about Sola and Solo scriptura. Given that the church was both “missional” and “a cappella” amongst an instrumental world for almost a millennium, your interpretation stands opposed to a consensus in church history theology and practice. You have not once belittled me or called me names. Thank you for an enjoyable mature discussion
If you think the strongest position for IM is found in psallo/psallien/psalmos/psalms (etc), I would encourage you to read the following books, if you have not already. You will note a shift in argumentation, as time progressed, to an ultimate abandonment of the argument since it failed under heavy scrutiny. This is the testimony of the “best” IM advocates from the Presbyterians and the Christian church. I know them by heart and I am happy to discuss, but perhaps they are more of a help than I.
(1) Porteous, William and William Richie The Organ Question: Statements for and against the use of the organ in public worship London, England: Groombridge & Sons, 1807. BiblioBazar Reprint, 2007.
(2) OE Payne, Instrumental Music Is Scriptural, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1920
(3) N.B Hardeman and Ira Boswell, Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music in the worship, Bowling Green, KY: Guardian for Truth, 1923
(4) Tom Burgess. Documents on Instrumental Music. Portland, OR: Scripture Supply House, 1966.
(5) Rubel Shelly and Dwaine Dunning. Let the Bible Speak Study Series: Shelly-Dunning Debate. West Monroe, LA: William C. Johnson, Inc, 1977.
(6) Alan E. Highers and Given O. Blakely, The Highers-Blakely Debate Denton, TX: Valid Publications, 1988.