# Hark the herald angels sing (incorrectly)



## Scott Bushey (Dec 13, 2004)

Anyone notice anything wrong here w/ this Westley hymm?

Hark! the herald angels sing, 
Glory to the newborn King; 
Peace on earth, and mercy mild, 
God and sinners reconciled." 
Joyful all ye nations, rise, 
Join the triumph of the skies; 
With th' angelic host proclaim, 
Christ is born in Bethlehem. 
Hark! the herald angels sing, 
Christ is born in Bethlehem. 
Christ, by highest heaven adored 
Christ, the everlasting Lord; 
Late in time behold Him come 
Offspring of a virgin's womb. 
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; 
Hail th' Incarnate Deity, 
Pleased as man with man to dwell; 
Jesus, our Emmanuel. 
Come, Desire of nations come, 
Fix in us Thy humble home; 
Rise, the Woman's conquering Seed, 
Bruise in us the Serpent's head. 
Adam's likeness, Lord efface: 
Stamp Thy image in its place; 
Second Adam, from above, 
Reinstate us in thy love. 
Hail, the heav'n-born Prince of Peace! 
Hail, the Son of Righteousness! 
Light and life to all He brings, 
Ris'n with healing in His wings. 
Mild He lays His glory by, 
Born that man no more may die, 
Born to raise the sons of earth, 
Born to give them second birth.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 13, 2004)

OOOOO! OOOOO! Mr. Kotter! OOOOOO! OOOOOO!
[Mr. Kotter points--] 
Okay Horseshack ---

Well, Mr. Kotter, I see as a potential problem: 
"Light and life to all He brings..."

Is dat it?

Well, Horseshack, potentially yes - if he means light and life TO ALL he brings, well, theologically we have a problem. But if he means John 1:4, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men." then we might be OK.

Your thoughts?


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 13, 2004)

A herald angels didn't sing, though I think the angel Harold may have hummed a short tune.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 13, 2004)

The angels didn't sing??????????

 A c'mon man, don't ruin my conception of comercialized Christmas Theology.


----------



## crhoades (Dec 13, 2004)

> Late in time behold Him come



I thought He came in the fullness of time. I didn't know he was tardy!


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 13, 2004)

What did you have in mind, Scott?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 13, 2004)

Well, I have a few guesses:

Is it "Offspring of a virgin's womb", because we all know its impossible for a virgin to have a child?

Or is it "Veiled in flesh the Godhead see," because we know that Jesus is really the first created being, the "Godhead" being merely borrowed from paganism?


(See, I told you its hard to get these JW beliefs out of my head!)
(And with all fairness to the JW's, they DO believe in the virgin birth.)

:bigsmile:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 13, 2004)

"Mild He lays His glory by"
Matt's wife Therese pointed this out to us last evening..........

When did Christ ever cease being God?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 13, 2004)

Paul,
But did Christ ever cease being God; did he lay His glory aside?


----------



## Scott (Dec 13, 2004)

Paul: That is the exact verse I thought of. The hymn does not say he stopped being God. 

Christ did undergo humiliation. The Larger Catechism summarizes:

Q. 46. What was the estate of Christ´s humiliation?
A. The estate of Christ´s humiliation was that low condition, wherein he for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death, and after his death, until his resurrection. 

Note that the Catechism also expressly says that Christ emptied Himself of His glory.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 13, 2004)

Excellent answer Scott! Thanks.


----------



## Authorised (Dec 13, 2004)

Another good verse is John 17:5

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 13, 2004)

He does say some odd things - bruise in us the serpent's head? Is he entirely spiritualizing the Fall as in, it isn't literal?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Dec 13, 2004)

*A Beautiful Hymn*

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this to be one beautiful, God-glorifying, Christ-exalting hymn! 

(this was my first time using the little singing guy face!)


----------



## JohnV (Dec 13, 2004)

This was one Christmas song my father refused to sing. He didn't like "Away in a Manger" either. But I just can't seem to remember the exact words he objected to. But he did change his mind about that later on. 

As I recall, his objection was in the context of the church going from Exclusive Psalmody to singing of hymns in his younger days. He didn't object to that, but was in favour of that; he was really wary of songs that did not have precise Biblical content. So that may have been the objection; angels singing, the announcement mixed up with the praise, things added to what the angels actuall said, etc. 

Anyways, he's OK now.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 13, 2004)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll keep singing this song.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 13, 2004)

Actually, the comment about angels not singing is right on target. I have never found any reference to them singing in Scripture. Humans, yes. Angels, no.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> This was one Christmas song my father refused to sing. He didn't like "Away in a Manger" either. But I just can't seem to remember the exact words he objected to. But he did change his mind about that later on.
> 
> As I recall, his objection was in the context of the church going from Exclusive Psalmody to singing of hymns in his younger days. He didn't object to that, but was in favour of that; he was really wary of songs that did not have precise Biblical content. So that may have been the objection; angels singing, the announcement mixed up with the praise, things added to what the angels actuall said, etc.



That's where I'm coming from. I don't like inaccuracies such as claiming the angels sang when announcing Christ's birth or changing the actual words of the announcement. _Especially_ when singing in the public worship of God. That's why it's worth noting that the psalms alone may be trusted to be fully accurate and fully appropriate in the worship of God. Moreover, it's worth noting that there are no psalms which emphasize or address the birth of the Messiah. The emphasis in God's Word is on his atoning death (Ps. 22.1-21) and his everlasting kingdom (Ps. 2; 22.22-31).


----------



## JohnV (Dec 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Actually, the comment about angels not singing is right on target. I have never found any reference to them singing in Scripture. Humans, yes. Angels, no.



But that doesn't change anything that Paul said; that is no reason to think that they didn't sing. Especially if one thinks of music as most natural in the praise of God the Creator, Redeemer, and Provider. If man can discover and use such a beautiful venue for praise, why shouldn't the angels also? 

It could be that it is not described in Scripture as singing because singing is primarily and mostly saying something, or else its not really music. It could also be that their singing was so much higher than ours that it wouldn't be right to call it singing, as compared to the relative noise we make in the same effort. And it could be that they didn't sing at all. 

I'll prefer not only that they sang, but that they were pretty good guitarist too, and could even have done it Bluegrass style. Well, that may be a bit much. But I still would prefer to think that they sang, and that it was lovlier than our best attempts, better even than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. 

But now I have to agree with Andrew. I would have been a lot more accurate in this short essay on music if I had just not said anything.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 14, 2004)

I really don't think they sing. I believe that is a gift for humans alone. Now, I confess that this is my opinion. Music is composed of metre, rhthym, and melody. Within those are major and minors, not just keys, but every aspect. To properly understand and compose music, real music, not the junk pumped out of the various pop mills, one must be familiar with both the majors and minors. When a human glorifies God in song it encapsulates the full spectrum of human emotion and experience. An angel cannot do that. They do not understand the fall and redemption as does a man, the majors and minors. Just my .02


----------



## JohnV (Dec 14, 2004)

Lawrence:

Am I ever glad you brought this up. It's been on my mind for quite a while, watching those threads on music. 


> When a human glorifies God in song it encapsulates the full spectrum of human emotion and experience. An angel cannot do that. They do not understand the fall and redemption as does a man, the majors and minors.



I think that the fallenness of man inhibits that full range and spectrum, rather than being the forum for it. I would think that angels would know more than just majors and minors; they would know the modes a whole lot better than we do (after all, how much work have we as humans ever done in that area of music? ) as well as who know what we haven't yet delved into in music. I think that after we are received into glory that the music and expression will be more complete in the sinless state than it is now in the sinful one. There will be no more sorrow, no more tears, and that will have a more positive effect, not a negative one. 

I may be wrong about this, though. But this is one area of music we haven't discussed. And I think it is important especially in the considerations we have had about Exclusive Psalmody.


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2004)

> He does say some odd things - bruise in us the serpent's head? Is he entirely spiritualizing the Fall as in, it isn't literal?



No, I think he is just applying an express biblical teaching. Paul says this to the Church at Rome: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." Rom. 16:20. Christ works in and through the Church to crush Satan's head under our feet. That is all the hymn is saying, and in a way substantially the same as what Paul said.

Scott

[Edited on 12-14-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2004)

I think it is clear that angels sing, and they don't just sing Psalms. From Revelation 5:11ff.




> Then I looked and heard the voice of many *angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12In a loud voice they sang: "œWorthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"* 13Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "œTo him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" 14The four living creatures said, "œAmen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.



[Edited on 12-14-2004 by Scott]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 14, 2004)

Regardless of whether angels _can_ sing, there is no Biblical basis for saying that they _did_ sing to the shepherds outside of Bethlehem. Nor is there any Biblical basis for us to sing Christ-mass carols in public worship according to the Second Commandment and the RPW. Although we are instructed in the historicity and meaning of all of Christ's earthly life in the Scriptures, and we are commanded to observe the Lord's death (Lord's Supper) and His resurrection (Lord's Day), we are simply no where commanded to _observe_ His birth. Here is a refresher on what actually occurred: 




> And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
> 
> And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2004)

I am not going to get into a discussion on exclusive psalmody. I am also not going to get into a discussion about whether it is ok for a lawfully ordained minister to preach about the mystery of the incarnation on December 24 or 25 (isn't there a thread doing that?), or whether the preaching of the Word should be forbidden on those days. 

I was simply responding to a point that someone made that angels don't sing. 

As a side note, you might also note that it was not just angels who were singing something other than psalms. It was "every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them. . . " That would include people. 

I know - I said I was not going to address exclusive psalmody, but I could not help myself! 

Scott


----------



## Scott (Dec 14, 2004)

BTW, the hymn does not say it was the angels of the message to the shepherds who were singing. It was the angels of heaven. We do know that they sing and they do sing about the glory of Christ. So the song is consistent with what we know.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> BTW, the hymn does not say it was the angels of the message to the shepherds who were singing. It was the angels of heaven. We do know that they sing and they do sing about the glory of Christ. So the song is consistent with what we know.



I believe the hymn is purporting to reflect what the angels said to the shepherds at Bethlehem. I believe the hymn is consistent with Charles Wesley's religion but in many ways not with Biblical religion. 

Having said my peace on that, I won't deny that the singing of this hymn in _It's a Wonderful Life_ is one of the most moving moments in that remarkable classic movie.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 15, 2004)

Not to rain on everyones parade but that is not what the original text says. Here is the phrase in greek, ' legontes phone megale ( I forgot how to do the greek font in this forum.)

That first word is a present active participle of 'legw' which means 'I say'

[Edited on 15-12-2004 by LawrenceU]


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I am not going to get into a discussion on exclusive psalmody. I am also not going to get into a discussion about whether it is ok for a lawfully ordained minister to preach about the mystery of the incarnation on December 24 or 25 (isn't there a thread doing that?), or whether the preaching of the Word should be forbidden on those days.
> 
> I was simply responding to a point that someone made that angels don't sing.
> ...




Well you can't have it both ways. Angel worship is no model for worship in the church. In Revelation sacrifices of incense are made to El Shaddai, there are lampstands, a congregation comprised of all the creatures on the planet earth, heck the THRONE OF GOD is there! Revelation is a picture book, we do not derive our doctrine of worship from prophectic pictures. 

Only lazy exegesis would make this into a notable proof text against Exclusive Psalmody. 

[Edited on 15-12-2004 by Ianterrell]


----------



## DTK (Dec 15, 2004)

> This was one Christmas song my father refused to sing. He didn't like "Away in a Manger" either. But I just can't seem to remember the exact words he objected to. But he did change his mind about that later on.


Perhaps it was the phrase, _no crying He makes_. I can't imagine that the Lord Jesus didn't cry as a baby, but stranger things (to be sure) have been ascribed to Him.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## JohnV (Dec 15, 2004)

David:

For Away In A Manger that was definitely it. But I was thinking about which words to Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. I think it was the entire refrain, but I still can't recall the exact objection. Very likely it was that the song states that the angels sang, when the text avers they said. 

I still think that "said" could be included in the notion of singing, and that the text would not necessarily have to state that they sang. That would not really be pertinent to the text, especially if it is understood that such expression would be done in singing. The text refers to the content, not the tune or harmony of voice. But the harmony would clearly be inferred in the fact that it was a host speaking in unison. That, even in our day, is considered song, even if it is only a chant. 

But I'm not going to make a federal case over it. Christmas season will soon be done, and we'll be discussing other important matters again. We could, though, spend the year discussing whether it was a Silent Night, or whether the sheep were scattered on the ground, or whether the angels sang in Latin, i.e. "Dona Nobis Pacem, Gloria in Excelsis", and many other things. Or we could just restart the discussion on Exclusive Psalmody. For now, I'm going to fine-tune my guitar, and practice Silent Night for our family Christmas gathering. I've sent my brother my arrangement, and we'll try it when he and his family come down for the gathering.


----------



## DTK (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> David:
> 
> For Away In A Manger that was definitely it. But I was thinking about which words to Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. I think it was the entire refrain, but I still can't recall the exact objection. Very likely it was that the song states that the angels sang, when the text avers they said.
> ...


John, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding to which song/hymn you were referring. It is true that the Scriptures nowhere state that the angelic realm sang the announcement of our Lord's birth. Perhaps they were chanting (read a bit of tongue-in-cheek). At any rate, angels (as has been pointed out) do sing, and perhaps did so here. Personally, I'm don't hold to exclusive psalmody, but I fear we sing them far too little. In our church, we use the new Trinity hymnal, and I try to underscore in our worship that the hymns therein borrowed from the Psalter are indeed Psalms when we sing them.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2004)

"Only lazy exegesis would make this into a notable proof text against Exclusive Psalmody."

Ian: You are mistaken. The church has always used the heavenly worship described in Revelation as a model for our earthly worship. This is true in Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodox circles. In terms of a Reformed view, you might check out the relevant essay in D.G. Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk or his more popular With Reverence and Awe. Concerning public worship. That does not mean that everyone agrees regarding psalmody, but your wholesale rejection of heavenly worship for us is misplaced.

Consider: 

> "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus. . . " This is is in heaven, where God is. Indeed, the ceremonial system, including the temple and its furniture were "copies of the heavenly things . . ." Heb. 9:23. Worship involves ascending to God's heavenly throne.

> We worship with the angels. Hebrews 12:23 teaches regarding the earthly church: "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven." 

> We are seated in the heavenlies. Eph. 2:6-7: "And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus."

I don't understand why you would hesitate to use Revelation in you theology of worship. Indeed, it is hard tounderstand worship at all without it. 

Besides, in the text cited it is not just the angels who are singing the songs (which are not psalms), it is all creatures in existence, which would include people.


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this to be one beautiful, God-glorifying, Christ-exalting hymn!
> 
> (this was my first time using the little singing guy face!)



psst...(this is a completely random meaningless response)

hey i havent used the smiley singing guy either....i want to, i want to ...can i , can i..


----------

