# Psalm 150 And Instruments in Worship



## JOwen (Apr 27, 2006)

Psalm 150 is a popular scripture for those RPW'ers who use an organ in worship. I'm thinking specifically of the 1834 Dutch Secession denominations such as the Free Reformed Church, Netherlands Reformed Church, and the Heritage Reformed Church. These three are solid RPW/EP'ers but use an organ (and no, they do not claim that the organ in Psalm 150 is the same thing as their organ  ). With that in mind
perhaps you could flesh out the problem in this line of reasoning that I face quite often in these circles as I am licensed by one of them.

If I am understanding the text correctly, Psalm 150 is not speaking ceremonially as per Num_10:10; 1Ch_15:24, Ch_15:28, 1Ch_16:42; 2 Ch_29. And if my Hebrew understanding is correct then 'ko'-desh' (sanctuary) in 150 is speaking about the "holy presence of the Lord" everywhere, not specifically of the 'hay-kawl' (Temple). Granted, 'ko'-desh' could be speaking about the ceremonial/typical presence of the LORD as per
Lev_4:6, but that would make 'dance' and 'organ' in Psalm 150 problematic as neither of these are ever mentioned as cerimonial.
Likewise 'firmament' of His power is speaking about the 'expanse of his creation everywhere' and not necessarily a
direct reference to His fixed abode in the Holy of Hollies. This chapter then, if it is not 'typical in nature', seems to point to the valid use of instruments in the praise of God 'outside' the ceremonial law. 
I have always understood Psalm 150 in the context of 2 Chr. 29, but a close examination has demonstrated that this is not the case. 

Any thoughts?

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis
Pastor
APC- Vancouver
www.apcvan.com

[Edited on 4-27-2006 by JOwen]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 27, 2006)

See these two links:

http://fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/psalm150.htm

http://fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Psalm150Updated.htm


Calvin on Psalm 150:

Praise him with sound of trumpet. I do not insist upon the words in the
Hebrew signifying the musical instruments; only let the reader remember that sundry different kinds are here mentioned, which were in use *under the legal economy*, the more forcibly to teach the children of God that they cannot apply themselves too diligently to the praises of God "” as if he would enjoin them strenuously to bring to this service all their powers, and devote themselves wholly to it. Nor was it without reason that God under the law enjoined this multiplicity of songs, that he might lead men away from those vain and corrupt pleasures to which they are excessively addicted, to a holy and profitable joy. Our corrupt nature indulges in extraordinary liberties, many devising methods of gratification which are preposterous, while their highest satisfaction lies in suppressing all thoughts of God. This perverse disposition could only be corrected in the way of God´s retaining a weak and ignorant people under many restraints, and constant exercises. The Psalmist, therefore, in exhorting believers to pour forth all their joy in the praises of God, enumerates, one upon another, all the musical instruments *which were then in use*, and reminds them that they ought all to be consecrated to the worship of God.


1599 Geneva Bible :

Exhorting the people only to rejoice in praising God, he maketh mention of those instruments which by Gods commandment were appointed in the old Law, but under Christ the use thereof is abolished in the Church.


----------



## JOwen (Apr 27, 2006)

Dear Mr. Bartel,

The articles (written by my dear friend Richard Bacon) does not answer my post. In fact Dr. Bacon's words, "The use of musical instruments in Psalm 150 is decidedly not circumstantial "” it is commanded (with the "œsanctuary" being spoken of clearly that of the temple...)" is contrary to the Hebrew in this text. The "sanctuary" as the Geneva Notes refers to "the heavens", NOT the Temple.

I'm looking more for an exegetical answer to the 150th Psalm than one based on historical testimony. As a Pastor in an EP Church that does not use any instrumental accompaniment I am familiar with the Puritan Father's take on it. However, if the contents of Psalm 150 cannot be traced to the ceremonial law, then we are looking at a text that speaks of using instruments as a legitimate form of worship outside the ceremonial structure. For instance, under the RPW/ceremonial law, where is "œorgan" or "œdance" commanded in the OT? In other words, one needs to prove that timbrel, dance, stringed instruments, and organs are ceremonial if we are going to make this text fit within the typical framework. 

What I'm suggesting is Psalm 150 is not speaking ceremonially as 'ko'-desh' (sanctuary) is speaking about the "holy presence of the Lord" everywhere. 'Firmament' of His power' is speaking about the "œexpanse of his creation everywhere"and is not a direct reference to His fixed abode in the Holy of Hollies.

If this IS speaking of the ceremonial law then why isn't thew word (heÌ‚ykaÌ‚l) Temple used as it is elsewhere in the Psalms ( Psa_5:7, Psa_11:4, Psa_18:6, Psa_27:4, Psa_48:9 (2), Psa_65:4, Psa_68:29, Psa_138:1-2) instead of ko'-desh' (sanctuary) which means heavens? 

Any thoughts?


----------



## daveb (May 25, 2006)

*bump*


----------



## Peter (May 25, 2006)

My thought was that all these expressions are hyperbole. Even if this does refer to ceremonial worship many of these instruments were not sanctioned for use in ceremonial worship anyway. Does God expect us to worship him with animal noises? v6


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2006)

I believe that Psalm 150 is a clear indication that the Electric Lute is preferable to the organ.


----------



## Arch2k (May 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I believe that Psalm 150 is a clear indication that the Electric Lute is preferable to the organ.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Jun 1, 2006)

For individuals/ churches that use Psalms 149 and 150 to advocate electric guitars and drums to create a thoroughly "rock concert" feel in worship, what passages of scripture can be used to explain worship in a more reverent, solemn manner?


----------



## xcrunner12 (Jun 27, 2006)

I still don't see what is wrong with using an Organ in worship


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by xcrunner12_
> I still don't see what is wrong with using an Organ in worship



Only one thing. God has not commanded its use in worship.

_J. Sulzmann_


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

The one thing necessary!

Worship is honouring the divine Name by submitting to the divine Will.


----------



## xcrunner12 (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by xcrunner12_
> ...



good point, so i am now assuming that Lutherans do not practice the Regulative Prinicipal

[Edited on 6-28-2006 by xcrunner12]

[Edited on 6-29-2006 by xcrunner12]


----------



## Catechist (Sep 3, 2006)

Dear Rev. Lewis,

You bring up a very important objection/concern. I want to further understand your argument correctly. Please, further clarify your position for me, especially where I might have not understood your framework correctly. 

I understand that there are two types of ceremonies. Those instituted by God and those instituted by men/church. Those instituted by God in moral worship can only be changed by himself. Other circumstances added or connected with the moral worship of God are connected by men/church in order to help define, edify, and fix a place, in which perform this duty - moral worship. 

Ursinus recommends guidlines for such ceremonies within the visible church:

1- They must not be unholy; but such as are agreeable to the word of God.
2- They must not be superstitious- such as may easily lead men astray, so as to attach to them worship, merit, or necessity, and which may occasion offence when observed.
3- They must not be too numerous, so as to be oppressive and burdensome.
4- They must not be empty, insignificant and unprofitable; but tend to edification. 

Your argument for instruments in worship is predicated without an appeal to the typical rpw ceremonial law/temple argument which forbids such a practice when transfered into NT worship. 

You transcend this appeal by placing the your argument for instruments in worship, without the typical temple or ceremonial framework, but everywhere under heaven - instruments being positively warranted in the worship and praise of God, yet without reference to demand a type. 

You wrote, "What I'm suggesting is Psalm 150 is not speaking ceremonially as 'ko'-desh' (sanctuary) is speaking about the "holy presence of the Lord" everywhere."

Under this framework, do you separate the Praise of God with the instruments here being employed?

Under this framework, are the particular instruments here employed, commanded instruments, or might any instruments in general be used? 

I do not assume that you are stating that the same type of instruments be employed that are listed in Psalm 150, for they are not connected with the moral worship of God in and of themselves. Such does not seem germaine to the argument since they are not attached to worship. Insomuch as instruments do not have breath and cannot worship or praise God. Yet such is connected to worship in Psalm 150 in another way. I think more under the guidelines outlined by Ursinus in understanding ceremonies, if I'm understanding you correctly. 

Your argument transcends the typical framework and my presupposition when you state that the: " 'Firmament' of His power' is speaking about the "œexpanse of his creation everywhere"and is not a direct reference to His fixed abode in the Holy of Hollies." Do you have reference material that might more fully outline this position?

If your presupposition/position is correct, then God does allow for instruments in worship. Not as a positive necessary commanded element but as an allowable profitable edifying 'ceremony" connected to worship, more along the lines of a declarative and allowable circumstance of worship. Declared that is, by the church? 

Ursinus defines ceremony as that which differs from moral works, "As understood by the church, all external and solemn actions instituted by the ministry, for the sake of order, or signification, are term ceremonies."

Therefore, if I follow your argument correctly, your argument for instruments in worship is not being connected with the Temple, but the Praise in Psalm 150 everywhere is the moral worship, and the instruments are further defining the order of sounds and clarifying notes unto edification. Yet, the instruments here, in and of themselves, are not required nor do they have the ablity to offer praise - for God said, "Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Prasie ye the Lord. Psalm 150:6."

Instruments do not have breath and cannot praise or worship God. Yet they are added as an acceptable adjunct to worship unto God in Psalm 150.
They are not only contained within the sacrifices of the OT Temple. Neither dance and organ, both of these are ever mentioned as ceremonial?

I would consider this issue, at this time, a problem that warrants it hard to assume a certain dogmatic position without fear? I would appreciate any further instruction.

Thank you for your blessed service.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by xcrunner12_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> ...



That is correct. They practice the Normative principle, where whatever is not forbidden in Scripture is permissible so long as it doesn't disrupt the peace and unity of the church.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Sing praises to God; use instruments too.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Jay, God has not commanded the use of microphones either. 

And I don't buy this "that is a circumstance" argument. The disciples didn't need them (nor suits and ties which mysteriously, are pretty much required wear in the pulpit). Peter preached to a large multitude (come to think of it, so did Jesus) and they didn't need microphones. Thus, microphones should be eliminated from every church and I am now on a crusade to ban the use of microphones in worship services. (with instrumental accompaniment)


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 4, 2006)




----------



## Arch2k (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Jay, God has not commanded the use of microphones either.
> 
> And I don't buy this "that is a circumstance" argument. The disciples didn't need them (nor suits and ties which mysteriously, are pretty much required wear in the pulpit). Peter preached to a large multitude (come to think of it, so did Jesus) and they didn't need microphones. Thus, microphones should be eliminated from every church and I am now on a crusade to ban the use of microphones in worship services. (with instrumental accompaniment)



There is a large difference between the use of the microphone and instruments.

I don't know of any who have ever claimed that amplification (the use of the microphone) is worship to the Lord. In fact, in specific instances, it might be necessary for all to hear and understand the message. However, instruments were used (and are today by some) as worship in the O.T. during the ceremonial observances. Because of their ceremonial ties to the priesthood, they should not be used in the N.T., but are a type and a shadow of what the church is to do. Just as the Incense was used in the tabernacle, and now represents our prayers being offered up to God, so the instruments played a part in the picture of N.T. worship. Picture the O.T. worship as a play, you have many things going on, sacrifices, specific clothing, blood, incense, showbread, instruments being played, all as one big presentation. In the N.T., the "play" is replaced by the reality, what the elements of the play pointed to.

There has been LOTS of discussion on this topic already, and I don't want to divert this thread from its original intent (that's my job as mod). If you want to dig up an old thread on this topic, read it, and then post, I'm sure you'll get more discussion on the validity of instruments in N.T. worship.

One should note that even Spurgeon condemned instruments in worship, therefore you should! (just kidding, I know that's a fallacy, but it's a funny one!).


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

LOL yeah it was funny Jeff.

I don't want to go off on that tangent; I just still believe what I said. Thank you for your effort though.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 4, 2006)

Instruments were commanded in the Old Testament. Therefore, they are not circumstantial under the New Testament unless specifically made so by Christ or His Apostles under the New Testament.

And whatever happened to Mr. "We-Need-Explicit-New-Testament-Warrant" that I met over at the Baptism forum?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Are you trying to call me a hypocrite? I was only following the RPW logic. I believe I even stated such somewhere. However, if I didn't, you still haven't proven anything. As baptism has to do with church doctrine, microphones don't. But it is amazing the lengths people on this board will go to discredit someone who is tenaciously dead set against microphones, as they violate the RPW. Hence the fact that people have to make up "circumstantial" this and "circumstantial" that. 

RPWers can say whatever they want, they can try to twist words, they can try to get around their inconsistency, but in the end...it doesn't work.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 4, 2006)

> I was only following the RPW logic.




For a "Principle", it does have it's dogmatists. 

Here was a fun thread...http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=19093&page=1

-pax-

JD

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 4, 2006)

The distinction between elements (what is required by God) and circumstances (things indifferent) is more important than you seem to realize. 

It's the same as the distinction between "substance" and "accidents." That's how all Reformed people explain the relations between Moses (Old Covenant) and Christ (New Covenant) or, more broadly, between the time of types and shadws and the time of fulfillment.

It is because the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law (and whatever ceremonies pre-dated Moses) are not of the "substance" of the covenant of grace that they pass away and are fulfilled in Christ. That's why we don't kill animals any longer as an act of worship and that's why we don't demand that the civil magistrate kill rebellious teen-agers any more. Those aspects of the Mosaic law were typological and temporary. They were intended only the Mosaic/Old Covenant. That's why, more broadly, circumcision is indifferent and no longer has any religious significance (it may or may not be a matter of good health - but that's not religiously significant). 

If one dismisses this distinction, then one ends up in an unhappy place. One could lose all continuity in the covenant whatever, which is the Marcionite view (the "god" of the Old Covenant v the God of the New Covenant) or one could end up with the abiding validity of the law God in exhaustive detail or a literal millennium with Jesus watching priests offer memorial sacrifices (both systems bring back Moses from the dead - leave him alone, put down that defib unit) or with Roman worship, which grounds its ceremonial practices in the Mosaic cultus (worship system).

So, we distinguish between "elements" (those things that are necessary in all administrations of the covenant of grace, i.e., those things essential to worship) and "circumstances" (things indifferent). The elements are word, sacrament, and prayer. 

The elements of worship are commanded but their shadowy administration is not. The typological and shadowy administration of the elements is fulfilled in Christ. I should think that instruments were a part of the typical and shadowy administration of the elements, even if they weren't commanded in the Torah. We do have the example of women using instruments in the Song of Miriam in Ex 15. Pss 68 and 81 seem also to connect these sorts of instruments with the Israelite cultus. In that case, I can't see how they're merely circumstances that transcend the the Israelite epoch. They are part of the developement of the Mosaic/Davidic/Israelite cultus. They belong to the time of types and shadows.

Ed Clowney is the only person of whom I know who has argued that the instruments were circumstances of worship such that they can be used today without implicating us in the whole Mosaic/typological cultus. This has not been the historic Reformed understanding, however. Even if we grant Ed's argument, those instruments were still shadowy and typical circumstances. On what basis does one resurrect types and shadows for new covenant worship without resurrecting the entire theocratic arrangement? If we resuscitate Moses (or David) for his instruments, why not his civil government or his sacrifices? Weren't animal sacrifices circumstances in the same way that instrumental music was a circumstance? If so, don't instruments bring us bloody lambs and isn't that a little more than we bargained for when we brought back the medieval-popish organ (after having banished it in the 16th century)?

rsc



> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Jay, God has not commanded the use of microphones either.
> 
> And I don't buy this "that is a circumstance" argument. The disciples didn't need them (nor suits and ties which mysteriously, are pretty much required wear in the pulpit). Peter preached to a large multitude (come to think of it, so did Jesus) and they didn't need microphones. Thus, microphones should be eliminated from every church and I am now on a crusade to ban the use of microphones in worship services. (with instrumental accompaniment)


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

I checked that link out JD. Unbelievable. *sigh* No comment.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Thank you Dr. Clark. I have to read that over again to make sure I get the gist of it; I'm a simple high school graduate. But I think I got the main idea.

I just don't understand how one can label "instruments" as circumstantial. If God commanded the use of them in the OT then it would follow that it is an element. The NT never retracted this command, therefore one can infer that it is still something that God desires us to use. This is why I think RPWers just make up rules as they go along, to suit their fancy. Maybe they don't, but this is the impression I get and I bet others would get it to.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 4, 2006)

Dear Brian,

Yes, please re-read it.

God commanded lots of things under Moses (and before) that are circumstantial or not essential to the covenant of grace. 

We can even say that he commanded things that were essential to a given administration of the covenant of grace that no longer bind us such as animal sacrifices and the entire ceremonial aspect of the law (the washings and the like). 

rsc



> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Thank you Dr. Clark. I have to read that over again to make sure I get the gist of it; I'm a simple high school graduate. But I think I got the main idea.
> 
> I just don't understand how one can label "instruments" as circumstantial. If God commanded the use of them in the OT then it would follow that it is an element. The NT never retracted this command, therefore one can infer that it is still something that God desires us to use. This is why I think RPWers just make up rules as they go along, to suit their fancy. Maybe they don't, but this is the impression I get and I bet others would get it to.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 4, 2006)

Will do. Thanks again.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 6, 2006)

*Psalm 150 Instruments*

Hello Pastor Lewis:

If I may make a suggestion: I think that you have already touched upon the answer in your post when you wrote:

*What I'm suggesting is Psalm 150 is not speaking ceremonially as 'ko'-desh' (sanctuary) is speaking about the "holy presence of the Lord" everywhere. 'Firmament' of His power' is speaking about the "œexpanse of his creation everywhere"and is not a direct reference to His fixed abode in the Holy of Hollies.*

If I am not mistaken the cermonial aspects of the Law deals with the True Worship of God performed at the Temple, and, specifically, in the Holy of Holies. That the ceremonial law has been abolished and True Worship is now performed on Sundays with the body of believers in the local churches. I would then argue the following thesis:

That Psalm 150 *is not* referring to the formal worship of God in the Temple (OT) nor on Sundays (NT). But to the worship of God in the ""holy presence of the Lord" everywhere," as you have put it.

I think, and I am well open to criticism here, that the Regulative Principle of Worship was specifically designed for the formal worship of God on Sundays. That to apply it to matters outside of the formal worship of God is an abuse of the doctrine.

Is this not our practice? Do we not enjoy instrumental music that is not a part of the formal worship of God? Classical, Jazz, or some other type of music? Psalm 150 would then be saying that all of it should be resounding to the Praise of our Glorious King.

Thus, Exclusive Psalm singing in an acappella fashion is preserved in the formal worship of God while praising God on informal occasions with the "harp, lyre, and organ" is a non-essential everywhere else.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

[Edited on 6-9-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 6, 2006)

Brian, anti-instrumentalists like myself maintain the position that the use of musical instruments was not at all circumstantial, but a commanded element of worship. The thing is, the particulars of the command (being played upon by the Levites, during the offering of the sacrifice, etc.) show that this command was ceremonial, not moral. Otherwise, in order to have them played in worship, you would need the specific instruments used during that time; you would need Levites to play upon them; and you would need sacrifices to be offered during their playing (which means an entire revival of the Old Testament worship, which has been abolished by Christ).

Since that is the "standing rule" of their playing in worship, which has never been relaxed under the New Testament, the use of those musical instruments in worship was intrinsically bound with the use of the other types and ceremonies, and perished with them.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The distinction between elements (what is required by God) and circumstances (things indifferent) is more important than you seem to realize.
> 
> It's the same as the distinction between "substance" and "accidents." That's how all Reformed people explain the relations between Moses (Old Covenant) and Christ (New Covenant) or, more broadly, between the time of types and shadws and the time of fulfillment.
> ...



So, am I to understand your church does not use intruments in worship?


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 6, 2006)

I stumbled over this reading Psalm 66 yesterday:

"I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay thee my vows,
Which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats. Selah."

-- Psalm 66:13-15

To ask the question - Wouldn't that be the same issue?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 6, 2006)

> So, am I to understand your church does not use intruments in worship?



Unfortunately, the congregation is still addicted to the opitate of instruments. :bigsmile:

I've made my views known in the adult catechism instruction and I don't sing uninspired songs in stated services. When I conduct worship we sing Psalms. 

I'm encouraging and hoping for further Reformation. 

rsc


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 6, 2006)

*Musical Instruments*



> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Brian, anti-instrumentalists like myself maintain the position that the use of musical instruments was not at all circumstantial, but a commanded element of worship. The thing is, the particulars of the command (being played upon by the Levites, during the offering of the sacrifice, etc.) show that this command was ceremonial, not moral. Otherwise, in order to have them played in worship, you would need the specific instruments used during that time; you would need Levites to play upon them; and you would need sacrifices to be offered during their playing (which means an entire revival of the Old Testament worship, which has been abolished by Christ).
> 
> Since that is the "standing rule" of their playing in worship, which has never been relaxed under the New Testament, the use of those musical instruments in worship was intrinsically bound with the use of the other types and ceremonies, and perished with them.





That does not answer the point Sean. I don't think that the Psalmist is addressing only Levites.

Respectfully,

-CH

[Edited on 6-9-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## Kaalvenist (Sep 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CalvinandHodges_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> ...


Rob, I was answering Brian's point, not Rev. Lewis's point -- as far as I could tell, Brian was not emphasizing the appearance of musical instruments in the Psalms, but the *command* to use musical instruments, and the application of the RPW to that command.


----------



## MW (Sep 7, 2006)

Perhaps we could add the word "mechanical" to our anti-instrumental polemic. I believe that by singing with voice from a heart filled with grace I am fulfilling the "instrumental" commandments of the Psalter. Once that is acknowledged, it is difficult to see why anyone would contend for the use of such weak and beggarly elements as "mechanical" instruments. Blessings!


----------

