Hark the herald angels sing (incorrectly)

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Puritan Board Junior
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.

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.
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

Puritan Board Graduate
"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

Puritan Board Freshman
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! :sing:

(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..:sing::sing::sing::sing::sing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top