Psalms

[Tyrese]

Why should the Psalms be sung as is rather than adjust them to reflect New Testament revelation? For some reason I feel awkward singing Psalms that have been changed to reflect NT teaching even though I believe those things. It no longer feels like I'm singing the Word of God. Any further thoughts on this?

 

[MW]

Why should the Psalms be sung as is rather than adjust them to reflect New Testament revelation?

They are New Testament revelation. See Hebrews 3:7 referencing Psalm 95 as the words of the Holy Ghost in the present, and that in Greek.

 

[Tyrese]

Why should the Psalms be sung as is rather than adjust them to reflect New Testament revelation?

They are New Testament revelation. See Hebrews 3:7 referencing Psalm 95 as the words of the Holy Ghost in the present, and that in Greek.

I know they are New Testament revelation. My question is is it ok to change and add to the Psalms. Good examples would be the Evangelical Psalter or Psalms rewritten by Isaac Watts.

 

[MW]

I know they are New Testament revelation. My question is is it ok to change and add to the Psalms. Good examples would be the Evangelical Psalter or Psalms rewritten by Isaac Watts.

If they are accepted as New Testament revelation there is no basis for changing them. Any change will make them something other than what they are, which will be something other than New Testament revelation. Isaac Watts believed they needed to be Christianised. The Book of Hebrews, along with every other New Testament adoption, shows us this is nonsense.

 

[Tyrese]

I know they are New Testament revelation. My question is is it ok to change and add to the Psalms. Good examples would be the Evangelical Psalter or Psalms rewritten by Isaac Watts.

If they are accepted as New Testament revelation there is no basis for changing them. Any change will make them something other than what they are, which will be something other than New Testament revelation. Isaac Watts believed they needed to be Christianised. The Book of Hebrews, along with every other New Testament adoption, shows us this is nonsense.

I agree. Thanks for your response.

 

[Poimen]

J.G. Vos wrote an excellent essay on this issue called "Ashamed of the Tents of Shem?" You can read it in its entirety here.

The title of the piece relates the fact that

t is still true that Christians of Europe and America dwell in the tents of Shem. Our religious heritage has come to us from the children of Israel, the children of Shem. Our very Christ was a Jew. Our Bible was written almost entirely by Israelites. Our religious thought-forms, vocabulary, sacraments, worship, church-government, all have come to us, humanly speaking, from Israel

So he posits that we are uncomfortable with the Psalms because they represent, in part, a different worldview than what the natural man has adopted. We have to, at all points, examine our faith to see if it conforms to scripture or it conforms to the world around us. This worldview is not just ancient or different but divine.

Vos notes:

Zion occurs thirty-eight times in the Psalter; Israel sixty-two times: Ephraim five times; Melchizedek once. There are numerous others: Oreb and Zeeb, Zeba and Zalmunna, Jacob, Lebanon,Kadesh,Jordan,Hermon, Mizar, Tyre, Shechem, Succoth, Gilead, Moab, Edom, Egypt, Ethiopia, Tarshish, Sheba, Seba and so forth.

The objection is raised that these ancient persons and places have no connection with us today. They are just a lot of dusty history from two or three thousand years ago. Why should we sing about Zeba and Zalmunna? It sounds as if we were to sing about Hokus and Pokus, or Dasher and Prancer, Donder and Blitzen. So runs the objection. But wait. After all, do Zeba and Zalmunna have nothing to do with us today? If we are attached to the Biblical religion we will realize that they have a lot to do with us today. Our religion did not drop to us out of the sky directly from God. He gave it to us through history, and that is the history of Israel. The history of Israel was a history of redemption by the almighty power of God; it was a history of overcoming powerful enemies by the almighty power of God. The enemies were real, they were contemporary manifestations of Satan's kingdom. They were terribly real. But they were crushed by the wonder-working power of almighty God, the covenant God, Jehovah, the God of Israel. This was the importance of Zeba and Zalmunna.

Our religion today, if it is Biblical Christianity, is a religion of overcoming powerful enemies by the supernatural, almighty power of God. We should always think, when we read or sing about Zeba and Zalmunna, of how salvation is not by our might, nor by our power, but by the almighty power, the supernatural grace, of God.

Evil is not abstract, but concrete; it is identified with particular persons. To destroy the evil, the persons must be dealt with by God's mighty power and righteous judgment. Isaac Watts said he would make David talk like a Christian. He denatured the Psalms, and he sophisticated them. Watts quite failed to appreciate the real beauty and glory of the Psalter. Since Watts' time, some Psalm-singing denominations have shied away from the proper names in the Psalter, and have tried to screen many of them out of it. Zion is changed to "the church," and Jerusalem likewise; many of the others are omitted or smoothed over in some way. This yields us a denatured Psalter. No wonder the next step is to give up the Psalms in worship. They have already given up the real vigour and beauty and power of the Psalms by omitting the proper names.

Zion and Jerusalem are the tents of Shem, and it is God's plan for us to dwell in them. Shall we object to that? Those who try to eliminate the proper names of the Psalter show a lack of vital consciousness of the organic connection of the Gospel with the Old Testament. They fail to realize that the real meaning of these proper names, as Zion, is intimately connected with the Biblical doctrine of salvation by free grace. These proper names, and the Psalms with them in, are to be used in the worship of God to the end of the world. They are God's record, God's monument, to the great work of redemption wrought out in history of old. These proper names are not the shame and weakness of the Psalms; they are the honour and the glory of the Psalms

 

[JP Wallace]

I really dislike 're-written- psalms a lot, in fact straightforward hymns are more acceptable to me - they seem dishonest, and as Matthew notes unnecessary as the Psalms are full of Christ and Christ's words. I find it particularly amazing that some folks do this and promote it while at the same time refusing to think about using anything other than the AV/KJV (no slur on it intended - just noting the inconsistency of being a sticker for a particular translation and then throwing caution to the wind with the psalms if sung).

Vos's essay is well worth reading.

 

[Peairtach]

All that we understand about the New Testament is in the context of the "ABC" of the Old Testament.


The Lord thought this "ABC" was important enough for our spiritual health and well-being that He didn't give us a songbook in the New Testament Scriptures.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jake]

Like some of the psalms of the 1912 Psalter who sometimes puts the name of Christ in?

Example from the last part of Psalm 2:

Therefore, kings, be wise, give ear;
Hearken, judges of the earth;
Learn to serve the Lord with fear,
Mingle trembling with your mirth.
Kiss the Son, lest o'er your way
His consuming wrath should break;
But supremely blest are they
Who in Christ their refuge take.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One could argue (re. Ps.2:12, the final line) that the "...who put their trust in him," requires some particular reference (antecedent) for the pronoun.

V2 contains reference to his "Anointed," which is quite literally "Christ," and in harmonious accord with the whole Psalm and Christian interpretation, is the same figure as "the Son" mentioned earlier in v12.

All to say: it's hard for me to fault the 1912 Psalter there. The dispute would end up in a reductio that took us to literalist chanting the lines out of our Bibles.

 

[Cymro]

It continually amazes and grieves me that the singing of psalms is resisted
and contended against, by not only individuals but by churches of my acquaintance.
They would accept a sermon from the psalms, but would oppose the singing of the
word of God.
They would rather sing Watts and Wesley, than the words of the sweet Psalmist of
Israel. I still can't fathom it. Watts wanted to Christianise David, that's really rich
coming from an anti-trinitarian. He wrote, 'What need is there that I should wrap up
the shining honours of my Redeemer in the dark and shadowy language of a religion
that is now for ever abolished, especially when Christians are so vehemently warned
in the epistles of Paul against a Judaizing spirit in their worship as well as doctrine.'
The Rev Gilbert M 'Master, DD, wrote in the 4th edition of his book in 1852,about Watts's belief,'the sonship
of Christ belongs exclusively, to his human soul, and that the covenant of redemption
was made not with a person who was the Father's equal, but was a created spirit.'
The Rev Thomas Bradbury in 1725, charged Watts with,' making the Divinity of Christ
to evaporate into a mere attribute.' He told the Doctor,' It is a pity, after you have been
more than thirty years a teacher of others, you are yet to learn the first principles of the
oracles of God. Dr Owen's church to be taught another Jesus? And that the Son and the Spirit
were only two powers in the Divine nature?'
Toplady on the death Dr Watts wrote, 'gladly would I throw, if at all possible,
an everlasting vail over this valuable person's deviations from the simplicity of the Gospel, relative
to the personality and divinity of the Son and Spirit of God.'---'his too wanton tamperings with the
doctrine of the Trinity.'-(-and then he lists a number of evangelicals of ablest reasoners who challenged
Watts on his Trinitarian theology.
Watts not only tampered with the Trinity but with the psalms, and his innovators are still with us! Trying to
New Testamentise that which is redolent with Christ in His Words, His Offices, His Deity, His thoughts, His
Glory. He is its Word.

 

[Jake]

One could argue (re. Ps.2:12, the final line) that the "...who put their trust in him," requires some particular reference (antecedent) for the pronoun.

V2 contains reference to his "Anointed," which is quite literally "Christ," and in harmonious accord with the whole Psalm and Christian interpretation, is the same figure as "the Son" mentioned earlier in v12.

All to say: it's hard for me to fault the 1912 Psalter there. The dispute would end up in a reductio that took us to literalist chanting the lines out of our Bibles.

I wouldn't say it's a poor translation. I just wasn't aware of whatever Tyrese was asking about in his post. The 1912's Psalter with occasionally having the name of Christ was the only thing I could think of.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

Why should the Psalms be sung as is rather than adjust them to reflect New Testament revelation?

They are New Testament revelation. See Hebrews 3:7 referencing Psalm 95 as the words of the Holy Ghost in the present, and that in Greek.

I know they are New Testament revelation. My question is is it ok to change and add to the Psalms. Good examples would be the Evangelical Psalter or Psalms rewritten by Isaac Watts.

A brief browse through this article (there's actually a very helpful series on this church's website devoted to Watts and I recommend you read them all!) and noone can excuse Watts of his hatred of the Bible. His motivation for the rewrites was rife with unGodly doctrine.

Watts’ Hymnody - American Presbyterian Church

 

[Tyrese]

One could argue (re. Ps.2:12, the final line) that the "...who put their trust in him," requires some particular reference (antecedent) for the pronoun.

V2 contains reference to his "Anointed," which is quite literally "Christ," and in harmonious accord with the whole Psalm and Christian interpretation, is the same figure as "the Son" mentioned earlier in v12.

All to say: it's hard for me to fault the 1912 Psalter there. The dispute would end up in a reductio that took us to literalist chanting the lines out of our Bibles.

I wouldn't say it's a poor translation. I just wasn't aware of whatever Tyrese was asking about in his post. The 1912's Psalter with occasionally having the name of Christ was the only thing I could think of.

Hi Jake. The translation you posted is close to what I had in mind. I'm really getting at the more radical revisions of the psalms.

 

[Kaalvenist]

J. G. Vos's article, which was referenced and linked to above, appears to have been written at least partially as a critique of the 1912 Psalter.

 

[Peairtach]

J.G. Vos wrote an excellent essay on this issue called "Ashamed of the Tents of Shem?" You can read it in its entirety here.

The title of the piece relates the fact that

t is still true that Christians of Europe and America dwell in the tents of Shem. Our religious heritage has come to us from the children of Israel, the children of Shem. Our very Christ was a Jew. Our Bible was written almost entirely by Israelites. Our religious thought-forms, vocabulary, sacraments, worship, church-government, all have come to us, humanly speaking, from Israel

So he posits that we are uncomfortable with the Psalms because they represent, in part, a different worldview than what the natural man has adopted. We have to, at all points, examine our faith to see if it conforms to scripture or it conforms to the world around us. This worldview is not just ancient or different but divine.

Vos notes:

Zion occurs thirty-eight times in the Psalter; Israel sixty-two times: Ephraim five times; Melchizedek once. There are numerous others: Oreb and Zeeb, Zeba and Zalmunna, Jacob, Lebanon,Kadesh,Jordan,Hermon, Mizar, Tyre, Shechem, Succoth, Gilead, Moab, Edom, Egypt, Ethiopia, Tarshish, Sheba, Seba and so forth.

The objection is raised that these ancient persons and places have no connection with us today. They are just a lot of dusty history from two or three thousand years ago. Why should we sing about Zeba and Zalmunna? It sounds as if we were to sing about Hokus and Pokus, or Dasher and Prancer, Donder and Blitzen. So runs the objection. But wait. After all, do Zeba and Zalmunna have nothing to do with us today? If we are attached to the Biblical religion we will realize that they have a lot to do with us today. Our religion did not drop to us out of the sky directly from God. He gave it to us through history, and that is the history of Israel. The history of Israel was a history of redemption by the almighty power of God; it was a history of overcoming powerful enemies by the almighty power of God. The enemies were real, they were contemporary manifestations of Satan's kingdom. They were terribly real. But they were crushed by the wonder-working power of almighty God, the covenant God, Jehovah, the God of Israel. This was the importance of Zeba and Zalmunna.

Our religion today, if it is Biblical Christianity, is a religion of overcoming powerful enemies by the supernatural, almighty power of God. We should always think, when we read or sing about Zeba and Zalmunna, of how salvation is not by our might, nor by our power, but by the almighty power, the supernatural grace, of God.

Evil is not abstract, but concrete; it is identified with particular persons. To destroy the evil, the persons must be dealt with by God's mighty power and righteous judgment. Isaac Watts said he would make David talk like a Christian. He denatured the Psalms, and he sophisticated them. Watts quite failed to appreciate the real beauty and glory of the Psalter. Since Watts' time, some Psalm-singing denominations have shied away from the proper names in the Psalter, and have tried to screen many of them out of it. Zion is changed to "the church," and Jerusalem likewise; many of the others are omitted or smoothed over in some way. This yields us a denatured Psalter. No wonder the next step is to give up the Psalms in worship. They have already given up the real vigour and beauty and power of the Psalms by omitting the proper names.

Zion and Jerusalem are the tents of Shem, and it is God's plan for us to dwell in them. Shall we object to that? Those who try to eliminate the proper names of the Psalter show a lack of vital consciousness of the organic connection of the Gospel with the Old Testament. They fail to realize that the real meaning of these proper names, as Zion, is intimately connected with the Biblical doctrine of salvation by free grace. These proper names, and the Psalms with them in, are to be used in the worship of God to the end of the world. They are God's record, God's monument, to the great work of redemption wrought out in history of old. These proper names are not the shame and weakness of the Psalms; they are the honour and the glory of the Psalms

Thanks for drawing attention to this article.

Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ are the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). We Gentiles who believe are ingrafted - along with any offspring - into the "root and fatness" of the Abrahamic Olive Tree, alongside those natural branches belonging to Israel after the flesh who also exercise faith in Christ (Rom.11).

The NT Church thus takes the character of the mature OT Church, or the mature Israel.

The fact that the Apostle speaks of the Israel of God, i.e. that pertains, or belongs to God, points out that some among Israel after the flesh (I Cor.10:18)/the natural branches (Rom 11:21-24) do not belong to God, although Romans 9-11
makes it clear that the Lord has a plan for the Jewish nation as a whole.

The singing of the Psalms is a fundamental part of who we -the Church - are as the Israel of God, in Israel's Messianic King.

Churches that neglect the Psalms are on the road to losing their identity.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Free Christian]

I am amazed too at the opposition to the singing of Psalms in churches. It spells out to me that something is seriously wrong there when they oppose them. I was at a church once where they wouldn't sing them (I didn't stay there long) and there was a meeting one day. The subject of songs came up. I had a turn to speak so I said "why don't we sing Psalms like the Bible tells us to?" I got a lot of blank looks and some said things like "those old things!" or "they were just for the Jews" or "the young ones don't want to sing those". They instead chose to sing songs that were constructed of mostly just one sentence repeated over and over. Sometimes they were hymns, but those one sentence, sometimes two, chorus's became the most requested to be sung. They did though for a time have someone read a Psalm but they just flatly refused to sing them.

 

[Tyrese]

I am amazed too at the opposition to the singing of Psalms in churches. It spells out to me that something is seriously wrong there when they oppose them. I was at a church once where they wouldn't sing them (I didn't stay there long) and there was a meeting one day. The subject of songs came up. I had a turn to speak so I said "why don't we sing Psalms like the Bible tells us to?" I got a lot of blank looks and some said things like "those old things!" or "they were just for the Jews" or "the young ones don't want to sing those". They instead chose to sing songs that were constructed of mostly just one sentence repeated over and over. Sometimes they were hymns, but those one sentence, sometimes two, chorus's became the most requested to be sung. They did though for a time have someone read a Psalm but they just flatly refused to sing them.

Sadly this happens in Churches that call themselves Reformed.