The Psalter in redemptive history

[Me Died Blue]

In some of the recent EP threads, one of the most common (and noteworthy, in my opinion) objections to EP has been the pointing out of both the sung praise before the Psalter's completion as well as the singing in the eschaton. Several non-EPers have noted the possible scenarious before the Psalter's completion (such as there not being sung praise before then, or God approved of other songs before the Psalter's completion, but forbade them after its completion), adding that none of them seem biblically viable, and seem to even have a Dispensational element.

I was thinking about that observation, wondering how the EPers would answer it. I don't think anything ever really got settled on that particular matter, but I later thought of it in a new light, and this is a question for non-EPers: What if the Psalter as God's book of praise has the same nature as the Bible as God's book of revelation? In other words, some of you have criticized the EP notion that God allowed other songs (inspired or uninspired) prior to the Psalter's completion, but disapproved of them after that completion. But is that notion not the same as the concept on which we all agree of God using revelatory prophecy prior to Scripture's completion, but never used it after that completion. Likewise, some of the non-EPers have criticized the notion that we are to only sing Psalms now even though there might be evidence to suggest singing otherwise in the eschaton. But is that concept not the same as the fact that we all agree that direct revelation is not for use in the present Church era, but that it will return in the eschaton?

Overall, I would summarize my thoughts on this at this point by saying that it is not enough for the non-EPer to simply point out that the worship through song was different prior to the Psalter's completion, and that it may be in the eschaton as well. In defending EP, its adherants do not try and pretend that the Psalter has a "uniform" history - and that is because they do not really need to, because they fully agree with the non-EPers that the Psalter of course has a place in redemptive history, and that that place developed in stages, and in the middle of that history. Likewise, advocates of inerrancy and the authority of Scripture, we do not try and pretend that the Bible has a uniform history, because we do not need to, since we fully agree with our critics that Scripture has a place in redemptive history, and that it developed in stages, and in the middle of that history.

P. S. I have not yet studied the issue in-depth enough to be able to offer a contribution on just how the Psalter biblically developed throughout redemptive history, or even which side that development supports. I am simply noting that, just as with the canon, the mere existence of that split-up history does not automatically render the EP position on the Psalter's nature far-fetched and Dispensational, as some seem to have made it out to be.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Very interesting thoughts! Thanks for the post. I've told you this before, but I'll say it is again: It's so refreshing to see someone who is open to really working out the issues and changing his opinion, if necessary. (Not that I mean that as a slight on anyone else here.) It's a blessing to me to see your attitude.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Thanks for the encouragement, Evie. I always enjoy working through issues like this here, and getting and giving input from everyone. I can see your lack of fear to honestly push through such issues as well, as illustrated in such examples as your "middle interpretation" of "hymns and spiritual songs" in a recent thread.

I'm looking forward to hearing people's thoughts on this matter in relation to the topic as a whole.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Thanks for the encouragement, Evie. I always enjoy working through issues like this here, and getting and giving input from everyone. I can see your lack of fear to honestly push through such issues as well, as illustrated in such examples as your "middle interpretation" of "hymns and spiritual songs" in a recent thread.

I'm looking forward to hearing people's thoughts on this matter in relation to the topic as a whole.

To tell you the truth, it's very difficult for me to let go of my biases and explore the issues honestly, which is precisely why it helps me so much to see someone else do it.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Any thoughts?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I think your points are well taken, Chris.

From a chapter entitled The Suitableness and Sufficiency of the Psalter for Christian Worship by the Rev. John A. Henderson in The Psalms in Christian Worship ed. by John McNaughter, pp. 189-190:

Let me urge attention to the former fact, namely, that God gave the Psalter for use in Christian worship...When God gave the Psalter, He did so in order to meet the needs of His worshipping people. Evidently, the Psalter came to be what it is by a process of gradual growth, by the compilation, finally, out of the material at hand, of a collection for permanent employment by the Church as its matter of praise. It is not our contention that this Book contains all the songs that God ever gave for His people's use in their approach to Him. It is quite possible, as alleged by some, that in the earlier history of divine worship by men there were songs given by God for temporary use, which, for good reasons, were not preserved in the collection we call the Psalter. This collection, which is the Hymnary of the Church Universal, is what it is, therefore, by the "survival of the fittest," determined, not through natural, but supernatural, selection. The Psalter is therefore a development under divine supervision, as is the entire Bible, and at all stages in its development its full adaption to the end designed must be taken for granted. The Psalter was completed several centuries before Christ. No change, to make it suitable and sufficient, was deemed necessary in the time of Christ and His Apostles. When God finished making the Bible itself, which was not till near the close of the first century after Christ, it was without doubt designed to meet the demands for a divine revelation for all time. In completing this written revelation to the world and the Church, there were added, after Christ, sections of history, biography, epistolary instruction and exhortation, and even prophecy; but it will be observed that there is not to be found in any book of New Testament lyrics in order to complete the divine provision for the matter of praise. No more "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Was it an oversight on God's part, to make amends for which modern hymn-writers are to be invoked? By no means. God knew what He was about when He completed the Psalter. When it was finished, compiled in its present form, it was just as He wanted it; and so it needed no amendments or addenda to fit it for permanent use by the Church of Christ. There are the wholly suitable, all-sufficient "spiritual songs," -- the songs that the Spirit has edited, and so must be possessed of infinite adaption.

 

[Scott]

Chris: I am not going to present any arguments for or against but would recommend that you consider the consequences of embracing EP by going through the psalter and identifying which psalms directly (non-typologically) refer to Jesus. I think you will find many respected commentators teaching that most psalms apply initially to David or others, even Psalm 2. And of the ones that refer directly to Jesus often do so in veiled prophecies that many ordinary people in the pew would not even recognize as Jesus. In contrast, many post-NT songs clearly and directly refer to Jesus.

I think the PCA position paper is the most balanced. It is not a call to EP (or argument about why it is wrong) but is a call to substantial use of psalms in worship. It is here.

Scott

 

[Scott]

Chris: You also understand that right now there are songs in God's heavenly court that are not contained in the Book of Psalms. See Rev. 5:9, 11, and 13 (note also the presence of instruments in 5:8). Note with respect to the song (which is not in the psalter) in rev. 5:13 that worshipers are not only in heaven. The worshipers include "every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them. . ."

Also see Rev. 15:2-4, in which worshipers are singing two songs not in the Psalter, the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb. Note also the presence of harps (attacks on instrument will come naturally with EP, so I just raise this for observation).

If public worship is ascending to God's heavenly throne and entering His presence, shouldn't our worship reflect this heavenly reality?

Sorry - I guess this is getting into something of an argument, which I did not want to do!

 

[Me Died Blue]

Thanks for that Henderson quotation, Andrew. The first half of the quotation definitely makes the point at which I was getting.

Though it is not addressing the EP issue, I agree Scott that the PCA paper is indeed a well-balanced look at the singing of Psalms in general.

Originally posted by Scott
Chris: You also understand that right now there are songs in God's heavenly court that are not contained in the Book of Psalms. See Rev. 5:9, 11, and 13 (note also the presence of instruments in 5:8). Note with respect to the song (which is not in the psalter) in rev. 5:13 that worshipers are not only in heaven. The worshipers include "every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them. . ."

Also see Rev. 15:2-4, in which worshipers are singing two songs not in the Psalter, the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb. Note also the presence of harps (attacks on instrument will come naturally with EP, so I just raise this for observation).

If public worship is ascending to God's heavenly throne and entering His presence, shouldn't our worship reflect this heavenly reality?

How do those passages necessarily show that such songs are being sung in the present? Furthermore, as I noted in another thread, a lot hinges on one's interpretation of Revelation as a whole (e.g. historicist, preterist, idealist, futurist). As I see it, the futurist interpretation (and possibly the partial-preterist interpretation as well, as I am not very familiar with which specific prophecies they hold as fulfilled) is largely the only one that could make that passage potentially relevant to the EP issue. And in light of that, even if one does hold that interpretation, does it not hold those things to be occurring in the time of the eschaton, rather than now?

Even more important, however, is the point that even if those songs are being sung in the heavenlies at the present time, that does not necessarily have any bearing on EP for the reason I noted in creating this thread, which is the parallel between the Psalter and the canon in redemptive history; for we hold that special revelation is not for the Church in this era, and yet special revelation and the seeing of God's face is surely going on in the heavenlies at the present time. So it may likewise be with the Psalter as well, in that it could still be intended as the sole book of praise for the Church today even if other songs are currently being sung in the heavenlies, just as cessationism and Sola Scriptura hold true on earth today though not in the heavenlies today.

 

[Augusta]

I wonder if Paul and Silas and Jesus and the disciples when they sang various Psalms in the Bible, if they sang them in Greek or Hebrew? Did the disciples speak Hebrew and Greek? Did they sing the Septuagint version and if so did they have different tunes also as we do because the others were lost by that point?

Anyone know?

 

[Scott]

Augusta: I am sure they sang Scottish metrical psalms.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

Chris: Revelation presents a picture of worship as it continually goes on. For example, see 4:10.

I don't see why any school of interpretation would not see Revelation as relevant. Broadly speaking, there is often allot of agreement on the early chapters and the big breaks start with the seals in Rev. 6.

At the least Revelation is a snapshot of heavenly worship at the time of St. John. The worshipers of God in Revelation at the time of John were not singing any psalms (and they were singing other songs).

As to the PCA position paper, it is unfortunate that it has not had wide acceptance.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott
Chris: Revelation presents a picture of worship as it continually goes on. For example, see 4:10.

OK, I can agree with that.

Originally posted by Scott
I don't see why any school of interpretation would not see Revelation as relevant. Broadly speaking, there is often allot of agreement on the early chapters and the big breaks start with the seals in Rev. 6.

The reason I mentioned that is because most of the schools see much or most of the prophecies as metaphorical. That is especially true with the Idealist position, and the partial-Preterist and Historicist positions interpret many of the prophecies metaphorically as well.

Originally posted by Scott
At the least Revelation is a snapshot of heavenly worship at the time of St. John. The worshipers of God in Revelation at the time of John were not singing any psalms (and they were singing other songs).

Here is where I think my main point at the beginning of this thread applies, which is that even if the song is literally sung, and even if that is done in the present Church age, it is still heavenly worship, as you noted. And EP relates to the worship of the visible Church, just as the completed canon does. The people in Heaven now literally see and hear God apart from Scripture, but our sole way of doing such in the visible New Testament Church is through the Scriptures. Likewise, even if the people in Heaven now literally sing songs from outside the Psalter to God, that would not necessarily nullify the possibility that our sole way of doing such in the visible New Testament Church is through the Psalter.

Originally posted by Scott
As to the PCA position paper, it is unfortunate that it has not had wide acceptance.

Indeed. Fortunately, my home church and the PCA church I attend in Cincinnati both sing Psalms on a regular basis.

 

[Scott]

"Even more important, however, is the point that even if those songs are being sung in the heavenlies at the present time, that does not necessarily have any bearing on EP for the reason I noted in creating this thread, which is the parallel between the Psalter and the canon in redemptive history. . ."

Well, Revelation is special revelation and it contains a few new songs. Revelation is the clearest and most extensive text we have on the worship of God, not only in the hevenly realm, but also on earth and the sea. Shouldn't we use this as a model? It would make sense, given that we are presently seated in the heavenlies, Eph. 2:6, and have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the thousands of angels in joyful assembly, Heb. 12:22. Revelation gives us a picture of what these thousands upon thousands of angels are doing.

 

[Scott]

"even if the song is literally sung, and even if that is done in the present Church age, it is still heavenly worship, as you noted. And EP relates to the worship of the visible Church, just as the completed canon does."

Let's deal with this. My point is that our worship merges with heavenly worship.

The PCA Book of Church Order describes public worship:

47-2. A service of public worship is not merely a gathering of God's children with each other, but before all else, a meeting of the triune God with His chosen people. God is present in public worship not only by virtue of the Divine omnipresence but, much more intimately, as the faithful covenant Savior. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name there I am in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).

Public worship differs from any other kind of worship that we do, such as individual devotions and family worship. Gathering together on the Lord´s Day under men God has appointed as officers in his kingdom (elders) brings us into the very presence of God unlike any other time. Notice in the passages below how the assembling of the church (for worship or some other ecclesiastical duty, such as exercising discipline) brings her into God´s presence. Consider Revelation 1-3, in which lampstands symbolize churches.

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. . . the seven lampstands are the seven churches. . . To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. . . Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
See also 1 Cor. 5 and Matthew 18.

After Christ was raised from the dead He ascended into heaven to conduct priestly work in the heavenly temple. Chapters 6 through 10 of the Book of Hebrews are an extended discussion of the priestly work of Jesus. Hebrews discusses the inferiority of the priesthood of Aaron (the Levitical priesthood). Hebrews disparages the inferiority of the earthly tabernacle because it is a mere copy of the heavenly reality (as mentioned earlier). Further, the earthly priests are deficient because they have to endlessly repeat their sacrifices. We learn that we need a priest who can make a sacrifice for once and all. Further, He must do it in the true sanctuary in heaven, not in the copy on earth. Hebrews summarizes the point of this discussion.

Hebrews 8:1-2. Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

Notice that the Christ performs His priestly work in heaven in the "œtrue tabernacle" "“ not the copy on earth. He is a Minister there. Hebrews makes this point again.

Hebrews 9:11-12. But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Christ is ministering in heaven. He entered the Most Holy Place "“ that is God´s throne room and throne.

The result of Christ´s priestly work should lead us to do many things. We should draw near to the heavenly Christ and with boldness enter the heavenly Holy of Holies. We do this by assembling together. The corporate worship of the organized church is entering the Holy of Holies.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott
Revelation is the clearest and most extensive text we have on the worship of God, not only in the hevenly realm, but also on earth and the sea. Shouldn't we use this as a model? It would make sense, given that we are presently seated in the heavenlies, Eph. 2:6, and have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the thousands of angels in joyful assembly, Heb. 12:22. Revelation gives us a picture of what these thousands upon thousands of angels are doing.

Indeed, it does speak of worship both in the heavenly realm and the earthly realm.

As I explained in my previous post, the present worship in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel how we are to worship here and now, just as the present existence of special, extrabiblical revelation in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel its existence here and now.

As far as the earthly realm is concerned, every eschatological school of interpretation, as far as I know, interprets the activities described in Revelation on the earth and in the sea to be either metaphorical or else futuristic. If the former, then there is no literal song sung. If the latter, then it is not sung on earth until the eschaton, in which case the Psalter-canon parallel applies again, since special, extrabiblical revelation will return on earth in the eschaton as well, even though it has no place on earth during the present era.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Scott
Revelation is the clearest and most extensive text we have on the worship of God, not only in the hevenly realm, but also on earth and the sea. Shouldn't we use this as a model? It would make sense, given that we are presently seated in the heavenlies, Eph. 2:6, and have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the thousands of angels in joyful assembly, Heb. 12:22. Revelation gives us a picture of what these thousands upon thousands of angels are doing.

Indeed, it does speak of worship both in the heavenly realm and the earthly realm.

As I explained in my previous post, the present worship in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel how we are to worship here and now, just as the present existence of special, extrabiblical revelation in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel its existence here and now.

As far as the earthly realm is concerned, every eschatological school of interpretation, as far as I know, interprets the activities described in Revelation on the earth and in the sea to be either metaphorical or else futuristic. If the former, then there is no literal song sung. If the latter, then it is not sung on earth until the eschaton, in which case the Psalter-canon parallel applies again, since special, extrabiblical revelation will return on earth in the eschaton as well, even though it has no place on earth during the present era.

Chris,

Unless the Regulative Principle of Worship is ceremonial, it is impossible for something that is sinful (i.e. singing worthy is the Lamb in worship) to be conducted in the heavenlies - where there is no sin. That is why why looking at the Revelation passages, you either have to conclude that the Bible does not say what it says, or be dispensational, or forsake EP.

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Augusta
I wonder if Paul and Silas and Jesus and the disciples when they sang various Psalms in the Bible, if they sang them in Greek or Hebrew? Did the disciples speak Hebrew and Greek? Did they sing the Septuagint version and if so did they have different tunes also as we do because the others were lost by that point?

Anyone know?

There's an interesting question... from a very quick glance the Septuagint doesn't seem to be metered (but i am just about to leave work, so I have had time to read exactly 2 lines of Psalm 1). The
Hebrew, of course, is intended for singing, so there's no issue there (and some of them certainly spoke Hebrew, but some probably did not).
Did they chant it? Dunno. Are there any extant metered Greek renditions? Dunno...

this is where a good RP music historian would be helpful. Is there anyone there on the air?

Todd

 

[Ianterrell]

Okay I'm dusting off my board membership card. Chris, in your initial argument you attempt to draw a parallel between extant prophecy and current "prophecy" and extant songs and non-Psalmic songs. This is an inadequate argument I believe because current prophecy is, from a Cessationist perspective, no prophecy at all, while the non-Psalmic songs are in fact inspired works produced by the Holy Spirit. And they were it seems used in worship (I am referring to songs which are indisputably outside the Psalm as canon, not the admittedly suspicious NT "hymn-fragments"), if these songs were used in worship and God has given no explicit command against their commited use then the Covenantal principle of continuity-unless-God-says-otherwise comes into play. So the prophecy of today which is not prophecy at all, cannot be compared to formerly legitimate songs of the OT which are fully within the realm of revelation.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The EP position has nothing to do with the worship of people in Adam's day, or Abraham's day, or any other day. It is dealing with the worship of Israel (the Church) in the New Covenant. Christ has fulfilled the feasts, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. of the Temple worship, and we, the Church, are the Temple of God today. Paul and the apostles, on Christ's authority, were the new worship leaders, as David was in his day. And, on Paul's clear authority (along with the testimony of James and Christ), we are to sing the various songs contained in God's Book of Praise in the Old Testament as Christians.

This is not a dispensational distinction, it is a Biblical one, according to the author of Hebrews.

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by fredtgreco


Chris,

Unless the Regulative Principle of Worship is ceremonial, it is impossible for something that is sinful (i.e. singing worthy is the Lamb in worship) to be conducted in the heavenlies - where there is no sin. That is why why looking at the Revelation passages, you either have to conclude that the Bible does not say what it says, or be dispensational, or forsake EP.

Fred,

To be fair, we cannot use the revelation pictures of heavenly worship as a picture of what is to be sought after necessarily in earthly worship, because as we Amill/Postmillers know all to well Revelation is a picture book not a historical narrative per se. This picture book shows worship with a glassy sea, incense, and a Temple of all things this I think is best kept in the realm of prophetic imagery and not liturgical instruction. That said I am no longer EP because I do not find the position convincing textually, but at the same time I do not find this particular commandment convincing either against it.

 

[Ianterrell]

Ok Gabi,

Let's take your principle as is, and we now have no positive command specifying that we should ever sing in the context of formal worship. And we have no positive command that children should be baptized. And we have no positive command that women should participate in the Lord's Supper. This NT only format, as you have strictly described it, fails to do anything but leave the Covenantal perspective and to the Baptistic form of things.

 

[Ianterrell]

If our worship is to have nothing to do with OT worship then "Lucy you've got lots of 'splaining to do!!!"

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
Ok Gabi,

Let's take your principle as is, and we now have no positive command specifying that we should ever sing in the context of formal worship. And we have no positive command that children should be baptized. And we have no positive command that women should participate in the Lord's Supper. This NT only format, as you have strictly described it, fails to do anything but leave the Covenantal perspective and to the Baptistic form of things.

We do have positive commands specifying that we should sing in the context of worship, in both the OT and NT, in places where sacrificial and ceremonial functions were not being conducted.

Children being baptized is not part of the ceremonial or Levitical law.

You're not arguing against anything I just said. Do you disagree that Christ nailed the ceremonial/Levitical law to the Cross (Eph 2)? Do you disagree that when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law (Heb 7)? If not, then you have no reason to argue against my post. Simply put, baptism and plain singing are not part of the ceremonial law. The singing of psalms in Temple context performed by the congregation of Israel occurred AFTER sacrifice, not during it.

 

[Ianterrell]

Oh to be clear, I no longer hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship, for those involved in this discussion. Consequently I don't hold to the Exclusive Psalmody principle of worship either.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
If our worship is to have nothing to do with OT worship then "Lucy you've got lots of 'splaining to do!!!"

Again, not what I said. Our worship has nothing to do with worship practices that were nailed to the Cross by Jesus Christ. To worship in such a way is apostasy against the New Covenant, according to the author of Hebrews.

 

[Ianterrell]

Gabe,

You said that EP worship has nothing to do with the worship of any day other than ours. That's what I was responding to, as you're qualifying that statement now, then prima facie we agree. However are you asserting that the Song of Moses is ceremonial? Interesting.

Secondly, there are no passages in the New Testament that firmly describe singing as taking place in the context of "formal worship" as the RPWist and the Westminster confession typically describes it. If you can produce a text that says that, then I'll retract my statement.

Further EPers and RPWists do plenty of uncommanded things in their services as defined strictly as a worship service to God. Baptism for example is never defined as something to be done in worship services, not that I'm objecting to its presence. Anyway this particular thought is really a discussion for another thread.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Ianterrell]

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Ianterrell
If our worship is to have nothing to do with OT worship then "Lucy you've got lots of 'splaining to do!!!"

Again, not what I said. Our worship has nothing to do with worship practices that were nailed to the Cross by Jesus Christ. To worship in such a way is apostasy against the New Covenant, according to the author of Hebrews.

Not to be nitpicky but you didn't say exactly though that may have been what you intended.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Singing in a "formal worship setting" is taught clearly by Scripture.

1 Cor 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

Paul has been ordained by God to explain His commandments for His people, even/especially on worship. Even something as simple as headcoverings for women was regulated by God:

1 Cor 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

 

[Ianterrell]

In this text you reference 1 Cor 14:26 there is no command that one should have a hymn, a lesson, or a revelation, but rather that whatever they do they should aim for edification. Now I grant that this demonstrates that singing was done, but there is no command here to interpret, speak in tongues, or anything per se, but rather it only teaches that we ought to do all the things that we do for the high purpose of building each other up.