Hey all, I just have one quick question for the die-hard EPers out there; this doesn't even have to be a thread, just one person answering will be sufficient. And I apologize, since I'm sure this has been answered here before, I just couldn't find it in a quick browse.

Why the 150 Psalms in the book of Psalms only? Why not the Magnificat, or the Nunc Dimittis, or Benedictus, or Songs of Moses or Hannah, or the songs in Revelation?

A quick simple answer would be greatly appreciated, or a link to where this is answered directly. Thanks.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I am not a die-hard EP-er, but I believe I know the answer.

The position is that those 150 psalms - the psalter - is the only set of worship songs that have a positive command to be sung in worship. Any other song, including other parts of Scripture, are not commanded to be sung, and therefore, absent the positive command, according to the RPW they are not permitted to be sung either. Therefore the Magnificat, Nunc Dimitis, etc, are not permitted.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

As far as I can tell, neither the Magnificat nor the Nunc Dimittis are songs, either.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

The songs outside the Psalter (Psalms 1-150) are immediate and not prescribed for the corporate worship of the church.

__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
disabled - cancer
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

zzzzzz ...

Jay --

Thanks for your response. But...why? We can say that. But on what grounds? Are they not also psalms/hymns/or spiritual songs inspired by God?

I'm looking for what people say makes the 150 psalms/hymns/spiritualsongs which they allow different from the other psalms/hymns/spiritualsongs in scripture.

Where is that Simeon's and Mary's words are classified as song?

Josh -- Okay, leave out those two. The Song of Moses--obviously a song.

Todd basically answered that above. Songs that were given immediately and were not canonized, as in the book of Psalms, were for that occasion only.

Where is the positive command that the Psalms be sung? Do you mean there is a general command as to genre - "these Psalms shall be sung in worship"? Or that each Psalm is prefaced with a positive command - "this one is to be sung"?

__________________
Lance G. Marshall
Pastor
Georgetown, Indiana

Jay, I have to disagree about whether Todd answered. We all acknowledge, we are commanded to sing Psalms. But where do we draw the assumption that this means strictly the "Book of Psalms," and not the other psalms found in scripture? Where, in scripture, do you see that this group of songs was canonized for permanent use, and this group was for occasional use only?

We do not make an assumption of restriction, but simply reject the assumption that the NT contains "other psalms." The person stating a fact has the burden of proving it, not the person disputing the fact. The person who has assumed there are other psalms must prove that fact before it can be accepted as normative for the discussion.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Thank you, Rev. Winzer--this has been the most direct post so far. I am interested in continuing this discussion of NT "psalms" with you, if you are willing. But first--what about, as I asked before, the clear example of the Song of Moses. It's a song, and that isn't disputed. So is this a case of restriction, or ought this to be allowed?

The OT songs fall into a different category because they can be proven to be songs that were sung. My view is that they are incorporated within redemptive historical narrative and not intended to be sung on a repetitive basis. When Hezekiah reformed the temple he ordered for the singing of the words of David and Asaph. There is no provision or example for the classification of these songs as songs to be sung in worship.

Thank you again for another helpful post.

Again though, as you state, that is "your view." I don't think this is something which can be incontrovertibly demonstrated from scripture. Would you disagree with that, or would you argue there is room for freedom here?

Also, I'm not sure that's a legitimate conclusion from 2 Chronicles 29:
1. That occasion, as Moses' deliverance, or Hannah's pregnancy, etc.,was a one time thing: Hezekiah cleansing the temple.
2. Doesn't that strictly belong to the temple worship? If we allow that argument, shouldn't we also bring back sacrifices.
3. Hezekiah also commanded that instruments be played while these songs were sung; surely we're not advocating bringing that back, too.
4. Also, if we adhere strictly to this as our basis of understanding, then Psalms such as Psalm 90 and Psalm 137 are out for us as well.

That passage, it seems, is simply Hezekiah telling the Levites on this special occasion to sing some psalms, and probably some specific ones.

Thoughts?

This thread may be of some interest:

The Song of Moses

__________________
Andrew

I say it is my view because other EPers might answer it slightly differently, not because I think nonEPers can find wiggle room here. What I stated is the fact of the matter -- the songs are incorporated into historical narrative and no further provision is made for corporate singing. The Psalms stand in a distinctively canonical place as songs intended to be sung in worship, as the superscriptions and directions within them reveal.

Concerning the Psalms being carried over into New Testament worship -- it suffices us that while the sacrifical element of worship is fulfilled and abrogated by Christ, the NT teaches that the Psalms speak of the sufferings and glories of Christ, and hence relevant to NT worship. The language of sacrifice is not a problem because the NT uses the same language. Ultimately, though, we sing the Psalms because we believe we have NT precept and example for it.

On Hezekiah commanding instruments as an orchestration of the sacrifice, likewise we have the bold proclamation of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ in the preaching of the Word. The NT requires living instruments for this orchestration, not lifeless ones.

On Ps. 90 and 137, one must assume these were the literary compositions of Moses and an exilic Psalmist in order to make your point; but this cannot be substantiated from the texts.

Great, thanks for the clarification.

I could be wrong, but I think you missed my point here: I was merely implying that we can't use the one occasional example of Hezekiah cleansing the temple as our model for worship, which I think can be generally agreed upon.

Really? Do many others think this with you? I don't mean that as an insult, but as a legitimate question. Further, if we can't substantiate from the title "A Prayer, a Psalm of Moses the man of God" that Psalm 90 is written by Moses, then how can we substantiate that the rest of the Psalms, apart from the few attributed to David in the NT, are written by David or Asaph. Also, you above referred to the superscriptions of the Psalms, and here you go against it in Moses' case. This just seems like a very minority and hard to substantiate view on your part, and one that frankly seems to go against most of the Reformed tradition, and I think needlessly so. You don't need to hold that position to argue for the 150 psalms exclusively, do you?

However, I think this is all a moot point, since, as I stated before, I think it not appropriate to use the occasional example of Hezekiah as our paradigm.

I guess my original question still stands as to where you allowed to make the distinction between occasional psalms and permanent psalms. We are commanded to sing inspired psalms, yes? The Song of Moses in Exodus is an inspired psalm, yes? Then why aren't we to sing it. It seems to have just as much warrant as the others, with respect to the Hezekiah example you raised: if you will bring in that example, then I am allowed to bring in Revelation as an example of the permanent use of the Song of Moses. For just as there are things happening in Revelation that we don't do in our worship, so are there just as many things happening in Hezekiah's worship that we don't do in ours. So, if you bring that in as an example, as you have, then I can with every right say that the song of Moses has just as much permanent use.

Thoughts?

I'm fairly sure it is accepted that Hezekiah's cleansing was a reformation, which means he was setting things in the order upon which they should subsequently proceed. Scholars are generally agreed that the reforms of Hezekiah and Nehemiah consciously avoided innovation and followed the Davidic pattern.

It is usually acknowledged that the lamed prefix is not necessarily an attribution of authorship, though it can be establsihed as such in the cases of David and Asaph. There is an evident second hand in the superscription, which may also have taken Moses' prayers of the wilderness wanderings and encapsulated them in this Psalm. Certainly the canonical placement is significant, because it follows on from Davidic promise and tribulation, and the plural "servants" of v. 16 seems to allow for an application which extends beyond the wilderness difficulties.

Yes, so much for a quick one answer.

Nice

Okay, thank you. I would still say, however, that I thought that as a tradition we strove to avoid founding our worship upon Davidic or Mosaic patterns, and sought strictly that which is commanded in the NT. As such, Hezekiah's pattern is not necessarily what we use as a paradigm when it comes to particulars. Also, I would disagree that if we are to follow Hezekiah's pattern, that such strictly limits us to the 150 by virtue of the fact that they were commanded to sing songs "of David and Asaph." I think that to be too narrow a reading. Also, I do think that there are Psalms in the 150 not written by David or Asaph--I'm pretty trusting when it comes to their titles.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I'm always glad to find another brother who holds the RP, especially a pastor who will so lead his congregation. It just seems that I think there are about 10 more songs allowed by the RP than you do... I think I can live with that.

Which songs? And allowed or commanded?

In the context of OT itself, it does speak to the issue of whether the Psalms were regarded in distinction from these "other songs."

I say when praises are commanded to be sung, we should understand the content of singing praise. They are the psalms, not other portion of scripture.

It is clear that the musical instruments stopped when the sacrifice is over, but the singing of psalms didn't. So the singing of psalms is not a ceremonial act, so it should still be effective to us, as well as the reading of God's word, prayer and so forth

__________________
Yigang Xu
Husband of Yele, Father of Anna (07/17/08)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Bethesda, Maryland

"Thou crownest the year with thy goodness; and thy paths drop fatness. They drop upon the pastures of the wilderness: and the little hills rejoice on every side." Psalm 65:10,11

Joshua-- I simply mean, we are all in agreement that we are commanded to sing Psalms; what we allow to be a psalm and what we restrict from this status is all I meant.

YX -- again, we all affirm this. None of us want instruments. It's just that some people see about 160 PSALMS in scripture instead of 150. No one is trying to sing the genealogy of Christ or the book of Romans. We're all trying to sing psalms.

And again, thank you Rev. Winzer. Your thorough perspective commands great respect.

Just be sure you include the ode to Jael too. I think that would be a great way to start the morning (no comment needed, I couldn't help myself on a wisecrack ):

Judges 5:24-27

__________________
Raymond Victor Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I see, I believe the extra songs are solely prophecies or not even songs, and there is no record that such songs be sung at worship.

Thanks, victorbravo--that made my night.