Thread: What is the scriptural warrant to confine song in public worship to Psalms only?

Here is a thread for equal time to put the onus of warrant on the EP position.

What is the scriptural warrant to confine song in public worship to the Psalms exclusively?

No links; no mere cut and paste, please. These will not be approved. Make succinct pithy arguments which afford interaction. If you interact with such do so thoughtfully and succinctly as well.

Overlap with the current thread regarding warrant for composing uninspired songs for worship may be unavoidable. If part of a post's argument adduces the lack of warrant for composing any other songs, please pursue that there for any rebuttal rather than here.

A reminder that the EP subforum is currently moderated. Posts must be approved. Off topic, unhelpful, or inappropriate posts will not be approved. Mere opinion posts will not be posted either. Please either adduce arguments in answer to the question for discussion or interact with such arguments.

Please wait for an argument to be adduced before posting rebuttals.

The argument for confining song in public worship to the Psalms is simply this -- that the quality of song prescribed to be sung by the church of both the Old and New Testaments has always been inspired. The songs appointed to be sung in OT worship were nothing less than the words of the Holy Spirit, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2; 2 Chron. 29:30. The "hymn" sung by Christ and the apostles at the institution of the Lord's supper (Matt. 26:30) is recognised by most commentators to have been that portion of the Psalms which Jews traditionally sang at the Passover; at the very least it appears from the text that the "hymn" was an already existing composition, and therefore provides no precedent for the creation of new compositions. During the operation of the revelatory charismata the Holy Spirit inspired individuals to spontaneously sing psalms, 1 Cor. 14:15, 16, 26. Ordinarily, however, the congregations were exhorted to sing "psalms, hymns and songs spiritual," Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 -- the adjective "spiritual" indicating that the compositions were such as were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the terms "psalms, hymns, and songs" referring to the well known compositions which constitute the OT book of Psalms. The NT church is obliged by the regulative principle (Matt. 28:19) to observe only that which Christ has commanded, and therefore to sing only that which God has authorised in His Word. In the absence of any warrant to sing compositions other than the Psalms, the NT church is to sing the Psalms only -- which is by no means a restriction, because their quality of inspiration combined with their high Christological content ensures that the church's praise will always set forth the unsearchable riches of Christ.

To this may be added an important theological reflection. Sung praise is an act of confession in the midst of the congregation, and one which our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Elder Brother and Superintendent of the Sanctuary, claims a sole prerogative to lead, Heb. 2:12. Under the Old Testament He specifically equipped and ordained David and his associates to serve as Psalmists for the purpose of creating a corpus of songs to be used as the material for praise by the congregation. Under the New Testament no such office is even hinted at, even though we are provided with rather descriptive lists of diverse functions which served for the building up of the church, Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4. The absence of such an office appointed by Christ to serve His church is significant, and should be well weighed by those who believe that the church is not at liberty to create functions which Christ has not appointed.

In v. 28, they sang worship. V. 30 is introduced with a narrative preterit in Hebrew, so it clearly follows v. 28. This leads me to believe that v. 30 is not so much a prescription for all time, but a particular instance of worship.

2 Sam 23 is talking about the dying words of David, and doesn't have direct bearing on whether or not public worship may only include inspired songs. Now undoubtedly, his Psalms are the Holy Spirit speaking, but so is the song of Moses, Miriam, Deborah and Barak, the Magnificat, etc. So even if we grant that inspired songs alone are in conformity with the RPW, that does not establish EP.

The "hymn" sung by Christ and the apostles at the institution of the Lord's supper (Matt. 26:30) is recognised by most commentators to have been that portion of the Psalms which Jews traditionally sang at the Passover; at the very least it appears from the text that the "hymn" was an already existing composition, and therefore provides no precedent for the creation of new compositions.

Now by your own standards in the other thread, most commentators take several passages in the NT to be hymns, but you rejected these as not having sufficient proof. Why are you suddenly so willing to accept commentators' judgment? And whether the hymn was existing or not doesn't really hit the issue -- the issue is whether the pre-existing hymn was inspired or not. And there isn't sufficient proof of that.

Under the Old Testament He specifically equipped and ordained David and his associates to serve as Psalmists for the purpose of creating a corpus of songs to be used as the material for praise by the congregation.

Doesn't this beg the question?

Originally Posted by chbrooking

In v. 28, they sang worship. V. 30 is introduced with a narrative preterit in Hebrew, so it clearly follows v. 28. This leads me to believe that v. 30 is not so much a prescription for all time, but a particular instance of worship.

The point being that Hezekiah was "reforming" the worship, and what he established was the singing of praise in the words of David and Asaph, i.e., inspired psalmody.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

2 Sam 23 is talking about the dying words of David, and doesn't have direct bearing on whether or not public worship may only include inspired songs.

The point of referring to 2 Sam 23 is to show that "the Psalmist of Israel" provided nothing less than the words of inspiration for the praise song to be utilised in the Old Testament church.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Now undoubtedly, his Psalms are the Holy Spirit speaking, but so is the song of Moses, Miriam, Deborah and Barak, the Magnificat, etc. So even if we grant that inspired songs alone are in conformity with the RPW, that does not establish EP.

The songs of Moses, Deborah, etc., are not provided as "songs" or "psalms" to be sung, but are a report encased within an historical narrative.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Now by your own standards in the other thread, most commentators take several passages in the NT to be hymns, but you rejected these as not having sufficient proof. Why are you suddenly so willing to accept commentators' judgment?

Please refer to the other thread, where I accept the scholars' qualification that these embedded "hymns" cannot be distinguished from "prayers" and "creeds," and hence cannot be used as an example of early church "song."

Originally Posted by chbrooking

And whether the hymn was existing or not doesn't really hit the issue -- the issue is whether the pre-existing hymn was inspired or not. And there isn't sufficient proof of that.

Hence the "hymn" cannot serve as a precedent for uninspired songs. Meanwhile, the majority of commentators undoubtedly see a reference to the Psalms because the Psalms are recognised by scholars of all shades to have been the hymn book of pious Jews.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Under the Old Testament He specifically equipped and ordained David and his associates to serve as Psalmists for the purpose of creating a corpus of songs to be used as the material for praise by the congregation.

Doesn't this beg the question?

No, because it provides a point which helps to answer the question. It is a fact that amongst the lists of functionaries serving the NT church there is no reference to hymnodists. One may or may not dispute the fact, but if the fact is accepted then it will be a significant point with those who believe that the NT provides a sufficient rule of church government and discipline.

- the issue is whether the pre-existing hymn was inspired or not. And there isn't sufficient proof of that.

Clark, just ask yourself, would the everlasting Son of God who moment by moment communed with His Father while on earth, and who only spake that which he heard of the Father, reach for some humanly inspired composition to teach his disciples and sing to His Father in praise and adoration?

Imposable!

I've been wrestling with the best way to pursue a line of thought. Perhaps beginning with Matthew's statement would be best.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The argument for confining song in public worship to the Psalms is simply this -- that the quality of song prescribed to be sung by the church of both the Old and New Testaments has always been inspired. The songs appointed to be sung in OT worship were nothing less than the words of the Holy Spirit, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2; 2 Chron. 29:30. The "hymn" sung by Christ and the apostles at the institution of the Lord's supper (Matt. 26:30) is recognised by most commentators to have been that portion of the Psalms which Jews traditionally sang at the Passover; at the very least it appears from the text that the "hymn" was an already existing composition, and therefore provides no precedent for the creation of new compositions. During the operation of the revelatory charismata the Holy Spirit inspired individuals to spontaneously sing psalms, 1 Cor. 14:15, 16, 26. Ordinarily, however, the congregations were exhorted to sing "psalms, hymns and songs spiritual," Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 -- the adjective "spiritual" indicating that the compositions were such as were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the terms "psalms, hymns, and songs" referring to the well known compositions which constitute the OT book of Psalms. The NT church is obliged by the regulative principle (Matt. 28:19) to observe only that which Christ has commanded, and therefore to sing only that which God has authorised in His Word.

This post seems to imply that it is appropriate to sing only that which was available for singing prior to the advent of Christ. Though the statement that follows seems to offer the verity of further restraint, this seems to be the focus of the position. Is it permissible to sing Proverbs? How about the Shema? Would these not also be considered "spirituals?" In light of the quote above, or other considerations as deemed appropriate, what is the scriptural warrant for constraining worship singing to psalms, rather than the entire OT canon?

Yes, Hezekiah was reforming the worship. But he simply "said" for them "to sing", which hardly amounts to a long-standing appointment or direction. This still seems to me to be an historical account of a particular worship service. It certainly provides warrant for their inclusion, but does not seem to limit worship to the Psalms, IMO. This especially seems to be the case since there is no indication of disapproval of what they sang before he told them to sing the David/Asaph material. The Psalms of David and Asaph are just added to what went before. I'm not saying that your reading is not a possible reading. But the OP puts the onus on EP to show that this is the explicit (and only reasonable) teaching of the text.

I think your use of 2Sam 23 proves too much. In other words, there is no question that he was the "sweet psalmist of Israel", and that the Psalms are inspired. But this does not directly address the question of whether only those Psalms can be used in public worship. That is an assumption that goes beyond the text here.

One need only look at the prophets to see many of the Psalms encapsulated in historical contexts. Now, indeed, they are also recorded in the book of Psalms, which certainly lends some credence to your position (please understand that I'm taking this side in an effort to come to understanding -- I'm not just unreasonably arguing with you -- at least I hope), but what about the Song of Songs? And what about the Psalm 90? This isn't David or Asaph. Is it permissible?

As for the Psalms being recognized as the hymn book of pious Jews, how do you explain cantilation marks in other books? While these marks were added much later (as were the vowels points), they were included to preserve ancient tradition. The question isn't whether or not pious Jews sang the Psalms. The question is whether the scriptures demand that ONLY the Psalms be sung.

I still see the question begged in the last interchange below because you assume that David's function was to establish a canon of worship songs -- the very thing at issue. To say that, *because in the NT He doesn't equip and ordain to such a function, we have to continue the OT tradition in which He did* doesn't prove that in the OT He did, it rather assumes it, begging the question of the OP.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by chbrooking

In v. 28, they sang worship. V. 30 is introduced with a narrative preterit in Hebrew, so it clearly follows v. 28. This leads me to believe that v. 30 is not so much a prescription for all time, but a particular instance of worship.

The point being that Hezekiah was "reforming" the worship, and what he established was the singing of praise in the words of David and Asaph, i.e., inspired psalmody.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

2 Sam 23 is talking about the dying words of David, and doesn't have direct bearing on whether or not public worship may only include inspired songs.

The point of referring to 2 Sam 23 is to show that "the Psalmist of Israel" provided nothing less than the words of inspiration for the praise song to be utilised in the Old Testament church.



The songs of Moses, Deborah, etc., are not provided as "songs" or "psalms" to be sung, but are a report encased within an historical narrative.



Please refer to the other thread, where I accept the scholars' qualification that these embedded "hymns" cannot be distinguished from "prayers" and "creeds," and hence cannot be used as an example of early church "song."



Hence the "hymn" cannot serve as a precedent for uninspired songs. Meanwhile, the majority of commentators undoubtedly see a reference to the Psalms because the Psalms are recognised by scholars of all shades to have been the hymn book of pious Jews.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Under the Old Testament He specifically equipped and ordained David and his associates to serve as Psalmists for the purpose of creating a corpus of songs to be used as the material for praise by the congregation.

Doesn't this beg the question?

No, because it provides a point which helps to answer the question. It is a fact that amongst the lists of functionaries serving the NT church there is no reference to hymnodists. One may or may not dispute the fact, but if the fact is accepted then it will be a significant point with those who believe that the NT provides a sufficient rule of church government and discipline.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

This post seems to imply that it is appropriate to sing only that which was available for singing prior to the advent of Christ. Though the statement that follows seems to offer the verity of further restraint, this seems to be the focus of the position. Is it permissible to sing Proverbs? How about the Shema? Would these not also be considered "spirituals?" In light of the quote above, or other considerations as deemed appropriate, what is the scriptural warrant for constraining worship singing to psalms, rather than the entire OT canon?

Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 directs us to sing "psalms, hymns, and songs," not histories, commandments, and proverbs.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The songs of Moses, Deborah, etc., are not provided as "songs" or "psalms" to be sung, but are a report encased within an historical narrative.

This is baffling to me. Was not the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 provided with specific instruction to be written down and sung through the generations as a testimony between God and Israel? The Scripture very clearly states this in Deut. 31:19-23.

Theognome

Originally Posted by chbrooking

It certainly provides warrant for their inclusion, but does not seem to limit worship to the Psalms, IMO.

Those who accept the "limiting" function of the regulative principle (WCF 21:1) will have no difficulty acknowledging that the "only" songs prescribed are the "only" songs warranted.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

I think your use of 2Sam 23 proves too much. In other words, there is no question that he was the "sweet psalmist of Israel", and that the Psalms are inspired. But this does not directly address the question of whether only those Psalms can be used in public worship. That is an assumption that goes beyond the text here.

No such assumption was connected with the text. The only point made in connection with 2 Sam. 23 is that the praise songs of the OT were of an "inspired quality." Unless one can present something from the text to gainsay that fact (which would be contrary to Acts 1:16), there is no point disputing the meaning of the text.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

but what about the Song of Songs? And what about the Psalm 90? This isn't David or Asaph. Is it permissible?

This simply resolves itself into the question as to what is to be understood by "the words of David and Asaph." It no doubt served as a description of the book of Psalms prior to it receiving the official designation of "the book of Psalms." Thus understood, it is not difficult to perceive that Canticles is not included in "the words of David and Asaph," whereas Psalm 90 is.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

The question isn't whether or not pious Jews sang the Psalms. The question is whether the scriptures demand that ONLY the Psalms be sung.

Again, if we operate according to the limiting principle of WCF 21:1, there will be no difficulty acknowledging that where Scripture is silent we must be silent.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

I still see the question begged in the last interchange below because you assume that David's function was to establish a canon of worship songs -- the very thing at issue. To say that, *because in the NT He doesn't equip and ordain to such a function, we have to continue the OT tradition in which He did* doesn't prove that in the OT He did, it rather assumes it, begging the question of the OP.

That David was the sweet Psalmist of Israel is uncontroverted. All evangelical commentators acknowledge that his provisions for the temple service were regarded as "commandments" of equal authority with Moses. Hezekiah, Josiah, and Nehemiah carried out their reforms of the temple under this assumption. The superscriptions of the Psalms clearly indicate that these songs were to be utilised by a chief musician which superintended the service of praise in the temple. Hezekiah, in "reforming" the temple service -- which means that he restored it to its divine pattern -- specifically required the singing of these songs. All these facts point towards an "inspired" service of praise for which David was "raised up;" and as no evidence has been presented to the contrary there is no reason to doubt it.

Originally Posted by Theognome

Was not the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 provided with specific instruction to be written down and sung through the generations as a testimony between God and Israel? The Scripture very clearly states this in Deut. 31:19-23.

Commentators note that the song serves a specific function within the book's general theme of covenant renewal. I suppose one might argue that this song was specifically intended to be sung as a kind of national anthem when Israel renewed her theocratic constitution, but can it be proven that it was intended to be sung as a part of instituted worship?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Theognome

Was not the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 provided with specific instruction to be written down and sung through the generations as a testimony between God and Israel? The Scripture very clearly states this in Deut. 31:19-23.

Commentators note that the song serves a specific function within the book's general theme of covenant renewal. I suppose one might argue that this song was specifically intended to be sung as a kind of national anthem when Israel renewed her theocratic constitution, but can it be proven that it was intended to be sung as a part of instituted worship?

If we assume a continuity of covenants between old and new, I find it difficult to see how this song, and the manner in which it's treatment is commanded, to not have a very Christ-centric application that is appropriate for worship. The song itself speaks of redemption, discipline for disobedience and ultimately the Gospel going to all peoples (Duet 32:43). Also, the song was given to the assembly- commentators also describe this section of Deuteronomy as a sermon given by Moses, which is a function of worship.

I believe it may be far more difficult to prove where this very explicit command to sing this song as His people has in turn been abrogated by another explicit command. The sacrifice of Christ fulfilled the Levitical laws and this is explicit- but is this commandment a Levitical law? Would 'tossing this one out' cause other interpretive problems with consistent application of the RP?

Theognome

This still doesn't fix the use of the song in "instituted" worship. As to typology, the song is certainly one of judgement, but restoration of the people of God through the anointed king did not come to vivid expression until God raised up the man after His own heart.

Originally Posted by Theognome

If we assume a continuity of covenants between old and new, I find it difficult to see how this song, and the manner in which it's treatment is commanded, to not have a very Christ-centric application that is appropriate for worship. The song itself speaks of redemption, discipline for disobedience and ultimately the Gospel going to all peoples (Duet 32:43). Also, the song was given to the assembly- commentators also describe this section of Deuteronomy as a sermon given by Moses, which is a function of worship.

I believe it may be far more difficult to prove where this very explicit command to sing this song as His people has in turn been abrogated by another explicit command. The sacrifice of Christ fulfilled the Levitical laws and this is explicit- but is this commandment a Levitical law? Would 'tossing this one out' cause other interpretive problems with consistent application of the RP?

Theognome

Originally Posted by armourbearer

This still doesn't fix the use of the song in "instituted" worship. As to typology, the song is certainly one of judgement, but restoration of the people of God through the anointed king did not come to vivid expression until God raised up the man after His own heart.

I'm not sure it needs fixing. Moses is the prophet that the Lord used to first present "instituted" worship, and so I'm not convinced that the burden of proof rests on showing it to be a commandment given in the context of worship. Rather, if one does not agree that it was given in that context, conclusive biblical argument should be given to show otherwise.

As far as David is concerned, that is not a conclusive argument. Christ Himself stated that Moses wrote specifically about Him (John 5:45-47) which strongly suggests that the expression of Christ in Moses is valid for doctrine and practice.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Theognome

Rather, if one does not agree that it was given in that context, conclusive biblical argument should be given to show otherwise.

The person making the positive assertion is the one who is obliged to show the context in which the assertion can be proven true.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Theognome

Rather, if one does not agree that it was given in that context, conclusive biblical argument should be given to show otherwise.

The person making the positive assertion is the one who is obliged to show the context in which the assertion can be proven true.

Actually, I believe I have done so already. However, I will endeavor to provide more scriptural proofs and avoid any more vague references to unknown commentators.

Deuteronomy chapter 31 vs 14-15 shows conclusively the corporate worship context of the whole episode. Joshua was to be installed as the head of the Church, this was to be done before the whole assembly and it was to be performed at the tabernacle. The Lord was present as the pillar of cloud for this occasion. The Pentateuch is replete with examples of this kind of 'call to worship' where God appears at the tabernacle and thus the people assemble to hear the word of the Lord. Though the sermon of Moses itself may be considered 'topical' by some and primarily concerned with civil theocracy matters (which I do not think is the case) to claim that the occasion of it's giving was not one of worship is, in my opinion, absurd.

Theognome

Note Deut. 12:8, 9, "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the LORD your God giveth you."

In light of this principle, Where does the context indicate that the song of Deut. 32 was to be sung in instituted worship?

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Theognome

Rather, if one does not agree that it was given in that context, conclusive biblical argument should be given to show otherwise.

The person making the positive assertion is the one who is obliged to show the context in which the assertion can be proven true.

Actually, I believe I have done so already. However, I will endeavor to provide more scriptural proofs and avoid any more vague references to unknown commentators.

Deuteronomy chapter 31 vs 14-15 shows conclusively the corporate worship context of the whole episode. Joshua was to be installed as the head of the Church, this was to be done before the whole assembly and it was to be performed at the tabernacle. The Lord was present as the pillar of cloud for this occasion. The Pentateuch is replete with examples of this kind of 'call to worship' where God appears at the tabernacle and thus the people assemble to hear the word of the Lord. Though the sermon of Moses itself may be considered 'topical' by some and primarily concerned with civil theocracy matters (which I do not think is the case) to claim that the occasion of it's giving was not one of worship is, in my opinion, absurd.

Theognome

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for your reply. But it didn't really address the question, rather seems to sidestep it. I'll provide the portion of your statement that I quoted again to lend to clarifying the tension I perceive. Underlined are the more pertinent statements.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The argument for confining song in public worship to the Psalms is simply this -- that the quality of song prescribed to be sung by the church of both the Old and New Testaments has always been inspired. The songs appointed to be sung in OT worship were nothing less than the words of the Holy Spirit, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2; 2 Chron. 29:30. The "hymn" sung by Christ and the apostles at the institution of the Lord's supper (Matt. 26:30) is recognised by most commentators to have been that portion of the Psalms which Jews traditionally sang at the Passover; at the very least it appears from the text that the "hymn" was an already existing composition, and therefore provides no precedent for the creation of new compositions. During the operation of the revelatory charismata the Holy Spirit inspired individuals to spontaneously sing psalms, 1 Cor. 14:15, 16, 26. Ordinarily, however, the congregations were exhorted to sing "psalms, hymns and songs spiritual," Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 -- the adjective "spiritual" indicating that the compositions were such as were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the terms "psalms, hymns, and songs" referring to the well known compositions which constitute the OT book of Psalms. The NT church is obliged by the regulative principle (Matt. 28:19) to observe only that which Christ has commanded, and therefore to sing only that which God has authorised in His Word.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Wannabee

This post seems to imply that it is appropriate to sing only that which was available for singing prior to the advent of Christ. Though the statement that follows seems to offer the verity of further restraint, this seems to be the focus of the position. Is it permissible to sing Proverbs? How about the Shema? Would these not also be considered "spirituals?" In light of the quote above, or other considerations as deemed appropriate, what is the scriptural warrant for constraining worship singing to psalms, rather than the entire OT canon?

Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 directs us to sing "psalms, hymns, and songs," not histories, commandments, and proverbs.

For clarity, the psalms are full of histories, commandments and proverbs. The response really didn't address the fact that part of your position is based on the statement that the songs sung by Christ and His followers was, "at the very least it appears from the text that the "hymn" was an already existing composition." Is this not an admission that they may not have been psalms? If so, is it possible that Christ would command us to not sing songs for worship as He and His followers did? This, along with Theognome's observations, present at least a considerable argument that "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" are not necessarily of the book of Psalms.

The assertion that the adjective "spiritual" necessarily indicates inspiration is questionable as well. It obviously could, but the NT has many instances where the word simply indicates that which is spiritual, and can easily relate to the human spirit as well as the Holy Spirit. As a stretch, in this case, it could even relate to the wind. In other words, to claim that this necessarily means "of the Holy Spirit" and is therefore theopneustos presses into the text what is not necessarily present, intended or even a thought of either by Paul or the Holy Spirit. The OP requests scriptural proof. This assertion seems to be based on a pre-understanding and perhaps influence from commentators, rather than the clear teaching of God. If I misunderstand, please show me where God's Word clarifies.

Furthermore, the focus on David seems a bit far fetched. Less than half of the psalms can be attributed to him (73), with some written earlier and many written much later. That does not diminish their canonicity, but does take them out from under the umbrella of the "psalmist of Israel" who was "after God's own heart." In fact it is apparent that Ps 137 is exilic and 126 is post-exilic. In other words, the corpus that we call Psalms and enjoy today was not even compiled until after the last king of Judah was but a memory (probably by 425 B.C.). I don't know that this aspect really affects the argument, other than the fact that there seems to be an idea presented that these psalms were the psalms sung in worship during the years of Israel/Judah's theocratic monarchy. Though many obviously were, it is impossible that all of them were. It also is possible that the last psalm written was the last OT Scripture written (126?).


Blessings

Personally, I've always wondered at the level of paraphrase necessary to put Psalms in metrical version so as to be able to sing them according to familiar tunes. Every Psalter I've ever seen paraphrases to a certain extent. Is this singing the actual Psalms, or is it singing a human person's (hopefully careful!) adaptation of the Psalm for singing in a new context? If this is allowed, then what about paraphrasing other parts of Scripture? Is this not what good hymns are seeking to do? Does this simply become a question of how much paraphrase is acceptable?

It should be noted that Calvin's exegesis of Colossians 3:16 does not favor EP. First of all, he says "under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way- that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of: a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles" (pp. 217-218). He certainly does not mention the three divisions of the Psalter as the explanation of the passage, nor does he interpret "spiritual" to be "inspired." It should be noted that many EP advocates claim Calvin as an EP because all he had in worship were French translations of the Psalms. This is historically naive to assume. Before Calvin translated the Psalms into French, the French Reformed had nothing at all to sing (everything was in Latin). It is not as if Calvin narrowed down the available field to the Psalms he had. He translated the Psalms into French so that the French could at least sing something in worship. Unless one wants to argue that Calvin did not interpret this passage of public worship, and I find no indication of this in the text of his commentary, Calvin at least was not EP, and would actually dispute the EP interpretation of Colossians 3:16.

I beg to differ. I accept the 'limiting' function of the RPW, but according to the exegesis I offered, other songs were included, and then the material of David and Asaph were added to that. You have not shown conclusively that by adding the Psalms, the reformer rejected the former song.

I believe, with respect to 2 Sam. 23, you are confusing "some" with "all". Surely, some of the worship was inspired. But you have not clearly shown that all of it was. In response to another post, you remark that the one making the positive assertion must bear the burden of proof. In this thread, the EP position bears the burden of proof. As 2 Sam 23 is brought forward to prove that OT song was ALL inspired (and limited to the Psalms), I'm just challenging that assertion. I think it is being used to prove more than it does.

I think you are right about David and Asaph being a reference to the Psalms, just as the OT is referenced either by "law, prophets and Psalms" or simply "law and prophets". So you've answered adequately with regard to Ps. 90. But I don't think you've proven exegetically that 2 Chr. 29 is replacing earlier song with the Psalms, and not simply adding to it. My point is, the text is NOT silent. It clearly shows temple singing that was not from the Psalms (2Chr 29:28). I don't see any denunciation in the text of this non-Psalm singing.

So I guess my response can be boiled down to this: It seems that there is a bit confusion and disagreement over "some" and "all". I see "some" in the text, and you see "all". I'm just trying to see how you get there.

Thanks,

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by chbrooking

It certainly provides warrant for their inclusion, but does not seem to limit worship to the Psalms, IMO.

Those who accept the "limiting" function of the regulative principle (WCF 21:1) will have no difficulty acknowledging that the "only" songs prescribed are the "only" songs warranted.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

I think your use of 2Sam 23 proves too much. In other words, there is no question that he was the "sweet psalmist of Israel", and that the Psalms are inspired. But this does not directly address the question of whether only those Psalms can be used in public worship. That is an assumption that goes beyond the text here.

No such assumption was connected with the text. The only point made in connection with 2 Sam. 23 is that the praise songs of the OT were of an "inspired quality." Unless one can present something from the text to gainsay that fact (which would be contrary to Acts 1:16), there is no point disputing the meaning of the text.



This simply resolves itself into the question as to what is to be understood by "the words of David and Asaph." It no doubt served as a description of the book of Psalms prior to it receiving the official designation of "the book of Psalms." Thus understood, it is not difficult to perceive that Canticles is not included in "the words of David and Asaph," whereas Psalm 90 is.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

The question isn't whether or not pious Jews sang the Psalms. The question is whether the scriptures demand that ONLY the Psalms be sung.

Again, if we operate according to the limiting principle of WCF 21:1, there will be no difficulty acknowledging that where Scripture is silent we must be silent.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

I still see the question begged in the last interchange below because you assume that David's function was to establish a canon of worship songs -- the very thing at issue. To say that, *because in the NT He doesn't equip and ordain to such a function, we have to continue the OT tradition in which He did* doesn't prove that in the OT He did, it rather assumes it, begging the question of the OP.

That David was the sweet Psalmist of Israel is uncontroverted. All evangelical commentators acknowledge that his provisions for the temple service were regarded as "commandments" of equal authority with Moses. Hezekiah, Josiah, and Nehemiah carried out their reforms of the temple under this assumption. The superscriptions of the Psalms clearly indicate that these songs were to be utilised by a chief musician which superintended the service of praise in the temple. Hezekiah, in "reforming" the temple service -- which means that he restored it to its divine pattern -- specifically required the singing of these songs. All these facts point towards an "inspired" service of praise for which David was "raised up;" and as no evidence has been presented to the contrary there is no reason to doubt it.

First of all, I am EP, no instruments, but I have a question that most likely has a really easy answer from one of you. So I apologize because I know this is a question of ignorance. Sorry in advance if this is

How do we know that Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 are speaking in the context of a public worship service? The context of the chapters seem to be the Christian life. There are examples in Scripture where godly men sang not in the context of a public worship service (Acts 16:25). So how do we know that Paul was giving guidelines for public worship in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 and not just encouraging Christians to sing God's praises during our daily lives? I believe that EP can be proven without those two verses. I just don't know if I would necessarily use those two verses for proof.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Note Deut. 12:8, 9, "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the LORD your God giveth you."

In light of this principle, Where does the context indicate that the song of Deut. 32 was to be sung in instituted worship?

Originally Posted by Theognome

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The person making the positive assertion is the one who is obliged to show the context in which the assertion can be proven true.

Actually, I believe I have done so already. However, I will endeavor to provide more scriptural proofs and avoid any more vague references to unknown commentators.

Deuteronomy chapter 31 vs 14-15 shows conclusively the corporate worship context of the whole episode. Joshua was to be installed as the head of the Church, this was to be done before the whole assembly and it was to be performed at the tabernacle. The Lord was present as the pillar of cloud for this occasion. The Pentateuch is replete with examples of this kind of 'call to worship' where God appears at the tabernacle and thus the people assemble to hear the word of the Lord. Though the sermon of Moses itself may be considered 'topical' by some and primarily concerned with civil theocracy matters (which I do not think is the case) to claim that the occasion of it's giving was not one of worship is, in my opinion, absurd.

Theognome

Note the seperatation of incidents found in Deut. 31, concerning the installation of Joshua as ruling elder. Chapter 12 is given in a different context, prior to the installation service. What we have in chapter 31 is-

1. The preaching of the Word
2. The singing of the people as unto the Lord
3. The installation of an elder
4. The presence of the Spirit of God (in attendance at the Tabernacle)
5. A call to repentance and trust in the Lord

This looks like worship to me.

Theognome

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Is this not an admission that they may not have been psalms?

No, it was simply an anticipation of a well known argument by open hymnodists that the word "hymn" allows for other songs. I pointed out that the word "hymn" is acknowledged by many commentators to refer to certain Psalms sung by Jews at the Passover; or, if one doesn't see this as conclusive, it does not imply new songs because it was an already existing composition -- that is, if one makes the "inconclusive" argument then he has no basis to conclude anything from it.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

but the NT has many instances where the word simply indicates that which is spiritual, and can easily relate to the human spirit as well as the Holy Spirit.

That should be demonstrated rather than merely asserted.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

In other words, to claim that this necessarily means "of the Holy Spirit" and is therefore theopneustos presses into the text what is not necessarily present, intended or even a thought of either by Paul or the Holy Spirit.

Eph. 5:18 indicates that the Holy Spirit is the focus. I know of no instance where "spiritual" refers to "wind" or to the "human spirit" as you have alleged.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

In fact it is apparent that Ps 137 is exilic and 126 is post-exilic.

Is it apparent? I beg to differ. Commentators no doubt see "exilic" references in the Psalms, but the theme of "exile" is equally apparent in Psalms explicitly linked to David and Asaph. Hence no case can be made for later dating from internal allusions to exile.

At any rate, even if a developmental approach is accepted, the later Psalms are still considered "Davidite" if not "Davidic," and still possess the quality of inspiration. Hence later dating is not germane to the discussion.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Personally, I've always wondered at the level of paraphrase necessary to put Psalms in metrical version so as to be able to sing them according to familiar tunes. Every Psalter I've ever seen paraphrases to a certain extent. Is this singing the actual Psalms, or is it singing a human person's (hopefully careful!) adaptation of the Psalm for singing in a new context? If this is allowed, then what about paraphrasing other parts of Scripture? Is this not what good hymns are seeking to do? Does this simply become a question of how much paraphrase is acceptable?

These are practical questions which do not affect the answer to the question posed in the OP.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

It should be noted that many EP advocates claim Calvin as an EP because all he had in worship were French translations of the Psalms. This is historically naive to assume.

The OP poses the question as a biblical rather than an historical issue.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

I beg to differ. I accept the 'limiting' function of the RPW, but according to the exegesis I offered, other songs were included, and then the material of David and Asaph were added to that. You have not shown conclusively that by adding the Psalms, the reformer rejected the former song.

No former "song" appointed to be sung in corporate worship can be proved to exist. On the basis that there is no other song appointed for use in "public worship," the limiting function of the regulative principle indicates exclusive psalmody.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

I believe, with respect to 2 Sam. 23, you are confusing "some" with "all". Surely, some of the worship was inspired. But you have not clearly shown that all of it was.

2 Sam. 23 indicates the "inspired" nature of the songs we know were appointed for public worship; we do not know of any other songs appointed for public worship; hence all the songs appointed for public worship were "inspired." The "exclusivity" of the argument comes from the fact that Scripture is silent as to the use of any other compositions.

Originally Posted by chbrooking

It clearly shows temple singing that was not from the Psalms (2Chr 29:28).

Try as one may, one cannot draw that conclusion from that text as it states nothing concerning the matter sung.

Originally Posted by Theognome

This looks like worship to me.

So was the sacrifice which took place in a locality other than the appointed place for sacrifice, as per Deut. 12. That passage shows that divine appointment is requisite.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

How do we know that Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 are speaking in the context of a public worship service? The context of the chapters seem to be the Christian life.

The context is the Christian life, but in so far as they have a bearing on the practice of worship in the gathering of the congregation they provide important directions which we cannot ignore.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by John Lanier

How do we know that Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 are speaking in the context of a public worship service? The context of the chapters seem to be the Christian life.

The context is the Christian life, but in so far as they have a bearing on the practice of worship in the gathering of the congregation they provide important directions which we cannot ignore.

So in a sense you would be saying that if these are the requirements for daily life, then when it comes to worship, they would be as well. Usually God does not broaden what is acceptable in the transition from daily life to public worship.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

So in a sense you would be saying that if these are the requirements for daily life, then when it comes to worship, they would be as well.

Yes, and made especially binding because of the jealousy with which God guards His household.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Wannabee

but the NT has many instances where the word simply indicates that which is spiritual, and can easily relate to the human spirit as well as the Holy Spirit.

That should be demonstrated rather than merely asserted.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but there appears to be some inconsistency in that assertion. Did you not make the assumption that it necessarily means "Holy Spirit" with no exegetical presentation or "demonstration" on your part? The thread was presented that those espousing EP are to provide scriptural "proof," not simple assertions. I'll respond further below.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

In other words, to claim that this necessarily means "of the Holy Spirit" and is therefore theopneustos presses into the text what is not necessarily present, intended or even a thought of either by Paul or the Holy Spirit.

Eph. 5:18 indicates that the Holy Spirit is the focus. I know of no instance where "spiritual" refers to "wind" or to the "human spirit" as you have alleged.

This is not because there is a lack, but because there is such a huge presence of it that I didn't think it necessary to "demonstrate." Simply put, all that pneumatikos generally refers to is the supernatural rather than material. Consider Strong's:

26 occurrences; AV translates as “spiritual” 26 times. 1 relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ. 1a that which possesses the nature of the rational soul. 2 belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God. 3 belonging to the Divine Spirit. 3a of God the Holy Spirit. 3b one who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God. 4 pertaining to the wind or breath; windy, exposed to the wind, blowing.

James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible., electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), G4152.

Notice that the Holy Spirit is number 3 on the list, preceded by the human spirit and spiritual. Interestingly enough, in the noun form (πνεῦμα, pneuma) we see even greater latitude. It can even be used of demons (3c1) and evil spirits (47 times).

AV translates as “Spirit” 111 times, “Holy Ghost” 89 times, “Spirit (of God)” 13 times, “Spirit (of the Lord)” five times, “(My) Spirit” three times, “Spirit (of truth)” three times, “Spirit (of Christ)” twice, “human (spirit)” 49 times, “(evil) spirit” 47 times, “spirit (general)” 26 times, “spirit” eight times, “(Jesus’ own) spirit” six times, “(Jesus’ own) ghost” twice, and translated miscellaneously 21 times. 1 a movement of air (a gentle blast. 1a of the wind, hence the wind itself. 1b breath of nostrils or mouth. 2 the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated. 2a the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides. 2b the soul. 3 a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting. 3a a life giving spirit. 3b a human soul that has left the body. 3c a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel. 3c1 used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men. 3c2 the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ. 4 of God. 4a God’s power and agency distinguishable in thought from his essence in itself considered. 4a1 manifest in the course of affairs. 4a2 by its influence upon the souls productive in the theocratic body (the church) of all the higher spiritual gifts and blessings. 4a3 the third person of the trinity, the God the Holy Spirit. 5 the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one. 5a the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.

Ibid, G4151.

In other words, though the Holy Spirit is present in verse 18, this does not necessitate the Holy Spirit in verse 19. In fact, it shows the Holy Spirit filling one so that what they sing will be spiritual, rather than carnal, worldly or in any way distracting from God centered worship that makes melody to the Lord with a heart filled with the Spirit (19b) and the gratitude that naturally flows from such filling (v. 20).

Originally Posted by Wannabee

In fact it is apparent that Ps 137 is exilic and 126 is post-exilic.

Is it apparent? I beg to differ. Commentators no doubt see "exilic" references in the Psalms, but the theme of "exile" is equally apparent in Psalms explicitly linked to David and Asaph. Hence no case can be made for later dating from internal allusions to exile.

At any rate, even if a developmental approach is accepted, the later Psalms are still considered "Davidite" if not "Davidic," and still possess the quality of inspiration. Hence later dating is not germane to the discussion.

I don't think you would have made that statement if you had read those psalms before countering.

Psalm 137:1-3
1By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, yea, we wept When we remembered Zion. 2We hung our harps Upon the willows in the midst of it. 3For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song, And those who plundered us requested mirth, Saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

I agree that it is not necessarily germane to the question. But if you're going to make bold assertions that all psalms are "Davidite" then, based on the nature of this this thread and your challenge to me in regard to the above quotes, shouldn't scriptural "proof" be presented rather than simple assertion? Since a huge minority of the psalms are written by anonymous authors, this seems like speculation rather than any exegetical conclusion. And since your position is focused on this aspect of the revelation of the psalms, it could be pertinent in this discussion.

I would also commend Lane's observations for greater consideration (not the historical, though I appreciated the observation). I think it can be demonstrated that his line of thinking, partially at least, puts even greater pressure on any attempt to support EP from a biblical perspective.

Blessings,

Originally Posted by armourbearer

No former "song" appointed to be sung in corporate worship can be proved to exist. On the basis that there is no other song appointed for use in "public worship," the limiting function of the regulative principle indicates exclusive psalmody.

Actually, I believe it can be so proved -- though it is not necessary for the OP that I prove it. Rather, the burden is upon you. So I'll give you what I regard as proof of it, but the real onus is on you to demonstrate that my exegesis is incorrect and not even plausible.

2 Chr 29:28 says:

And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.

Then in v. 30, which begins with a narrative preterit (best translated, "then" or "next" -- but "moreover" is okay), it says:

Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.

The point is, even under the reformer's watch, there was signing that was not the Psalms, and after that, Hezekiah had the Psalms sung. V. 30 would not make sense if v. 28's singing were Psalms.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

2 Sam. 23 indicates the "inspired" nature of the songs we know were appointed for public worship; we do not know of any other songs appointed for public worship; hence all the songs appointed for public worship were "inspired." The "exclusivity" of the argument comes from the fact that Scripture is silent as to the use of any other compositions.

But it is not silent, as I have just demonstrated.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by chbrooking

It clearly shows temple singing that was not from the Psalms (2Chr 29:28).

Try as one may, one cannot draw that conclusion from that text as it states nothing concerning the matter sung.

While it does not say what the song was, it quite clearly could not have been the Psalms, or v. 30 would make no sense.

Clark,

I always enjoy when I see you jump into a thread. I am not sure, however, that this is a necessary conclusion to draw from the text; Hebrew narrative often states things that sound repetitive to our ears. I would note that v.29 states that "all present" bowed their heads and worshiped; then, v.30 again states that they all bowed their heads to worship. So we have in v.28 songs being sung; and in v.30 the statement that the Psalms were commanded to be sung; but we also have in v.29 and v.30 the repetitive statement that they all bowed down. This parallel suggests it is hard to make a case that v.28 must represent different songs than v.30. Either way, the text (strictly considered) is slightly ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I am not sure, however, that this is a necessary conclusion to draw from the text; Hebrew narrative often states things that sound repetitive to our ears. I would note that v.29 states that "all present" bowed their heads and worshiped; then, v.30 again states that they all bowed their heads to worship. So we have in v.28 songs being sung; and in v.30 the statement that the Psalms were commanded to be sung; but we also have in v.29 and v.30 the repetitive statement that they all bowed down. This parallel suggests it is hard to make a case that v.28 must represent different songs than v.30. Either way, the text (strictly considered) is slightly ambiguous.

I would also add to this that in our orders of worship, sometimes we sing a psalm, read scripture and then sing another psalm. So I could say that we sang, read, and then sang a psalm. In both instances we sang a psalm but I only mentioned it one time.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Clark,

I always enjoy when I see you jump into a thread. I am not sure, however, that this is a necessary conclusion to draw from the text; Hebrew narrative often states things that sound repetitive to our ears. I would note that v.29 states that "all present" bowed their heads and worshiped; then, v.30 again states that they all bowed their heads to worship. So we have in v.28 songs being sung; and in v.30 the statement that the Psalms were commanded to be sung; but we also have in v.29 and v.30 the repetitive statement that they all bowed down. This parallel suggests it is hard to make a case that v.28 must represent different songs than v.30. Either way, the text (strictly considered) is slightly ambiguous.

Paul,

Thanks for the encouragement.

Now, were this poetry, I would certainly have arrived at that conclusion myself. However, given that it is prose, and given that the syntactic construction indicates sequence, I'm driven to conclude that it is sequential. But of course, according the the format of this thread, all I have to do is demonstrate that it is reasonable to read it this way.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Theognome

Rather, if one does not agree that it was given in that context, conclusive biblical argument should be given to show otherwise.

The person making the positive assertion is the one who is obliged to show the context in which the assertion can be proven true.

Yes, and those who espouse EP are making the positive assertion that the Psalms are the only songs to be sung.

While I will grant that Eph 5 (and Col) state three categories of songs to be song that include those that are Psalms, those categories are larger than the Psalms.

The assertion that only inspired songs be song is still not established in scripture with either a positive command which has no other meaning, or a negative prohibition against other songs. Historical narrative, while useful in many ways, is not didactic teaching and must be view as secondary in establishment of doctrine.

No one would argue that we are to sing to the Lord in worship. That is clearly taught. The question and what you wish to establish is that it could only be Psalms. In saying "only" you have to do more than just establish that Psalms are appropriate for worship. That is without question. So showing how Psalms were brought into worship is interesting, but it has no merit for the discussion. That singing Psalms is okay is not the issue ... the command to sing does not restrict singing to only those things that are not Psalms, so it is okay to sing them.

The command to sing is clear (Psalm 100:2 ... which is in the Psalms, but says nothing of restriction to only those works that are inspired.) So making the positive assertion that only Psalms were commanded (when Psalm 100 does not clearly state that) means it must be proven.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Perhaps I'm wrong, but there appears to be some inconsistency in that assertion. Did you not make the assumption that it necessarily means "Holy Spirit" with no exegetical presentation or "demonstration" on your part? The thread was presented that those espousing EP are to provide scriptural "proof," not simple assertions.

I provided the prima facie meaning of "spiritual." If there is some deviation from this prima facie meaning it will need to be demonstrated from context. Strongs is no help, and certainly appealing to the broader word range of "spirit" is next to useless.

Originally Posted by Wannabee

I don't think you would have made that statement if you had read those psalms before countering.

Would you like to be taken seriously?

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Since a huge minority of the psalms are written by anonymous authors, this seems like speculation rather than any exegetical conclusion.

The NT assumes Davidic authorship of these Psalms; Heb. 4:7, "Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts."

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Then in v. 30, which begins with a narrative preterit (best translated, "then" or "next" -- but "moreover" is okay), it says:

One would have a great deal of trouble understanding the structure of many Hebrew narratives if this were made a grammatical rule. Is there nothing more substantial that can be presented than this?

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Yes, and those who espouse EP are making the positive assertion that the Psalms are the only songs to be sung.

The assertion has been presented on the basis that the corporate praise of both Old and New Testaments is of an "inspired" quality. The Psalms only position is established by the absence of any precept or precedent warranting songs of another nature.

And for which by way of reminder to all, per the OP, please see the other thread and do not pursue the warrant for uninspired song composure for worship here.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Yes, and those who espouse EP are making the positive assertion that the Psalms are the only songs to be sung.

The assertion has been presented on the basis that the corporate praise of both Old and New Testaments is of an "inspired" quality. The Psalms only position is established by the absence of any precept or precedent warranting songs of another nature.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by chbrooking

Then in v. 30, which begins with a narrative preterit (best translated, "then" or "next" -- but "moreover" is okay), it says:

One would have a great deal of trouble understanding the structure of many Hebrew narratives if this were made a grammatical rule. Is there nothing more substantial that can be presented than this?

Rev. Winzer,
How would you have me respond to this? You have ceased debate. I am making an exegetical case based on Hebrew syntax. If you have another way of understanding the narrative preterit, please make the case. Or, if you have a significant sample of texts where this understanding of the same syntax would be problematic to be understood this way, I'd like to see it. But I have come to hold your debating skills in far higher esteem than is warranted by this response.
Respectfully,