Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I've come up with as many objections as I could to the "Messianic Consciousness" position on the Psalms, which claims that the speaker in the Psalms is Christ. This isn't an issue whether the words are Christ's--all the the words in the Bible are Christ's, being inspired by the Spirit of Christ--but rather whether the Psalmist in each psalm is Christ Himself speaking. I've tried my best to represent the position and the arguments for this position (and I've tried to think of some on my own too), but if I made an error in that or have shown ignorance in my objections by all means please point it out. One of the objections I listed was answered to my satisfaction in an earlier thread, but I include it here along with its answer anyway. By all means, anyone who holds this position and wishes to respond feel free to take your time in responding, even if that means only responding to one or two at a time.
(1) It is claimed that in Hebrews 2, it is assumed that Christ is the speaker in the psalm. The use of this could only work if it was assumed Christ was the speaker in all the psalms, so Christ must be the speaker in all the psalms.
Obj. 1: The psalm that Hebrews quotes is Psalm 22. It was already recognized by the Church that this Psalm was about Christ because Christ spoke some of those words on the cross, so there were some psalms that the Church could recognize as Messianic, and that's why the author of Hebrews could use this psalm to prove his point about Christ calling us brethren. So just because Christ speaks in that psalm and that psalm was recognized as Messianic does not mean that He speaks in all the psalms.
Obj. 2: The author of Hebrews makes a similar claim from Isaiah, yet we don't claim that Christ is the sole speaker in the entire book of Isaiah on that basis. This is evidence that the Church saw some parts of the Old Testament as Messianic i.e., with Christ as the speaker, and it also shows that this does not necessarily mean Christ was the sole speaker in the entire books from which the Messianic passages are drawn.
Obj. 3: In proving that Christ was the speaker in a couple of psalms (was he even doing that though? He seems to merely be proving the psalms were **about** Christ, not necessarily that Christ was the speaker), Peter had to argue that the psalms could not be applied to David. If it was presupposed that the Messiah was the speaker in all the Psalms, Peter would not have to do this. Furthermore, such an example shows us positively how we can find Messianic Psalms, namely, if the Psalms could not be applied to the historical speaker, which in turn discourages using the Messianic Consciousness approach by supporting a different approach.
(2) It is claimed that this interpretation fits with the Psalms.
Obj. 4: There are some Psalms where this doesn't seem possible.
Ans.: It is indeed possible, as seen by earlier threads. For example, http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/question-about-reading-into-christs-words-69712/#post893805 and http://www.puritanboard.com/f41/psalm-71-christs-old-age-55206/
[I think this objection was sufficiently answered, but I include it here for easy self-reference later]
Obj. 5: How exactly does the "Messianic Psalms" approach fail anyway? It seems solid (if I understood it rightly above in Obj. 3).
(3) It is claimed that the reference to David as the annointed points to the Psalms having Christ as the speaker by 2 Samuel 23:1.
Obj. 6: How does it follow from David being a type of Christ and sole author of the Psalms that Christ was the sole speaker of the Psalms? Does it really necessarily follow that what a type does, the antitype does? Not to mention that in this case we are moving from the type being author of all the Psalms and the speaker in some to the antitype being the **speaker** of **all** the Psalms (and of course, author too, but the Spirit of Christ was the author of all Scripture).
Obj. 7: It is dubious that David was the sole author of the Psalms anyway. Outside the Psalms, they are explicitly called the words of David **and** Asaph.
Obj. 8: Not to mention that the Psalm titles point to other authors too and even unknown authors. If it is said that the New Testament treats psalms not attributed to David as belonging to David, how does it necessarily follow that all the psalms not attributed to David are David's?
Other passages where it is claimed the NT writers assume Davidic authorship of all the Psalms or that Christ is the speaker in all of them can be objected to in a similar manner.
(4) It is claimed that the Psalms are about Christ. Luke 24:44, Colossians 3:16
Obj. 9: But Luke doesn't say **all** the Psalms are about Christ. And even if they were all about Christ, it does not follow Christ was the speaker in all of them anymore than Christ being the speaker in the law and/or prophets.
Obj. 10: Colossians 3:16 is closer, but can't "word of Christ" mean "words about Christ" (although it could also mean "words from Christ")? Even if it did mean "words from Christ," how does it follow that Christ is the special speaker in the Psalms in a way that He isn't in His words throughout the rest of Scripture?
(5) This approach makes more sense of the Psalms.
Obj. 11: But is it really an appropriate move to choose one interpretation over another on the basis that it makes things more clear and/or less ambiguous? If so, why? (although if not, I realize this one objection doesn't completely overturn the position)
(1) It is claimed that in Hebrews 2, it is assumed that Christ is the speaker in the psalm. The use of this could only work if it was assumed Christ was the speaker in all the psalms, so Christ must be the speaker in all the psalms.
Obj. 1: The psalm that Hebrews quotes is Psalm 22. It was already recognized by the Church that this Psalm was about Christ because Christ spoke some of those words on the cross, so there were some psalms that the Church could recognize as Messianic, and that's why the author of Hebrews could use this psalm to prove his point about Christ calling us brethren. So just because Christ speaks in that psalm and that psalm was recognized as Messianic does not mean that He speaks in all the psalms.
Obj. 2: The author of Hebrews makes a similar claim from Isaiah, yet we don't claim that Christ is the sole speaker in the entire book of Isaiah on that basis. This is evidence that the Church saw some parts of the Old Testament as Messianic i.e., with Christ as the speaker, and it also shows that this does not necessarily mean Christ was the sole speaker in the entire books from which the Messianic passages are drawn.
Obj. 3: In proving that Christ was the speaker in a couple of psalms (was he even doing that though? He seems to merely be proving the psalms were **about** Christ, not necessarily that Christ was the speaker), Peter had to argue that the psalms could not be applied to David. If it was presupposed that the Messiah was the speaker in all the Psalms, Peter would not have to do this. Furthermore, such an example shows us positively how we can find Messianic Psalms, namely, if the Psalms could not be applied to the historical speaker, which in turn discourages using the Messianic Consciousness approach by supporting a different approach.
(2) It is claimed that this interpretation fits with the Psalms.
Obj. 4: There are some Psalms where this doesn't seem possible.
Ans.: It is indeed possible, as seen by earlier threads. For example, http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/question-about-reading-into-christs-words-69712/#post893805 and http://www.puritanboard.com/f41/psalm-71-christs-old-age-55206/
[I think this objection was sufficiently answered, but I include it here for easy self-reference later]
Obj. 5: How exactly does the "Messianic Psalms" approach fail anyway? It seems solid (if I understood it rightly above in Obj. 3).
(3) It is claimed that the reference to David as the annointed points to the Psalms having Christ as the speaker by 2 Samuel 23:1.
Obj. 6: How does it follow from David being a type of Christ and sole author of the Psalms that Christ was the sole speaker of the Psalms? Does it really necessarily follow that what a type does, the antitype does? Not to mention that in this case we are moving from the type being author of all the Psalms and the speaker in some to the antitype being the **speaker** of **all** the Psalms (and of course, author too, but the Spirit of Christ was the author of all Scripture).
Obj. 7: It is dubious that David was the sole author of the Psalms anyway. Outside the Psalms, they are explicitly called the words of David **and** Asaph.
Obj. 8: Not to mention that the Psalm titles point to other authors too and even unknown authors. If it is said that the New Testament treats psalms not attributed to David as belonging to David, how does it necessarily follow that all the psalms not attributed to David are David's?
Other passages where it is claimed the NT writers assume Davidic authorship of all the Psalms or that Christ is the speaker in all of them can be objected to in a similar manner.
(4) It is claimed that the Psalms are about Christ. Luke 24:44, Colossians 3:16
Obj. 9: But Luke doesn't say **all** the Psalms are about Christ. And even if they were all about Christ, it does not follow Christ was the speaker in all of them anymore than Christ being the speaker in the law and/or prophets.
Obj. 10: Colossians 3:16 is closer, but can't "word of Christ" mean "words about Christ" (although it could also mean "words from Christ")? Even if it did mean "words from Christ," how does it follow that Christ is the special speaker in the Psalms in a way that He isn't in His words throughout the rest of Scripture?
(5) This approach makes more sense of the Psalms.
Obj. 11: But is it really an appropriate move to choose one interpretation over another on the basis that it makes things more clear and/or less ambiguous? If so, why? (although if not, I realize this one objection doesn't completely overturn the position)
Last edited: