Quick, 1 Answer EP Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?

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

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.
 
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.

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"?
 
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?
 
But where do we draw the assumption that this means strictly the "Book of Psalms," and not the other psalms found in scripture?

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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

Great, thanks for the clarification.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Thoughts?

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.
 
As such, Hezekiah's pattern is not necessarily what we use as a paradigm when it comes to particulars.

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
 
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.
 
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.

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 ;)):

Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent. He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish. She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples. At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.

Judges 5:24-27
 
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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top