Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense by Brian Schwertley
http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.a ... 2503211652
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.a ... 1150585132
Thoughts ?
Thoughts ?
Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense by Brian Schwertley
But there are commandments about how to do the offering. Are there any commandments about music that conflict with the way we make music in our churches? That should be the proper question imho.Leviticus 10:1-2 records that God killed Nadab and Abihu because they offered strange fire, which God “commanded them not.” The offering of strange fire is not prohibited in Scripture, but it also is not commanded.
I know of many things that we do in our churches that are not commanded. What makes music different?
Laatst gewijzigd door wim op 20 sep 2007, 14:29, 2 keer totaal gewijzigd.
The discussion about what we should or shouldn't sing in the church is more a matter of tradition, than biblical grounded, simply because the Scriptures nowhere commands what should be sung in the churches, it only shows what has been the habit of the church in the Old Testament, and the Early Christian Church.
Looking at the New Testament text, and the habits of the Early Church, as we know from the writings of the Church Fathers, it can only be concluded that neither the New Testament nor the Early Church limited the use of the hymns to the psalms only. Yea, to go even farther, the psalms used in the Early Church, the texts delivered to us by the writings of the early church, are just hymns about Christ, which only vagely refer to the text of the psalm. I think all of us would call those songs a hymn, rather than a psalm...
There are a lot of good reasons to limit the songs sung in the church to the psalms, but don't set the bible and the history of the early church to your own hand, by using creative expanations.
Looking at the New Testament text, and the habits of the Early Church, as we know from the writings of the Church Fathers, it can only be concluded that neither the New Testament nor the Early Church limited the use of the hymns to the psalms only. Yea, to go even farther, the psalms used in the Early Church, the texts delivered to us by the writings of the early church, are just hymns about Christ, which only vagely refer to the text of the psalm. I think all of us would call those songs a hymn, rather than a psalm...
There are a lot of good reasons to limit the songs sung in the church to the psalms, but don't set the bible and the history of the early church to your own hand, by using creative expanations.
I think it's not about the music itself, but what we sing. Someone said, we have to preach the Word, teach the Word and sing the Word. The question is also, is the Hymnbook (or the Psalms) enough or do we need extra non-inspired man written hymns to sing insted on the Hymn book (Psalms), which Godhimself wrote for his people. By the way my view on the discussion "Exclusive Psalmody" is not clear yet.wim schreef:But there are commandments about how to do the offering. Are there any commandments about music that conflict with the wat we make music in our churces? That should be the proper question imho.Leviticus 10:1-2 records that God killed Nadab and Abihu because they offered strange fire, which God “commanded them not.” The offering of strange fire is not prohibited in Scripture, but it also is not commanded.
I know of many things that we do in our churches that are not commanded. What makes music different?
Can please show me the resources, were in the early apostlic age, they use to sing unspired -hymns insted of Psalms ?memento schreef:The discussion about what we should or shouldn't sing in the church is more a matter of tradition, than biblical grounded, simply because the Scriptures nowhere commands what should be sung in the churches, it only shows what has been the habit of the church in the Old Testament, and the Early Christian Church.
Looking at the New Testament text, and the habits of the Early Church, as we know from the writings of the Church Fathers, it can only be concluded that neither the New Testament nor the Early Church limited the use of the hymns to the psalms only. Yea, to go even farther, the psalms used in the Early Church, the texts delivered to us by the writings of the early church, are just hymns about Christ, which only vagely refer to the text of the psalm. I think all of us would call those songs a hymn, rather than a psalm...
.
Please read the following article:
“Exclusive Psalmody” — is it commanded of God?
The substance of a submission by Rev. Ivan Foster
in his debate with Rev. Angus Stewart of Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship,
Ballymena, on 14th January 2005.
http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?d ... 2005&seq=7
“Exclusive Psalmody” — is it commanded of God?
The substance of a submission by Rev. Ivan Foster
in his debate with Rev. Angus Stewart of Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship,
Ballymena, on 14th January 2005.
http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?d ... 2005&seq=7
They're very scattered throughout the writings of the church fathers. The famous bisshop Ambrose cites some hymns that were used in the services, he even wrote some of them himself.mayflower schreef:Can please show me the resources, were in the early apostlic age, they use to sing unspired -hymns insted of Psalms ?
If you're interessested in the subject, I think you better can save yourself the time of searching for them yourself, and buy one of the many liturgical studies that had been done. (PS. Be prepared to find a Roman Catholic like kind of service, with lots of singing, and the mass as center of the service)
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/CRTPsSing.htm
The Early Church
Concerning the early Church, Bushell notes that, "The introduction of uninspired hymns into the worship of the Church was a gradual process, and it was not until the fourth century that the practice became widespread." G.I. Williamson further points out that a "second noteworthy fact is that when uninspired hymns first made their appearance, it was not among the orthodox Churches but rather the heretical groups... If the Church from the beginning had received authority from the Apostles to make and use uninspired hymns, it would be expected that it would have done so. But it did not. Rather it was among those who departed from the faith that they first appeared." This historical testimony raises a number of interesting questions for those who claim to adhere to the regulative principle of worship and yet maintain the use of uninspired hymns in public worship. First, if the Psalter had been insufficient, why was there no command to produce new songs for worship, only commands to sing that which was already in existence? Second, if a new manual of praise was necessary, why was it that the Apostles did not write any new songs under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Third, why is it that we do not find even one "hymn" fragment among all the early church writings that have survived to this day. Moreover, there is not even one mention of the use of uninspired "hymns" among orthodox Christians until they began to be written in reply to the heretical "hymns," which had not surfaced until late in the second century? Fourth, why was there still strong opposition to the introduction of uninspired hymns well into the fifth century? The Synod of Laodicea (A.D. 343) and the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) both opposed the introduction of uninspired "hymns." In addition to this Bushell states that "as late as the ninth century we find appeals to the earlier Councils in support of a pure psalmody."
Sola Scriptura in Worship
Since Scripture, and not history (as helpful as it is), must be our final authority, it is to the Scripture we will go. Some positions against exclusive Psalmody can be dismissed at the outset. First, unless one is ready to institute the use of literal altars, incense, etc. in public worship, the highly symbolic and figurative nature of the book of Revelation can be no safe guide for worship (here and now).22 Second, it should be noted that most (if not all) arguments against exclusive Psalmody are of a negative nature. These anti-Psalm arguments could possibly prove that the Psalm singer's position is incorrect, but for those holding to the regulative principle, you cannot prove the positive institution of uninspired hymns by a negative argument against exclusive Psalmody. I have personally requested proof for the Biblical institution of uninspired hymns from one prominent minister who says that he upholds the regulative principle (but still uses uninspired man-made compositions for public worship-song), and have yet to receive any answer. Can you provide this proof? This is really the crux of the matter for those espousing uninspired hymns: Where is the Biblical institution for uninspired songs in public (New Testament) worship? Williamson is to the point concerning this insurmountable obstacle faced by those promoting such an innovation (i.e. modern "hymn" singers):
It is of no small importance that textual proof has never been demonstrated for the use of uninspired songs in worship. No one has yet found even a single scripture text to prove that God commands His Church to sing anything other than the psalms of the Bible in worship. And it is not because men have not searched diligently! A few years ago a Committee of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church made such a search. This Committee had a majority in favour of the use of uninspired hymns in worship. And yet, after an exhaustive search through scripture requiring a number of years to complete, such proof could not be found. The Committee Chairman admitted that it is 'impossible to prove that uninspired songs are authorized in scripture.' He even said that 'to demand such proof before one can in good conscience sing uninspired songs is to demand the impossible!' (The Presbyterian Guardian, Vol. 17, p. 73). This is a grave admission. But it is no more than the facts require. For the bare truth is that no one has found so much as a single text of scripture commanding the use of uninspired songs in divine worship. And remember, we are not to worship God in any other way not commanded in His word.'23
At this point those promoting uninspired songs in worship are probably protesting that I have forgotten about Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, but such is not the case. Having come out of a "hymn-singing" tradition, these very scriptures comprised a major part of my initial protest against the position which I now hold. So let's take a look at them. Williamson is most instructive here,
The proper interpretation of scripture terms requires that we discover, not what we mean by these terms when we use them today, but what the inspired writer meant when he used them. And it is one of the oddities of biblical interpretation that this rule is commonly observed with reference to the term 'psalms', and commonly disregarded with respect to the terms 'hymns' and 'songs'. For the fact is that all three of these terms are used in the Bible to designate various selections contained in the Old Testament Psalter. In the Greek version of the Old Testament familiar to the Ephesians and Colossians the entire Psalter is entitled 'Psalms'. In sixty-seven of the titles within the book the word 'psalm' is used. However, in six titles the word 'hymn' is used, rather than 'psalm', and in thirty-five the word 'song' appears. Even more important twelve titles use both 'psalm' and 'song', and two have 'psalm' and 'hymn'. Psalm seventy-six is designated 'psalm, hymn and song'. And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read that 'the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended'. (Ps. 72:20.) In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said 'psalms', than when he said 'hymns' and 'songs', for the simple reason that all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself. We are in the habit of using the terms 'hymns' and 'songs' for those compositions that are not psalms. But Paul and the Christians at Ephesus and Colossae used these terms as the Bible itself uses them, namely, as titles for the various psalms in the Old Testament Psalter. To us it may seem strange, or even unnecessary, that the Holy Spirit would use a variety of titles to describe His inspired compositions. But the fact is that He did so. Just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His 'commandments and his statutes and his judgmentss' (Deut.. 30:16, etc.), and of 'miracles and wonders and signs' (Acts 2:22), so He speaks of His 'psalms, hymns and songs'. As commandments, statutes and judgmentss are all divine laws in the language of scripture; as miracles and wonders and signs are all supernatural works of God in the language of scripture; so psalms, hymns and songs are the inspired compositions of the Psalter, in the language of scripture itself... The New Testament evidence sustains this conclusion. On the night of the Last Supper Jesus and His disciples sang 'an hymn' (Matt. 26:30). Bible expositors admit that this was 'the second part of the Hallel Psalms (115-118)" which was always sung at the Passover. (New Bible Commentary, p. 835.) Matthew called this psalm a 'hymn' because a psalm is a hymn in the terminology of the Bible. To the same effect is the Old Testament quotation in Hebrews 2:12, in which the Greek word 'hymn' is quoted from Psalm 22:22. In this quotation from an Old Testament psalm, the word 'hymn' is used to denote the singing of psalms because the Old Testament makes no distinction between the two. But if Scripture itself says that psalms are hymns, and that hymns are psalms, why should we make any distinction between them? If we grant that the Apostle used biblical language in a biblical sense there is no more reason to think that he spoke of uninspired hymns in these texts (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19) than to think that he spoke of uninspired psalms, because hymns are inspired psalms in the holy scriptures.24
Furthermore, to reject Mr. Williamson's explanation regarding these verses leads to some major problems. We have already observed that no evidence exists that any uninspired "hymns" existed during the period when these verses were written. Only the inspired Psalms (i.e. psalms, hymns and spiritual songs) were in use as public worship-songs at that time, and no Biblical command is found anywhere to produce additional songs beyond those already contained in the existing book of divine praise—the Psalms. Is the regulative principle then in error? We think not. Why then were no new songs produced by the early church if these verses were understood to call for them? The Apostles themselves did not produce any such songs, either inspired or uninspired—not even one that we know of. This helps demonstrate that they did not interpret these verses as modern "hymn-singers" do. Moreover, to approach these verses by importing a modern meaning into the words "hymns and spiritual songs, not only rests on very shaky ground—leaving much room for doubt and in no way fulfilling the requirements of the regulative principle for clear Biblical warrant in worship practices—but would also destroy the basis for Grammatico-Historical interpretation of Scripture.25 Therefore, we can see that Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 cannot possibly mean what those opposing the position of exclusive Psalmody say they mean, because their interpretation does not fit any of the existing Biblical (or historical) data—while the Psalm singers interpretation fits perfectly!
Finally and probably most importantly, Bushell has dug down to the root of the problem in the matter of human innovation in worship,
Arrogance, pride and self-assertion are at the very heart of all attempts to find a musical replacement for the Psalter. William Romaine makes some very pointed comments in this connection, to which advocates of uninspired song in worship would do well to listen: "I want a name for that man who should pretend that he could make better hymns than the Holy Ghost. His collection is large enough: it wants no addition. It is perfect, as its author, and not capable of any improvement. Why in such a case would any man in the world take it into his head to write hymns for the use of the Church? It is just the same as if he was to write a new Bible, not only better than the old, but so much better, that the old may be thrown aside. What a blasphemous attempt! And yet our hymn-mongers, inadvertently, I hope, have come very near to this blasphemy; for they shut out the Psalms, introduce their own verses into the Church, sing them with great delight, and as they fancy with great profit; although the whole practice be in direct opposition with the blessing of God." We see, therefore, that the sufficiency and divine origin of the Psalter are in themselves adequate arguments for its exclusive use in worship. As we have pointed out a number of times already, the very fact that the Bible contains a book of inspired psalms immediately places worship-song in the same category as the authoritative reading of the Scriptures in worship. The former is but the musical counterpart of the latter, and as such is incompatible with the use of uninspired hymns in worship.26
The Early Church
Concerning the early Church, Bushell notes that, "The introduction of uninspired hymns into the worship of the Church was a gradual process, and it was not until the fourth century that the practice became widespread." G.I. Williamson further points out that a "second noteworthy fact is that when uninspired hymns first made their appearance, it was not among the orthodox Churches but rather the heretical groups... If the Church from the beginning had received authority from the Apostles to make and use uninspired hymns, it would be expected that it would have done so. But it did not. Rather it was among those who departed from the faith that they first appeared." This historical testimony raises a number of interesting questions for those who claim to adhere to the regulative principle of worship and yet maintain the use of uninspired hymns in public worship. First, if the Psalter had been insufficient, why was there no command to produce new songs for worship, only commands to sing that which was already in existence? Second, if a new manual of praise was necessary, why was it that the Apostles did not write any new songs under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Third, why is it that we do not find even one "hymn" fragment among all the early church writings that have survived to this day. Moreover, there is not even one mention of the use of uninspired "hymns" among orthodox Christians until they began to be written in reply to the heretical "hymns," which had not surfaced until late in the second century? Fourth, why was there still strong opposition to the introduction of uninspired hymns well into the fifth century? The Synod of Laodicea (A.D. 343) and the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) both opposed the introduction of uninspired "hymns." In addition to this Bushell states that "as late as the ninth century we find appeals to the earlier Councils in support of a pure psalmody."
Sola Scriptura in Worship
Since Scripture, and not history (as helpful as it is), must be our final authority, it is to the Scripture we will go. Some positions against exclusive Psalmody can be dismissed at the outset. First, unless one is ready to institute the use of literal altars, incense, etc. in public worship, the highly symbolic and figurative nature of the book of Revelation can be no safe guide for worship (here and now).22 Second, it should be noted that most (if not all) arguments against exclusive Psalmody are of a negative nature. These anti-Psalm arguments could possibly prove that the Psalm singer's position is incorrect, but for those holding to the regulative principle, you cannot prove the positive institution of uninspired hymns by a negative argument against exclusive Psalmody. I have personally requested proof for the Biblical institution of uninspired hymns from one prominent minister who says that he upholds the regulative principle (but still uses uninspired man-made compositions for public worship-song), and have yet to receive any answer. Can you provide this proof? This is really the crux of the matter for those espousing uninspired hymns: Where is the Biblical institution for uninspired songs in public (New Testament) worship? Williamson is to the point concerning this insurmountable obstacle faced by those promoting such an innovation (i.e. modern "hymn" singers):
It is of no small importance that textual proof has never been demonstrated for the use of uninspired songs in worship. No one has yet found even a single scripture text to prove that God commands His Church to sing anything other than the psalms of the Bible in worship. And it is not because men have not searched diligently! A few years ago a Committee of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church made such a search. This Committee had a majority in favour of the use of uninspired hymns in worship. And yet, after an exhaustive search through scripture requiring a number of years to complete, such proof could not be found. The Committee Chairman admitted that it is 'impossible to prove that uninspired songs are authorized in scripture.' He even said that 'to demand such proof before one can in good conscience sing uninspired songs is to demand the impossible!' (The Presbyterian Guardian, Vol. 17, p. 73). This is a grave admission. But it is no more than the facts require. For the bare truth is that no one has found so much as a single text of scripture commanding the use of uninspired songs in divine worship. And remember, we are not to worship God in any other way not commanded in His word.'23
At this point those promoting uninspired songs in worship are probably protesting that I have forgotten about Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, but such is not the case. Having come out of a "hymn-singing" tradition, these very scriptures comprised a major part of my initial protest against the position which I now hold. So let's take a look at them. Williamson is most instructive here,
The proper interpretation of scripture terms requires that we discover, not what we mean by these terms when we use them today, but what the inspired writer meant when he used them. And it is one of the oddities of biblical interpretation that this rule is commonly observed with reference to the term 'psalms', and commonly disregarded with respect to the terms 'hymns' and 'songs'. For the fact is that all three of these terms are used in the Bible to designate various selections contained in the Old Testament Psalter. In the Greek version of the Old Testament familiar to the Ephesians and Colossians the entire Psalter is entitled 'Psalms'. In sixty-seven of the titles within the book the word 'psalm' is used. However, in six titles the word 'hymn' is used, rather than 'psalm', and in thirty-five the word 'song' appears. Even more important twelve titles use both 'psalm' and 'song', and two have 'psalm' and 'hymn'. Psalm seventy-six is designated 'psalm, hymn and song'. And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read that 'the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended'. (Ps. 72:20.) In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said 'psalms', than when he said 'hymns' and 'songs', for the simple reason that all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself. We are in the habit of using the terms 'hymns' and 'songs' for those compositions that are not psalms. But Paul and the Christians at Ephesus and Colossae used these terms as the Bible itself uses them, namely, as titles for the various psalms in the Old Testament Psalter. To us it may seem strange, or even unnecessary, that the Holy Spirit would use a variety of titles to describe His inspired compositions. But the fact is that He did so. Just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His 'commandments and his statutes and his judgmentss' (Deut.. 30:16, etc.), and of 'miracles and wonders and signs' (Acts 2:22), so He speaks of His 'psalms, hymns and songs'. As commandments, statutes and judgmentss are all divine laws in the language of scripture; as miracles and wonders and signs are all supernatural works of God in the language of scripture; so psalms, hymns and songs are the inspired compositions of the Psalter, in the language of scripture itself... The New Testament evidence sustains this conclusion. On the night of the Last Supper Jesus and His disciples sang 'an hymn' (Matt. 26:30). Bible expositors admit that this was 'the second part of the Hallel Psalms (115-118)" which was always sung at the Passover. (New Bible Commentary, p. 835.) Matthew called this psalm a 'hymn' because a psalm is a hymn in the terminology of the Bible. To the same effect is the Old Testament quotation in Hebrews 2:12, in which the Greek word 'hymn' is quoted from Psalm 22:22. In this quotation from an Old Testament psalm, the word 'hymn' is used to denote the singing of psalms because the Old Testament makes no distinction between the two. But if Scripture itself says that psalms are hymns, and that hymns are psalms, why should we make any distinction between them? If we grant that the Apostle used biblical language in a biblical sense there is no more reason to think that he spoke of uninspired hymns in these texts (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19) than to think that he spoke of uninspired psalms, because hymns are inspired psalms in the holy scriptures.24
Furthermore, to reject Mr. Williamson's explanation regarding these verses leads to some major problems. We have already observed that no evidence exists that any uninspired "hymns" existed during the period when these verses were written. Only the inspired Psalms (i.e. psalms, hymns and spiritual songs) were in use as public worship-songs at that time, and no Biblical command is found anywhere to produce additional songs beyond those already contained in the existing book of divine praise—the Psalms. Is the regulative principle then in error? We think not. Why then were no new songs produced by the early church if these verses were understood to call for them? The Apostles themselves did not produce any such songs, either inspired or uninspired—not even one that we know of. This helps demonstrate that they did not interpret these verses as modern "hymn-singers" do. Moreover, to approach these verses by importing a modern meaning into the words "hymns and spiritual songs, not only rests on very shaky ground—leaving much room for doubt and in no way fulfilling the requirements of the regulative principle for clear Biblical warrant in worship practices—but would also destroy the basis for Grammatico-Historical interpretation of Scripture.25 Therefore, we can see that Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 cannot possibly mean what those opposing the position of exclusive Psalmody say they mean, because their interpretation does not fit any of the existing Biblical (or historical) data—while the Psalm singers interpretation fits perfectly!
Finally and probably most importantly, Bushell has dug down to the root of the problem in the matter of human innovation in worship,
Arrogance, pride and self-assertion are at the very heart of all attempts to find a musical replacement for the Psalter. William Romaine makes some very pointed comments in this connection, to which advocates of uninspired song in worship would do well to listen: "I want a name for that man who should pretend that he could make better hymns than the Holy Ghost. His collection is large enough: it wants no addition. It is perfect, as its author, and not capable of any improvement. Why in such a case would any man in the world take it into his head to write hymns for the use of the Church? It is just the same as if he was to write a new Bible, not only better than the old, but so much better, that the old may be thrown aside. What a blasphemous attempt! And yet our hymn-mongers, inadvertently, I hope, have come very near to this blasphemy; for they shut out the Psalms, introduce their own verses into the Church, sing them with great delight, and as they fancy with great profit; although the whole practice be in direct opposition with the blessing of God." We see, therefore, that the sufficiency and divine origin of the Psalter are in themselves adequate arguments for its exclusive use in worship. As we have pointed out a number of times already, the very fact that the Bible contains a book of inspired psalms immediately places worship-song in the same category as the authoritative reading of the Scriptures in worship. The former is but the musical counterpart of the latter, and as such is incompatible with the use of uninspired hymns in worship.26
I listen to to this one before, and it was very helpfull. Personally i think that Angus Stewart was for me more convincing.Unionist schreef:Please read the following article:
“Exclusive Psalmody” — is it commanded of God?
The substance of a submission by Rev. Ivan Foster
in his debate with Rev. Angus Stewart of Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship,
Ballymena, on 14th January 2005.
http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?d ... 2005&seq=7
[In the following excerpt, Mr. Bushell deals with the objection to exclusive Psalmody that there are places in Scripture that refer to a “new song.” The force of the objection is that if Scripture refers to “new songs” then we must be allowed to compose songs for various occasions whether or not we are prophets or being “borne along by the Holy Ghost.” Mr. Bushell demonstrates in this excerpt that the “newness” of the new songs deals with the perspective of the singer and not with supposed compositions apart from the Psalter.]
We cannot enter here into a detailed exegesis of the musical portions of the Apocalypse. A few comments, however, concerning certain aspects of the subject may be of some help. Appeal is sometimes made to the "new song" of Revelation 14:3 as justification for the making of “new songs" now. The passage in question must, however, be seen in the context of the general concept of eschatological "newness" which finds expression in so many of the apocalyptic sections of Scripture. The phrase "new song (ode kaine, shir chodesh)[2] is found in a number of places in both Testaments. Originally it signified a song of praise inspired by gratitude for new mercies. As such it occurs six times in the psalter.[3]Obviously the reference to a "new song" in each of these instances is either a reference to the particular psalm in question or else a figure of speech to be interpreted metonymically for a doxology or prayer of thanksgiving. In any event they do not constitute a warrant for us to produce uninspired worship song any more than they did for the Old Testament saints. Quite often, especially in the eschatological portions of Scripture, the phrase "new song" is merely a figure of speech, having no direct reference at all to literal worship song. Such is the case, for example, in Isaiah 42:10 (cf. 24:14ff, Rev. 5:13), where the islands and their inhabitants, the cities and their dwellers, and everything that lives and moves in the sea are summoned to praise the Lord with a "new song." Attribution of song here to inanimate objects is, of course, a hyperbolic device intended to express poetically the comprehensive scope of God's saving operations and the fullness of the praise that is due unto His Holy Name (cf. Isa. 55:12ff). Certainly there is no warrant here for the production of uninspired worship song.
The concept of “newness” is a leading feature of the apocalyptic portions of Scripture, and this is particularly true of the Book of Revelation. We are told, for example, of a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21: 1; 2 Pet. 3:13; Isa. 65:17); the new Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12; 21:2); the new name (Rev. 2:17; 3:12; Isa. 62:2; 65:15); and the new song (Rev. 5:9; 14:3). Indeed, we are told that all things will be made new (Rev. 21:5). The concept of "newness" in the Book of Revelation is thus used as a poetic device to express in a heightened sense the fullness and the scope of the eschatological redemption of all things. The "new song," the "new name," the "new heavens," the "new earth," and the "new Jerusalem" are all yet future. The fact that we have in these visions a present anticipation of this newness, provides no more warrant for the production of "new" worship song than it does for the building of a “new Jerusalem." Quite the contrary is the case. It is very significant, in fact, that worship song is placed in the category of the "new" things of John's vision. The distinguishing character of the "newness" attributed to these objects is its divine origin. The old creation groans and travails even now under the corruption of sin, so the Lord Himself will provide a new one. Men do not themselves build the New Jerusalem; it is fashioned directly by the hand of God and brought down from heaven (Rev. 21:2). Eschatological "newness" in the Book of Revelation is functionally equivalent to divine origin. This is just as true of the "new song" as it is of the "new heavens" and the "new earth." Eschatological “newness" in song may thus be seen as functionally equivalent to immediate inspiration by God. Seen in this way, the "new" songs of Revelation, far from providing a warrant for the use of uninspired songs in worship, bring to the fore once again the same basic principle that we have seen time and again in our consideration of the biblical principles of worship, namely, that the production of acceptable worship song is the sole prerogative of the Lord God Himself as He works through inspired authors set apart by Him to that very task.
Of course, it must be conceded that the apocalyptic visions of Isaiah and the Book of Revelation do have reference to a certain extent to our own dispensation. Certainly the "new covenant" (Jer. 31:31ff; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:8ff-, 9:15), the description of the Christian as a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17), and so on, are present anticipations of the eschatological situation described in John's vision.
The question arises as to whether there is any sense, proleptic or otherwise, in which the worship song of the pre-consummation church is to share in this eschatological newness. In response to this question it may be observed, first of all, that much of the “newness” enjoyed by the Church in this dispensation is clearly proleptic or anticipatory in nature. Even our salvation, though complete in Christ, is seen in Scripture to have a future reference. Our redemptive “newness” has not yet been fully realized. We are to put on the “new self” (Eph. 4:22-24) because our "old self" was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6), and yet every Christian bears witness to the strength of the "old self' yet remaining (cf. Rom. 7:23). We are new creations in Christ, and yet we wait for that day when all things will be made new. What all of this teaches us is that "newness" in the present state of things is not at all inconsistent with the continuation of certain aspects of the old order. Of the many examples that could be mentioned here, there is perhaps none clearer than that of the "new commandment" given by Christ to His disciples. His "new commandment," that we love one another (John 13:34), was not really a new commandment at all. It was in fact incorporated into the Mosaic law (Lev. 19:18). It was, as John tells us, a new commandment that was at the same time an old commandment (1 John 2:7; 2 John 5). The newness lay in the new perspective that we are given on the old commandment as a result of the manifestation of God's love in Christ. The "newness" of the New Testament with respect to the law of God does not have to do so much with content as with perspective. The law has not been abolished in Christ. It has been fulfilled and therefore placed in a new light, but it has not been superseded by a new law.
In the same way the "newness" in song of which the New Testament is heir does not have to do with content per se but with newness of perspective. So even if the passages in Isaiah 42:10 and Revelation 5:9 and 14:3 are seen as having pre-consummation significance, there is still no warrant to see in them a mandate for the production of uninspired songs for worship. If in fact the concept of eschatological "newness" is seen in its proper context, quite the opposite is the case. Newness in the eschatological sense absolutely precludes human invention. The one essential presupposition lying behind the necessity of a "new heavens," a "new earth," a "new Jerusalem," a "new covenant," and a "new song" is the fact that the old order had been thoroughly corrupted by the touch of man's sinful hand. God is therefore to be the sole craftsman of the new order, even in its proleptic manifestations.
The Old Testament Psalms may therefore in a particular sense be seen as "new songs" because they have all taken on new significance in the light of their fulfillment in Christ and in the interpretive light that the New Testament sheds upon them. Seen in this way, the Psalms serve quite sufficiently as a proleptic realization of the need for "new songs" in the worship of God. Because of their divine origin and their organic connection with the rest of Scripture, they serve this purpose in a way not to be matched, much less excelled, by the compositions of uninspired men.
We cannot enter here into a detailed exegesis of the musical portions of the Apocalypse. A few comments, however, concerning certain aspects of the subject may be of some help. Appeal is sometimes made to the "new song" of Revelation 14:3 as justification for the making of “new songs" now. The passage in question must, however, be seen in the context of the general concept of eschatological "newness" which finds expression in so many of the apocalyptic sections of Scripture. The phrase "new song (ode kaine, shir chodesh)[2] is found in a number of places in both Testaments. Originally it signified a song of praise inspired by gratitude for new mercies. As such it occurs six times in the psalter.[3]Obviously the reference to a "new song" in each of these instances is either a reference to the particular psalm in question or else a figure of speech to be interpreted metonymically for a doxology or prayer of thanksgiving. In any event they do not constitute a warrant for us to produce uninspired worship song any more than they did for the Old Testament saints. Quite often, especially in the eschatological portions of Scripture, the phrase "new song" is merely a figure of speech, having no direct reference at all to literal worship song. Such is the case, for example, in Isaiah 42:10 (cf. 24:14ff, Rev. 5:13), where the islands and their inhabitants, the cities and their dwellers, and everything that lives and moves in the sea are summoned to praise the Lord with a "new song." Attribution of song here to inanimate objects is, of course, a hyperbolic device intended to express poetically the comprehensive scope of God's saving operations and the fullness of the praise that is due unto His Holy Name (cf. Isa. 55:12ff). Certainly there is no warrant here for the production of uninspired worship song.
The concept of “newness” is a leading feature of the apocalyptic portions of Scripture, and this is particularly true of the Book of Revelation. We are told, for example, of a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21: 1; 2 Pet. 3:13; Isa. 65:17); the new Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12; 21:2); the new name (Rev. 2:17; 3:12; Isa. 62:2; 65:15); and the new song (Rev. 5:9; 14:3). Indeed, we are told that all things will be made new (Rev. 21:5). The concept of "newness" in the Book of Revelation is thus used as a poetic device to express in a heightened sense the fullness and the scope of the eschatological redemption of all things. The "new song," the "new name," the "new heavens," the "new earth," and the "new Jerusalem" are all yet future. The fact that we have in these visions a present anticipation of this newness, provides no more warrant for the production of "new" worship song than it does for the building of a “new Jerusalem." Quite the contrary is the case. It is very significant, in fact, that worship song is placed in the category of the "new" things of John's vision. The distinguishing character of the "newness" attributed to these objects is its divine origin. The old creation groans and travails even now under the corruption of sin, so the Lord Himself will provide a new one. Men do not themselves build the New Jerusalem; it is fashioned directly by the hand of God and brought down from heaven (Rev. 21:2). Eschatological "newness" in the Book of Revelation is functionally equivalent to divine origin. This is just as true of the "new song" as it is of the "new heavens" and the "new earth." Eschatological “newness" in song may thus be seen as functionally equivalent to immediate inspiration by God. Seen in this way, the "new" songs of Revelation, far from providing a warrant for the use of uninspired songs in worship, bring to the fore once again the same basic principle that we have seen time and again in our consideration of the biblical principles of worship, namely, that the production of acceptable worship song is the sole prerogative of the Lord God Himself as He works through inspired authors set apart by Him to that very task.
Of course, it must be conceded that the apocalyptic visions of Isaiah and the Book of Revelation do have reference to a certain extent to our own dispensation. Certainly the "new covenant" (Jer. 31:31ff; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:8ff-, 9:15), the description of the Christian as a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17), and so on, are present anticipations of the eschatological situation described in John's vision.
The question arises as to whether there is any sense, proleptic or otherwise, in which the worship song of the pre-consummation church is to share in this eschatological newness. In response to this question it may be observed, first of all, that much of the “newness” enjoyed by the Church in this dispensation is clearly proleptic or anticipatory in nature. Even our salvation, though complete in Christ, is seen in Scripture to have a future reference. Our redemptive “newness” has not yet been fully realized. We are to put on the “new self” (Eph. 4:22-24) because our "old self" was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6), and yet every Christian bears witness to the strength of the "old self' yet remaining (cf. Rom. 7:23). We are new creations in Christ, and yet we wait for that day when all things will be made new. What all of this teaches us is that "newness" in the present state of things is not at all inconsistent with the continuation of certain aspects of the old order. Of the many examples that could be mentioned here, there is perhaps none clearer than that of the "new commandment" given by Christ to His disciples. His "new commandment," that we love one another (John 13:34), was not really a new commandment at all. It was in fact incorporated into the Mosaic law (Lev. 19:18). It was, as John tells us, a new commandment that was at the same time an old commandment (1 John 2:7; 2 John 5). The newness lay in the new perspective that we are given on the old commandment as a result of the manifestation of God's love in Christ. The "newness" of the New Testament with respect to the law of God does not have to do so much with content as with perspective. The law has not been abolished in Christ. It has been fulfilled and therefore placed in a new light, but it has not been superseded by a new law.
In the same way the "newness" in song of which the New Testament is heir does not have to do with content per se but with newness of perspective. So even if the passages in Isaiah 42:10 and Revelation 5:9 and 14:3 are seen as having pre-consummation significance, there is still no warrant to see in them a mandate for the production of uninspired songs for worship. If in fact the concept of eschatological "newness" is seen in its proper context, quite the opposite is the case. Newness in the eschatological sense absolutely precludes human invention. The one essential presupposition lying behind the necessity of a "new heavens," a "new earth," a "new Jerusalem," a "new covenant," and a "new song" is the fact that the old order had been thoroughly corrupted by the touch of man's sinful hand. God is therefore to be the sole craftsman of the new order, even in its proleptic manifestations.
The Old Testament Psalms may therefore in a particular sense be seen as "new songs" because they have all taken on new significance in the light of their fulfillment in Christ and in the interpretive light that the New Testament sheds upon them. Seen in this way, the Psalms serve quite sufficiently as a proleptic realization of the need for "new songs" in the worship of God. Because of their divine origin and their organic connection with the rest of Scripture, they serve this purpose in a way not to be matched, much less excelled, by the compositions of uninspired men.
Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16)
Richard BaconCopyright 1998, The Blue Banner
Now, the Scripture at Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 gives us a command (considering both passages together) to speak, teach, and admonish one another using Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. In the view of Exclusive Psalmodists, this triad of terms consists of a figure of speech known as a synonymia. For example, when in Exodus 1:7 we learn that "the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased, and multiplied" we do not suppose that three things were going on, but one. Deuteronomy 8:4 has a similar "piling on" of synonyms when Moses said, "Ye shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice; and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him." Are six different things going on or only one?
Examples of synonymia could be multiplied, but these examples give the general idea. So the question naturally arises, if Ephesians. 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 use the terms "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" as synonyms, then what are they synonyms for? The Exclusive Psalmodist points to a book of 150 Psalms, which were compiled under the supervision and direction of the Holy Spirit. He further points out that for these nearly 2000 years the church has continued to sing them and has understood them as compiled in part for the purpose of singing.
It is certainly possible that Paul intends other portions of Scripture in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 -- i.e.. we cannot rule out such an interpretation on any a priori principles of the RPW. However, I can find no evidence that indicates all portions of Scripture have the same status as public worship song that the Psalms are given. If we were to claim that such Scripture portions as Habakkuk chapter three, which seems to contain musical direction similar to that contained in the Psalter (i.e. the direction that it is "on Shiggianoth"), we are basing a considerable departure on a rather obscure word -- which until the last couple of hundred years was interpreted simply as a direction for the people of God to pray to God even when they had committed sins in ignorance.
So, where specifically are we given commands (the term "command" understood not only as a precept but also as necessary implication and approved example) to sing the entirety of Scripture? God has placed a songbook in the middle of the Bible. Some of those Psalms are found in other places of Scripture (e.g. Psalm 18) either in whole or in part. But most are not. Most are rather clearly unique and the Psalter itself had a unique position in the life of the church in the time of Christ and his apostles, as indicated by such passages as Luke 20:42 cp. Matt. 12:36-37; Luke 24:44; Acts 1:20; Acts 4:25 cp. Acts 13:33. That is simply to say, Christ and his followers regarded the Book of Psalms as having a separate, compiled existence.
In the absence of a clear command to sing anything else, and with the presence of a clear command to sing the Psalter, the Exclusive Psalmodist says simply: "I will sing what I can verify Scripturally pleases my Lord and will refrain from singing that which may offend him."
Richard BaconCopyright 1998, The Blue Banner
Now, the Scripture at Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 gives us a command (considering both passages together) to speak, teach, and admonish one another using Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. In the view of Exclusive Psalmodists, this triad of terms consists of a figure of speech known as a synonymia. For example, when in Exodus 1:7 we learn that "the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased, and multiplied" we do not suppose that three things were going on, but one. Deuteronomy 8:4 has a similar "piling on" of synonyms when Moses said, "Ye shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice; and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him." Are six different things going on or only one?
Examples of synonymia could be multiplied, but these examples give the general idea. So the question naturally arises, if Ephesians. 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 use the terms "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" as synonyms, then what are they synonyms for? The Exclusive Psalmodist points to a book of 150 Psalms, which were compiled under the supervision and direction of the Holy Spirit. He further points out that for these nearly 2000 years the church has continued to sing them and has understood them as compiled in part for the purpose of singing.
It is certainly possible that Paul intends other portions of Scripture in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 -- i.e.. we cannot rule out such an interpretation on any a priori principles of the RPW. However, I can find no evidence that indicates all portions of Scripture have the same status as public worship song that the Psalms are given. If we were to claim that such Scripture portions as Habakkuk chapter three, which seems to contain musical direction similar to that contained in the Psalter (i.e. the direction that it is "on Shiggianoth"), we are basing a considerable departure on a rather obscure word -- which until the last couple of hundred years was interpreted simply as a direction for the people of God to pray to God even when they had committed sins in ignorance.
So, where specifically are we given commands (the term "command" understood not only as a precept but also as necessary implication and approved example) to sing the entirety of Scripture? God has placed a songbook in the middle of the Bible. Some of those Psalms are found in other places of Scripture (e.g. Psalm 18) either in whole or in part. But most are not. Most are rather clearly unique and the Psalter itself had a unique position in the life of the church in the time of Christ and his apostles, as indicated by such passages as Luke 20:42 cp. Matt. 12:36-37; Luke 24:44; Acts 1:20; Acts 4:25 cp. Acts 13:33. That is simply to say, Christ and his followers regarded the Book of Psalms as having a separate, compiled existence.
In the absence of a clear command to sing anything else, and with the presence of a clear command to sing the Psalter, the Exclusive Psalmodist says simply: "I will sing what I can verify Scripturally pleases my Lord and will refrain from singing that which may offend him."
mayflower schreef:I listen to to this one before, and it was very helpfull. Personally i think that Angus Stewart was for me more convincing.Unionist schreef:Please read the following article:
“Exclusive Psalmody” — is it commanded of God?
The substance of a submission by Rev. Ivan Foster
in his debate with Rev. Angus Stewart of Covenant Protestant Reformed Fellowship,
Ballymena, on 14th January 2005.
http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?d ... 2005&seq=7
for me it was just the other way around..!