NOTE: The following is part of a pastoral letter/paper that was written to address a lengthy letter that was sent out to members of my congregation that caustically criticized our practice of singing hymns in public worship.
On Singing Hymns
By
D. Patrick Ramsey
History of singing by God’s people and the Reformed
Tradition
The OT church did not only sing songs from the Psalter
because we find them singing other songs (Ex. 15:1-18, 21; Judges 5:2-31; 2
Samuel 22; Ezra 3:11) and being commanded to sing other songs (Deut. 31-32). In
fact, the Psalter itself commends singing the Mosaic law (Ps. 119:54, 172). T.
David Gordon rightly observes that “even the Israelites were not exclusive
psalmists.”[1]
The NT church also did not only sing songs from the Psalter as
is clear from 1 Cor. 14:26, and many scholars believe that passages such as Phil.
2:5-11 and 1 Timothy 3:16 may be examples of early Christian hymns.[2]
We know that Christians were writing and singing hymns in the early centuries
of the Christian church. Benjamin Shaw has noted that “most modern hymnals
contain at least a few hymns that trace their origins to the late 2nd
century.”[3]
The singing of hymns is seen throughout the history of the
church. The Reformation introduced new hymns, including A Mighty Fortress Is
Our God by Martin Luther. The Reformed churches in Strasbourg and Constance
sang metrical psalms and hymns, including some hymns written by Martin Luther.[4]
John Calvin strongly encouraged the singing of metrical psalms, but not
exclusively.[5] In
his defense of psalm singing, the puritan Thomas Manton was careful to confess
that “we do not forbid other songs…Tertullian, in his Apology, showeth that in
the primitive times they used this liberty, either to sing scripture psalms or
such as were of a private composure.”[6]
The highly celebrated puritan John Ball wrote that the
psalms are “patterns and forms of spiritual songs but not set forms prescribed
to us as psalms to be sung in those very words and forms…because God hath not
given them to that end, nor by his commandment tied us and all churches to them
and none others, in the precise form or words.” He also indicated that this was
a common view in his day, when he wrote, “When in the new Testament we are
exhorted to sing psalms, they will not say that we are tied to David’s psalms,
or other songs given by immediate Divine inspiration.”[7]
Ball cited Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 in the margin, indicating that these
verses were understood to teach that we are not limited to the Psalter or
inspired songs.
There is a tradition of exclusively singing metrical psalms,
especially in the Scottish Presbyterian Church tradition. However, it is not
true to say it is the Reformed view, only a Reformed view. As
Benjamin Shaw has observed, “the exclusive Psalmody view has never been a
unanimous view even in the Reformed church, with the possible exception of a
period of about 50 years in Scotland.”[8]
What about the Westminster Standards? Is singing hymns confessional?
The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of “singing psalms with grace in the
heart (WCF 21.5).” Although the Westminster Assembly advocated metrical psalm
singing, it is important to understand that the word “psalm” was used in those
days as a general term for “any sacred song…sung in religious worship,”[9]
and thus could include metrical psalms and hymns. Chad Van Dixhoorn, the
leading expert on the Westminster Assembly, writes, “Nonetheless the
commendation of the Psalms in the confession and the directory needs to take
into account that early-modern use of the term ‘psalm’ is not limited to the
Book of Psalms only. The common use of psalm almost always included hymns, and
in its scriptural proof texts the assembly deliberately directs readers of the
confession to passages like Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19, and James 5:13,
which call Christians to ‘sing praise’, or to sing ‘psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs’.”[10]
Should we only sing from the Psalter?
We are told in Scripture to sing psalms, but we have no command
in Scripture to restrict our singing to the book of Psalms. Stephen Pribble has
shown that three of the four Hebrews words translated as “psalms” are generic
terms that refer to songs and songs of praise. The fourth Hebrew word is a
technical term that only occurs in the Hebrew Psalm titles and Scripture never
uses this term when it commands us to sing psalms. Thus, when the Psalms
themselves tell us to sing a psalm, they are telling us to sing songs and songs
of praises to God, and not to sing only the Psalter. This is why it is not
surprising that songs outside the Psalter are also called a “psalm” (1 Sam.
22:1; Job 35:10; Ps. 119:54).
The Greek term for “psalm” can also be used in a general
sense of song of praise or in a special sense to refer to the book of Psalms,
an individual Psalm, or the third division of the Hebrew Bible.[11]
1 Corinthians 14:26 is an example of the word “psalm” being used to refer to
what the leading NT Greek dictionary calls “Christian songs of praise.” Of this
verse, Charles Hodge says that the psalm “can hardly mean one of the Psalms of
the Old Testament; but something prepared or suggested for the occasion.”
Since the term “psalm” in the OT and in the NT can be used
to apply to songs other than the ones found in the Psalter, we must not
assume that when the Bible says to sing psalms that it must be referring to the
psalms in the Psalter or to the Psalter as a book. That may be the case, or it
may not be.
The same is true with the phrase “psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs.” A common point made by exclusive psalmists is that these three words
all refer to categories of the Psalms. They argue that the three terms are frequently
found in the titles of the Psalms in the Greek translation of the OT, and
therefore Paul is referring to the Psalter. It is true that the three words are
used in the titles of many psalms, but you can’t leap from that point to Paul
is referring to the Psalter because the same words are used to refer to songs
outside of the Psalter.[12] Paul
could just as easily be referring to those songs or even to new songs of praise.
Indeed, there is no good reason to think that Paul must be referring
exclusively to the Psalter since neither the Old Testament church, nor the New
Testament church practiced exclusive psalmody.
It is sometimes argued that since God gave us a collection
of songs in the Psalter we should, therefore, only sing from it in worship. Of
the several problems with this argument, one is that the presence of a collection
of songs doesn’t imply that it is an exclusive collection. That is an
unwarranted leap in logic and consistency would require us to apply it to other
collections in Scripture.[13] The
only way we could argue this way is if God says that we must only sing from
this collection of songs. But, of course, the Bible never says that.
We might also question the unproven assumption that the
Psalter is exclusively a songbook or that God gave it to his people as a hymnal
for public worship. Even though it was once common for scholars to refer to the
Psalter as “the hymnal of the second temple,” more recently some scholars have
argued the Psalter was collected, not as a hymnbook, but as a book for
meditation.[14] Be
that as it may, many of the psalms themselves provide information regarding
their origin and use. Iain Murray notes that there are around fifty-five psalms
that “were given to be sung by Levitical choirs in public worship.” However,
“the title of other Psalms, such as the seventeenth and the ninetieth, refers
to them as prayers, indeed a section of the Book appears to have been given
that name at the end of Psalm 72: ‘The prayers of David the son of Jesse are
ended.’ Other Psalms, perhaps forty in number, may be said to be chiefly for
instruction. That all the Psalms were ever used in the temple in worship, or
that all were ever given for congregational praise, is simply an assumption and
rests on no evidence. For many Psalms there is no indication at all that they
were set to music for public worship.”[15]
The exclusive psalmody position, therefore, is extra-biblical
and as such it violates the regulative principle of worship, which states that
we should only worship God in the way that he has commanded us to worship him.
As Greg Bahnsen says, “to prohibit congregational singing of anything but the
Old Testament psalms is an unwarranted addition to the word of God (cf. Deut.
4:2) and – ironically – a violation of the regulative principle of worship
thereby.” This is an important observation because, as Iain Murray has pointed
out, exclusive psalmists “sometimes speak as though ‘purity of worship’ was
only known amongst them.”[16]
Nevertheless, we do want to make it clear that we believe that exclusive
psalmists hold to the regulative principle of worship and strive to be faithful
to it. The difference between us and them is not in adherence to the regulative
principle, but in our respective applications of it or as Lee Irons puts it, “The
issue is how Scripture regulates song in worship.”[17]
Are metrical psalms inspired?
Exclusive Psalmists are correct to point out that psalms are
inspired, whereas that is not the case with hymns. However, metrical psalms,
which are the ones we sing in worship, should not be regarded as inspired
Scripture. In fact, they are not even on par with a good English translation of
the Psalms. Stephen Pribble rightly says, “One cannot justify a metrical
paraphrase on the same basis one would justify a translation; a metrical
paraphrase is not a translation, but a paraphrase of a translation, and
therefore one step removed from a translation. Singing a metrical Psalm is not
the same as singing inspired Scripture; Psalms in meter are in fact hymns of
human composition paraphrasing the Psalter, and not identical to inspired
Scripture.”[18]
The puritan John Ball made a similar observation in 1640. He
wrote: “We cannot say that the psalms as they are sung in meter in our
churches, or (for ought I know) in any churches in the Christian world, are the
immediate and infallible truth of God, given by inspiration of God, any more
then we can say of an holy paraphrase upon the scripture, that it is, the
Scripture itself.”[19]
May we sing hymns?
We have already seen that the command to sing psalms cannot
be restricted to singing the Psalter. So, what should we sing in worship? T. David
Gordon has pointed out that there are numerous texts in the Psalms themselves
that tell us to sing songs and even to some degree what types of songs we are
to sing, (sing praise to God; sing thanks to God; sing about God’s deeds,
etc.), yet “without restricting any of such song to either the words or content
of the canonical psalms…or inspired literature.”[20] In other words, the Bible
tells us to sing in worship and it gives us the freedom to compose our own
songs for worship.[21]
This freedom comports well with the fact that we have been
created in God’s image with the abilities to hear, think, meditate, feel, choose,
formulate, and articulate. We are not computers or robots who regurgitate what
has been put into us or given to us. We should not, therefore, downplay or
ignore the difference between revelation from God and the human response
to that revelation. God acts on our behalf, and he speaks to us, and we respond
with our whole being by means of our God-given abilities in song, prayer, and
praise to what God has done and has said to us in these last days through his
Son.
To ask what we should sing, therefore, is like asking what we
should say in our sermons but even more like asking what we should pray in our
prayers. We may pray the words of Scripture (e.g., The Lord’s Prayer) and we
may pray in our own words. However, we are to compose our own prayers according
to the general rules of the Bible (e.g., there is only one God and therefore we
are only to pray to that one God), and the specific directives in Scripture on
prayer (e.g., pray in Jesus’ name). Further help in constructing our prayers will
come from the examples in Scripture. We learn how and what to pray from the
prayers we find in the Bible, including the ones we find in the Psalter. Indeed,
we may simply adopt and modify them. For example, I may adopt Psalm 51 as my
own prayer but modify it with NT teaching by asking God to wash me in the blood
of Jesus that I may be whiter than snow.
The same is true for singing. Like prayer, our compositions
must be in accord with the general rules of Scripture, and the specific
directives on singing.[22]
Furthermore, biblical songs serve as templates for our own songs, and we may
adopt and modify them even as we may do so with biblical prayers. Contrary to
some exclusive psalmists, Isaac Watts was certainly within his biblical right to
paraphrase or re-work the psalms considering the further revelation we have
received from God.
In this regard, it is worth noting the close connection
between prayer and singing. Psalm 90 is a prayer of Moses, yet it is also sung
(see also Ps. 42:8). We can say our prayers to God, and we can sing them.
Hence, if we are allowed to pray “Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! All thy
works shall praise they name,” then why wouldn’t we be allowed to sing the very
same words, especially since our prayers may be sung? Likewise, if we may pray
a New Testament informed version of Psalm 51, in the style of Isaac Watts, why
wouldn’t we be allowed to sing it? Although singing is not the same in every
respect as the spoken word, they both are ways in which we respond to God, and
there is nothing unique about singing that would suggest that it must be
regulated differently than our prayers.[23]
Similarly, there is a close connection between singing and
teaching. In fact, just as singing may be a form of praying, so it may be a
form of teaching. Paul makes that point in Ephesians and Colossians. Paul says
that we need to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly so that we might
teach and admonish one another in all wisdom by singing psalms, hymns, and
spiritual songs. Now if we are allowed to teach biblical truth with uninspired words,
then why shouldn’t we be able to sing songs that teach with uninspired words?
The close relationship between singing, praying, and
teaching ought to lead us to see that the arguments against singing uninspired
hymns could also be used against our praying uninspired prayers and against our
preaching uninspired sermons. Thus, when you read the arguments against hymns
in that light, it should help you to see why they miss the mark. For example, if
you reason that we should only sing the canonical psalms because they are the
best songs to sing since they are God’s word, then consistency demands that you
should apply that to prayer and preaching. There are no better prayers to pray
than the prayers in the Bible (including many in the Psalter) since they are
God’s word. Therefore, we should only pray the words of Scripture. Why would we
dare to use something inferior when we pray? Who can teach the truth of God
better than God himself in the Bible? Therefore, the preacher should simply
read the Bible, and not use his own words to explain it. Who does he think he
is, after all? Does the preacher think that he can say it better than God? The
fact of the matter is that the Bible tells us to sing, pray and preach without
limiting our songs, prayers, and sermons to the very words of Scripture. The
Bible gives us the freedom to use our own words.
We might also point out that the context of Ephesians 5:19
and especially that of Colossians 3:16 strongly suggests that we should compose
new songs that incorporate NT teaching.[24]
As Lee Irons has pointed out, if Paul only wanted us to sing the Psalter, then
there would have been no need to mention “with all wisdom.” You don’t need “all
wisdom” to choose a psalm from the Psalter. However, to sing songs of praise
and instruction based on the new revelation in Christ, you not only need “all
wisdom,” you also need to let the word of Christ richly dwell within you.[25]
Paul, therefore, seems to be instructing the church to sing new songs of praise
in worship, which is what, as we have seen, some puritans understood Paul to be
saying.[26]
This conclusion fits well with what we see throughout
redemptive history and with the new revelation that has come to us in and
through God’s Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. John Frame writes: “In Scripture, new
acts of God call for ‘new songs’ (Pss. 33:3; 40:3; 144:9; 149:1; Isa. 42:10;
Rev. 5:9; 14:3). God delivers his people from Egypt, and they sing a new song
(Ex. 15). He gives them water in the wilderness, and they sing (Num. 21:17). He
renews the covenant and commits it to their memory with the song of Deuteronomy
32. Christ is conceived by the Spirit, and Mary responds with her Magnificat
(Luke 1:46-55; compare 1:67-79; 2:14, 29-32). The picture is not one of a
static hymnal given by God for all time; rather, it is the dynamic picture of
God continually doing wonderful deeds and his people responding to them with
shouts of praise. Just as God’s deliverances elicit new prayers of thanksgiving
and new subject matter for preaching, so they elicit new songs. In this regard,
is it even remotely possible that the greatest divine deliverance of all, the
redemptive work of Christ, should not evoke new songs?”[27]
One final point I want to make is in relation to the charge
that hymn singers embrace a form of dispensationalism. This accusation is based
upon the fact that the psalms speak about Christ and therefore we don’t need
new hymns to sing about him. And to think otherwise implies that the Psalter is
not a “Christian songbook,” and that way of thinking is akin to a
dispensational view of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. This
is a terrible argument. Recognizing that the NT contains new revelation and
singing about that new revelation is not remotely dispensational. It is
thoroughly biblical and Reformed. Moreover, is it “credible that the language
of Christian praise must ever be confined to the words of an age of far less
light and privilege? Is this difference between Old and New to be recognized in
preaching and prayer but not song?”[28]
Again, John Frame:
“Are the Psalms adequate for the New Testament Christian?
Certainly we cannot criticize their theology, since they are divinely inspired.
And the Psalms do testify of Christ, as the New Testament shows in its use of
the Psalter. But the Psalms present Christ in the ‘shadows’ (Col. 2:17), in
terms of the incomplete revelation of the Old Testament period (Heb. 1:1-3).
Indeed, to limit one’s praise to the Psalms is to praise God without the name
of Jesus on one’s lips.”
“But the completeness of redemption in Christ requires a
whole new language of praise: about Jesus the God-man, his once-for-all
finished atonement, his resurrection for our justification, and our union with
him by faith as the new people of God. Doubtless there are anticipations of
these doctrines in the Psalter, but Christian worship demands more than the
language of anticipation. It demands the language of fulfillment and
completeness, for that is what is distinctive about New Testament faith. It is
precisely the accomplishment of God’s mighty works that evokes praise in
Scripture.”[29]
[1] Gordon
thus notes: “It would be profoundly ironic, then, if the NT saints could not
only sing no more than the OT saints, but less (emphasis his).” NOTE:
Joel Willitts in his logos course on Jewish Literature during Second Temple
Period says that the Psalms of Solomon were used liturgically in the synagogue.
[2] See
Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Guides to the Reformed Tradition, 43-45.
[3]
Benjamin Shaw, Studies in Church Music, 13. Iain Murray writes that
“within ten years of the death of the apostle John, a Roman governor, Pliny, is
to be found describing Christians as those who ‘assemble early in the morning,
and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as to God.’” The
Psalter – The Only Hymnal?, 14fn16. See also John Ball, A Friendly Triall,
59.
[4]
Old, Worship, 49-51.
[5]
Genevan churches sang the metrical decalogue, the Kyrie eleison (Lord,
have mercy), the Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ Creed and the Nunc dimittis,
which is Simeon’s song in Luke 2:29-32. See Stephen Pribble, The Regulative
Principle and Singing of Worship, 15-16.
[6] Manton, T. (1871). The Complete Works of Thomas Manton (Vol. 04, p. 442).
[7]
John Ball, A Friendly Triall, 58-59.
[8]
Shaw, Studies, 19. See also Iain H. Murray, The Psalter – The Only
Hymnal?, 13ff.
[9] The
Oxford English Dictionary as cited by Pribble, 15.
[10]
Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 285. The proof texts are
noteworthy, especially in light of the interpretation of these verses in the
above John Ball citation.
[11]
Pribble, 7.
[12] See
the OPC GA Report on Song in Worship: https://opc.org/GA/song.html.
See also Gary Crampton, Exclusive Psalmody, https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63.
Note that the word “spiritual” can’t be restricted to “inspired” (see 1 Cor.
2:15; 3:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 6:12).
[13]
T. David Gordon: “Several problems attend this reasoning about a
“collection.” First, as we mentioned
earlier, the canonical Proverbs are manifestly a “collection” of
wisdom-sayings. Why, then, would we not
consider them to be a complete summary of human wisdom, not needing to be
supplemented by anything else?
Similarly, the OT scriptures themselves were “collected” into a
canonical corpus long before the birth of Christ; so why do we need any more
scriptures after this collection is given to us? The public proclamation of Christ (or a large
part of it) is collected for us in the Sermon on the Mount; does this mean that
preachers today can only preach the Sermon on the Mount? The four canonical gospels are plainly
collections of material on the history of the work of Christ; does this mean we
can only speak about the work of Christ in the words of the canonical gospels?”
[14]
Frame, 125. Note also John Ball, pp. 58-59.
[15] Murray,
7. E.J. Young: “we are mistaken when we regard the entire Psalter as designed
for the usage of the Temple. That some Psalms were so used cannot be denied,
but it is interesting to note that liturgical directions are lacking for many
of the Psalms. The Psalter, rather, is primarily a manual and guide and model
for the devotional needs of the individual believer. It is a book of prayer and
praise, to be meditated upon by the believer, that he may thereby learn to
praise God and pray to Him…
The Psalms in which the first person pronoun is employed are obviously
designed to express primarily the experience of an individual. This fact is
more and more being recognized (by, e.g.,
Mowinckel, Balla, and others). Of course, this does not preclude the usage of
these Psalms in divine worship, but such usage is secondary. While today
Christians should sing Psalms in the worship of the Church, they do great wrong
to neglect the Psalter in individual devotions.” Introduction to the Old
Testament, 310.
[16] Murray,
28.
[17]
Lee Irons, Thoughts on Exclusive Psalmody, https://www.the-highway.com/psalmody_Irons.html.
[18]
Pribble, 13. He goes on to say, “Exclusive Psalm-singers, maintain that the
Scriptures require the use of inspired song in worship. But in practice the
issue is not a dispute between those who use only inspired song and those who
use uninspired song, for it must be remembered that there are few, if any,
churches that sing or chant the Psalms right out of the Bible and reject the
use of metrical paraphrases altogether.”
[19]
John Ball, A Friendly Triall, 59.
[20]
See T. David Gordon, Some Thoughts on Exclusive Psalmody. He writes: “Texts
that teach that we are to sing praise or thanks to God, without restricting the
content of such praise or thanks to canonical psalms or inspired literature. These
passages are similar to those that exhort us to pray, without restricting the
content of such prayer to canonical psalms or other inspired literature”: Pss.
30:4; 33:3; 47:6; 68:4; 81:1-3; 84:4; 92:1; 95:1; 98:4; 100:2; 147:7; 149:1, 5.
“Texts that teach that we are to sing praise or thanks to God for His “deeds”
or “works,” without specifying what those “deeds” or “works” are, and
therefore, presumably, approving praise or thanks of any of His works”: Pss. 9:11; 66:1; 98:1; 105:2; see also Isa. 12:5.
“Texts that teach that we are to sing praise or thanks to God for His
redemptive/soteric acts, which would presumably include His supreme redemptive
act in Christ”: Psa. 96:1.
[21]
Iain H. Murray: “The regulative principle controls what shall or shall not be
parts of worship: it is sung praise that is authorized as a part, not the very
words of which that part has to be made up.” The Psalter – The Only Hymnal?,
11.
[22] Our
Directory for the Public Worship of God states: “…the character of the songs
used therein is to befit the nature of God and the purpose of worship…In the
choice of song for public worship, great care must be taken that all the
materials of song are fully in accord with the Scriptures. The words are to be
suitable for the worship of God and the tunes are to be appropriate to the
meaning of the words and to the occasion of public worship. Care should be
taken to the end that the songs chosen will express those specific truths and
sentiments which are appropriate at the time of their use in the worship
service.”
[23]
Edward Leigh (1603-1671): “As we may lawfully sing Scripture psalms, so also
Songs and Psalms of our own…For seeing a Psalm is but a musical praier for the
most part, therefore we may make Songs for our selves agreeable to the Word of
God as well as prayers, and God knowing the efficacie of Poetry and Musick, to
help memory and stirre up affection doth allow his people to use it for their
spiritual comfort as well as natural.” A systeme or body of divinity
(London, 1654), 610. See also the OPC GA Report on Song in Worship; Gordon, 30-31;
Ball, pp. 55-57, where he argues that the differences between singing and
praying do not negate their commonalities and therefore the argument by analogy
is sound.
[24]
OPC GA Report on Song in Worship: “in Col. 3:16 there is a presumption against
the exclusion of New Testament songs from the songs there mentioned. Paul says,
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and
admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs...." To
the Colossians, who had lately been brought from darkness into light through
the gospel message, the phrase "the word of Christ" would probably
mean the gospel message about Christ. And, as the word of Christ dwells in them
richly, psalms, hymns and spiritual songs will flow forth in consequence; these
songs will reflect the content of the word of Christ; and by means of these
songs believers are urged to teach and admonish one another in all wisdom. Thus
at least some of these songs would be newly composed, either extemporaneously
or as the result of some thought.”
[25]
Lee Irons further notes: “Now, it is true that the Psalms speak of Christ (Luke
24:44). But surely Paul does not mean, ‘Let the Psalms’ message about Christ
dwell in you as you teach and admonish one another by singing the Psalms.’
Rather, Paul is exhorting the Colossians to let the mystery, which has been
kept hidden from previous generations but is now disclosed to the saints (Col.
1:26), dwell in them richly so that, through the songs that result from such reflection,
they may teach and admonish one another in all the implications of that mystery.”
[26]
Some have argued that Colossians Ephesians passages are not dealing with public
worship, but the fact that we are to sing to one another indicates that he is
referring to a worship gathering.
[27]
Frame, Worship, 125. Similarly, T. David Gordon says:
“I suggest that the implied
message of the Psalter itself is this:
That as God does new works of salvation and deliverance, His people
properly respond in praise and thanks to these new works, composing new
devotional material to correspond to the new acts of God. That is, when the Israelites return from
Babylon, they do not merely sing psalms about the deliverance from Egypt, even
though one could certainly see the
Exodus as “typical” of that later deliverance.
Rather, despite the obvious typology/analogy, they compose new songs to
express their gratitude for this specific
act of deliverance. Throughout Israel’s
history a three-fold pattern is evident:
Deed-Prophetic Interpretation-Song.
God acts, His prophets interpret those acts, and the people respond with
appropriate song. The “cessation” of new
psalms in the OT corresponds identically with the cessation of OT revelation
itself; that is, when God’s distinctive acts, prophetically interpreted, cease,
the composition of new songs also ceases.
But any Israelite living in the period between the testaments would
almost certainly have expected that the pattern of Deed-Prophetic
Interpretation-Song would resume at the next epochal moment in her history.
When Christ entered human
history incarnate, when he died and rose for God’s people, one would only
expect, from the pattern revealed in the Psalms themselves, that there would be prophetic interpretation of this
great act of God, and that there would be songs composed in response to the
act. It is for this reason that many of
us reject the arguments of exclusive psalmody.
We reject them not because they have no
plausibility; they have some
plausibility. But we believe they come
nowhere close to bearing the burden of weight that rightly rests upon
them. How can one explain the silence of
God’s people, who raised songs of praise, thanks, and lament at every
comparatively-inferior moment in the history of redemption, when the supreme
moment has arrived? What has held the
tongue of the once-composing-and-singing people? What has curbed the devotional composition of
a grateful people? The song of
Revelation, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain…” is precisely what one would expect.
And yet, ostensibly, we must await heaven to sing that song. We may sing of the Lamb typologically through
canonical psalms, but we may not sing of the Lamb expressly; even though Israel
could sing expressly of deliverance from Babylon, and was not restricted to
singing of it typologically through Exodus-psalms.
Every author structures his
words in a certain way. Whether in a
sonnet-form, or in descriptive narrative of various sorts, authors present
their thought in certain structures.
These structures inform the reader’s expectations of the author, and
this accounts for why we read a book faster in its middle and concluding
chapters than we do in the introductory ones; because in the earlier ones we
are learning (whether we are self-conscious of it or not) how the author is
structuring his thoughts. God is no less
an author than human authors; He also structures His thoughts according to
patterns that create expectations in us.
My suggestion, which I believe concords with the best of the history of
the Reformed tradition, is this: That
God Himself establishes the pattern of Deed-Prophetic Interpretation-Devotional
Response; God creates this expectation in us, by repeating it throughout
history. Therefore, exclusive psalmody,
which disrupts this pattern at its climactic moment, must offer us more than
question-begging, more than mere logical plausibility; it must assume the
burden of explaining to God’s people why this pattern has now been discarded at
the very moment when shadow gives way to substance. And this, I respectfully submit, it has not
done.”
[28]
Iain Murray, 23.
[29]
Frame, Worship, 125-126.
