Is Hymn
Singing in Church a Sin?
A Study Paper Presented to
the Consistory of Pilgrims' Reformed Church
by
Pastor Ron Potter
February 8, 1994
Reprinted by Permission, February, 1997. [This tract is intended for the edification and encouragement of the members and friends of Trinity Covenant Church, and is not intended to judge the worship of those who might think differently. We oppose elitism of all kinds, included musical elitism on both sides. CWP] Edited, with some additional Notes
I. Some Basic Presuppositions
A. It is to be presupposed
that the sole authority for this study is to be the Word of God. This is the
basic presupposition of the exclusive Psalm Singing (hereafter EPS) proponents
and must also be the position of any response that would have the glory of God
and His truth in view.
B. It is to be presupposed
that to the extent that there is an appeal made to a historic source or to a
particular writer it is to be only in the interest of biblical scholarship and
to further our understanding of the subject at hand. The final court of appeal
is the Word of God.
C. It is to be presupposed
that the argument is not against Psalm singing but against Exclusive Psalm
Singing. The argument for the inclusion of hymn singing in Worship is not to be
construed as an argument against Psalm singing in Worship, but only against
Exclusive Psalm Singing.
D. It is to be presupposed
that the whole question is not a matter of indifference in the long run. Both
an EPS and a non-EPS position cannot be right if God's Word is clear on the
matter. It must be one or the other. This writer believes that the logical
inference of the EPS argument is that it is a sin to sing hymns in worship. I
for one, disagree. I believe, in what follows, that hymns may be sung in
worship for the glory of God and the profit of God's people. This is the
position I will attempt to establish.
II. The Construction of the EPS Argument; Together with Biblical Responses. There are many arguments that may be used in favor of the EPS position that are not primary pillars in their position. It is not my intent to take each of these up inasmuch as they are recognized by the writers themselves as secondary. I do however wish to deal with those pillars of the EPS argument without which the secondary arguments, while being informative, are not conclusive. Very often the pillars of an argument govern the outcome for they set the course along which the argument must proceed to its conclusion. The following represents what this writer perceives as the pillars of the EPS argument together with a biblical response to them.
A. The EPS argument is that singing is an act of Worship distinct from other practices of worship. John Murray in the Minority Report presented to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the Fourteenth General Assembly makes this distinction. This writer does not disagree. Singing is distinct from preaching or praying in worship. But it does not therefore follow that though they are distinct acts in worship that divine authorizations concerning one part of worship cannot be applied to another part of worship.
Nor can it be argued that what is right and proper in one area of worship (i.e. prayer and preaching) is sin in another (i.e. singing). Yet this is what EPS proponents assert without proving the point. What needs to be proven in support of the EPS position is that there is a clear line of demarcation between spoken and sung speech acts in the Scriptures; that what is said of one cannot be applied to the other. Certainly that demarcation cannot be established by an appeal to the Psalms for they are BOTH singing acts and speaking acts. Psalm 72:20 for example states: “The prayers of David, the Son of Jesse are ended.” The Scripture does not have a line of demarcation between what is spoken in prayer and what is sung. Are we to assume that one must exclusively sing the Psalms but not exclusively pray them? If we are not bound to exclusively pray the Psalms how then can we be bound to exclusively sing them? The proponent of EPS needs to prove the distinction between speech acts and singing acts, not assume it.
Another example is that of Paul and Silas. Acts 16:25: “And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.” The word “and” does not appear in the original Greek. The sense is that Paul and Silas “praying hymned” for so is the Greek for “sang praises” (humnoun). There is no clear line of demarcation between a speech act and a singing act.
Again, in Deuteronomy 32 where Moses taught the congregation of Israel a song concerning the Lord (Deuteronomy 31:30) he refers to this song, after he taught it, as testimony and a law (32:46). Again, no clear demarcation between a speech act and a singing act. The burden is upon the EPS advocate to prove there is a line of demarcation between a speech act and a singing act, and not assume it without evidence.
B. The EPS argument from the application of the Regulative Principle of Worship as referencing the Second Commandment together with a response.
B__ A__ writes of the regulative
principle as “the really authoritative argument for psalmody...” and references
the regulative principle of worship to the Second Commandment. He also quotes
the last part (italicized below) to the answer to question 96 of the Heidelberg
Catechism which asks: What is required in the Second Commandment? “That we
in no wise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than he has
commanded us in His Word.” again referencing the regulative principle to
the Second Commandment.
What this generally sets the
stage for is requiring of those opposed to an EPS position to come up with a
verse of scripture that actually commands the writing of any song or hymn apart
from that which is already given by God in the Psalter. Mr.__ does indeed ask
this. “So here it is: where did God command us to write our own hymns in His
worship?”
At issue here is “express
commands” versus “good and necessary consequences” (the Westminster Confession
of Faith [hereafter WCF] term for biblical inferences). Reformed Christianity,
as evidenced by the WCF has always held that whatever is necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is
either expressly set down in Scripture, or may be inferred from it. A__ A__
references this as one of his major presuppositions in his EPS argument. To
think therefore that an “inferential” basis for hymns is inadequate and that
the regulative principle requires an “express command” is an unwarranted
application of the principle itself.
Two things must be kept in view
with respect to the regulative principle.
First, more than the second commandment is involved. EPS
advocates are too narrow in referencing the regulative principle to the second
commandment. It is applicable to the first four commandments. The First
Commandment sets forth who is to be worshipped; the Second, How He is to be
worshipped (in Spirit and in truth); the Third, That He is to be worshipped and
Where, and Fourth, When we are to worship and with respect to what (our six
days of labor). To reference the regulative principle to only the Second
Commandment is to have too narrow a focus, which leads me to consider:
Secondly, the regulative principle as broadly stated above, must be
understood in terms of its focus on the person of Christ and in His saving work
as the fulfillment of the promises and patterns of redemptive history. The book
of Hebrews clearly teaches that the exactness of the regulation of Old Covenant
worship was to mirror or set forth the Lord Jesus Christ. It was a type of
Christ until reformation came. Any application of the regulative principle must
therefore be Christ-focused.
To illustrate all this, you will
not find a verse to support Sunday as the Sabbath. But by inference Sunday is
established as the New Testament day of rest and worship. And why is it so
inferred that in the New Covenant worship can be regulated to the first day of
the week? Because of the finished work
of Jesus Christ in making atonement for sin and His rising victorious, from the
dead, on the first day of the week.
Any application of the
regulative principle that is limited to the Second Commandment only and which
does not take into account the First, Second and Fourth Commandments and which
does not have a Christ- focus is too narrow. A consistent application of this
“narrow” notion of the regulative principle would mean that a specific command
regulating the Lord's Day would be necessary to warrant a change from the Old
Covenant Sabbath. I know of no EPS advocate who is consistent in his
application of the regulative principle at this point. Thus, this writer
contends that the EPS pillar of the regulative principle is a narrow
application of something intended to be much broader, and that in light of this
broader view the EPS position is undercut.
Moreover, to use the regulative
principle to argue from the command to sing Psalms to Exclusive Psalmody a
misapplication of the regulative principle, and a non sequitur. Every stage in
redemptive history was characterized by a fresh outbreak of inspired praise
songs which are not included in the Psalter. These songs reflect on advances in
redemptive history and as one enters the New Covenant there are several praises
that take the form of songs which contain allusions to, and quotations from,
the ancient words of promise but which are “updated” by the Holy Spirit in
terms of the New Covenant focus on the Savior, Jesus Christ in the same way
that Ezra in the return from the exile update the psalms by adding the words
“to Israel”.
Would an advocate of EPS claim
that any of these inspired songs are contrary to the regulative principle
because they do not appear in the Psalter. I think not. Advocates of EPS are
quick to point out that these are “inspired songs,” but this is to beg the
question. The fact that these inspired songs did not make it into the Psalter
does not mean they are not to be sung in worship. I should think what Moses or
an angel sang or an inspired priest sang, or what the Elders sang in Revelation
is suitable material every bit as much as what David or Asaph sang. These
demonstrate that songs outside the Psalter and within the parameters of the
regulative principle (broadly understood) are singable and thus “by good and
necessary consequence” commanded by God.
C. The EPS arguments from definitions centered around Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 together with responses.
Ephesians 5:19
“Speaking to yourselves in
psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody
in your heart to the Lord.”
Colossians 3:16
“Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one
another in psalms and hymns
and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the
Lord.”
Much of the EPS argument centers
around the meaning of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” in the above texts.
EPS advocates define these words as being a reference to the Old Covenant Psalms.
I suggest it may be a case of finding what you are looking for. Let me set
forth several points on this.
First, as A__ A__ admits, these passages are not in the context
of public worship. To this the Minority Committee Report on song would nod
assent. Why then exegete this passage in support of EPS in Worship? This is
nothing more than an arbitrary application of a text to provide support for a
position. If on the other hand the EPS exegesis is accepted, it proves too
much: namely, that a Christian is never to sing anything other than Psalms even
outside of worship, something contrary to the non-Psalm songs of praise noted
previously in Scripture.
Second, to state that the Apostle Paul needs to add “hymns and
spiritual songs” to establish the fact that it is Psalms exclusively he has in
mind is contrary to the rest of the New Testament where “Psalms”, when
referencing the book of Psalms, is sufficient. The use of “hymns and spiritual
songs” would seem to detract from an EPS position rather than establish it. It
would appear he has something in addition to Psalms in mind, namely “hymns and
spiritual songs.”
Third, when the word “Psalms” is used by the New Covenant
Scriptures in quoting from the Book of Psalms itself more than “Psalms” is
used. For example,
“And he said unto them, These
are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things
must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the Psalms, concerning me.”
Acts 1:20
“For it is written in the book
of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and
his bishopric let another take.”
Acts 13:33
“God hath fulfilled the same
unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is
also written in the second Psalm,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”
Whenever the New Covenant
Scriptures refer to the book of Psalms in a definite way the
definite article is used, which
in Greek usage is like a teacher tapping the blackboard with a
pointer at a particular spot to
make a definitive point. No such definite article appears in
Ephesians 5:19 or Colossians
3:16. One is left with the impression that Paul was not referring
specifically and emphatically to
THE book of Psalms but simply to Psalms, hymns and
spiritual songs. This is the
plain reading of the text.
Fourth: Mr._____ defines the words “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual
Psalms” as divisions or title of the Psalms. This gives a rather shaky
construction of an avowed important pillar of the EPS position. These three
words are translations of a number of Hebrew words which serve the task of
describing many, but not all the Psalms. They are not titles; they are
descriptions.
Rev. Robert Grossmann, former
professor of New Testament History at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, in private
correspondence to this writer notes: “...that these three Greek words (Psalmos,
humnos, odee; ie, Psalms, hymns and songs) were the only common words for song
available to the translators of the Septuagint and they used Psalmos to
translate MORE THAN ONE Hebrew word.”
According to another source the noun
“hymn” is employed by the Septuagint “in translating the Hebrew names for
almost any kind of poetic composition” and adds that it “does not seem to have
in the Septuagint, any very special meaning.”
The same source states that the
Hebrew word for “song” (shir) and the Greek for the same word (ode), were
“generally used on occasions of thanksgiving and triumph.” (cf. Song of Moses,
Miriam, Barak and Deborah etc. referred to above.) This is borne out by Hosea
2:15 “And I will give her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a
door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in
the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt.” Again from this source: “In
this sense a new song denotes a great deliverance and a new subject of
thanksgiving; so a new song, as in Psalm 40:3; Revelation 5:9 and elsewhere,
implies a new work of salvation and favor, requiring an extraordinary return of
gratitude and praise.”
Contrary to EPS advocates who
seek to define “Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” as buttressing their
position, the actual use of the words is more generic and broad than is first
asserted.
Fifth, if in fact “Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” is to be
understood in this sense as “Psalms, Psalms, Psalms” the apostle has engaged in
a redundancy that is not peculiar to his epistles and strange, to say the
least, to the rest of the New Covenant Scriptures.
Sixth: If we are to believe that “spiritual songs” are
tantamount to “inspired songs” as EPS advocates claim, then it seems strange
that Paul would use the Greek word “pneumatikos” (spiritual) and not the Greek
word “theopneustos” (God breathed) as in 2 Timothy 3:16. John Murray in the
Minority report cited above contends that “pneumatikos” (spiritual) means
“given by the Spirit” or “proceeding from the Spirit as theopneustos.” In other
words “spiritual” is the same as “inspired”. Thus Paul is contending for only
“inspired songs”. If this were the case then the EPS position is undercut
because, in their view, only those “songs” that are in the Psalter are eligible
to be sung. But here Paul would extend that to all “inspired songs” including
non-Psalter songs.
But the truth is that
“pneumatikos” is not the same as “theopneustos”. If it were then several
problems are apparent. For example in Galatians 6:1 when we are told that the
spiritual (pneumatikos) are to restore one caught in sin, it would mean that
only “inspired” Christians could undertake this task. Again, in 1 Corinthians
15:44, are we to understand that when the body is sown a natural body and
raised a “spiritual” body that this means Christians at the resurrection will
have an “inspired” body? No way! Again, are we to understand in Ephesians 6:15
when we fight against “spiritual” wickedness that this is “inspired”
wickedness? I think not! But when you make “spiritual” equivalent to “inspired”
this is what you must do.
It is interesting to observe
that Murray, in the Minority report cited earlier, adopts the position that
“spiritual” is equivalent to “inspired” and rejects the obviously correct
interpretation of Trench without giving any exegetical reason. Trench states
that “they were such as were composed by spiritual men, and moved in the sphere
of spiritual things. In other words rather than composing “natural” songs or
songs of the “flesh” the believer, in the light of Jesus Christ WHO IS THE
SUBJECT AND OBJECT OF THE PASSAGES IN QUESTION, is expected to compose
“pneumatikos odais”, NON-INSPIRED BUT THOROUGHLY SPIRITUAL SONGS.
An Old Covenant example of this
is Hezekiah in Isaiah 38:20: “The LORD was ready to save me: therefore we will
sing my songs to the stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house
of the LORD.” The inference is that these were songs composed by Hezekiah, a
spiritual man, and they were suitable for Divine worship.
In the New Covenant Scriptures,
in Revelation 14:3 there is a song sung before the throne that is a “new song”
and “no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand,
which were redeemed from the earth.” Clearly this is not a Psalm and yet is
suitable to sing before the throne by the redeemed in Christ who alone knew it.
Sixth: If the great redemptive act of Jesus Christ in the New
Testament could be celebrated only with hymns and spiritual songs and only and
exclusively with the Old Covenant Psalter then the name of Jesus Christ could
never be taken upon the lips of a believer in song in public worship (or for
that matter in private since the Colossians and Ephesians passages have
ordinary life in view and not public worship). To hold to an EPS position means
that one could preach the name of Jesus, pray the name of Jesus but never ever
sing the name of Jesus.
Nothing could be more contrary
to the whole spirit of the New Covenant which at every turn celebrates and
acknowledges the truth that, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved.”
This being the case then, the
passages in question, when defined biblically, far from establishing the EPS
position, demolish it. Believers are to sing Psalms, but also hymns and
spiritual songs.
III. Concluding Comments
A. This writer acknowledges that there are other secondary and emotional and historical arguments that may be brought to bear in support of the EPS position. G.I. Williamson does this in his sermon entitled “The Singing Savior.” So also does Mr.__ in his paper to Consistory. As tempted as I am to show that subjective appeal and experience is not the stuff out of which good exegesis is made; however much I would like to explore the historical argument and show that there were Church Councils that were not in favor of EPS; however I would desire to show that the EPS issue came to the fore at the time of the Puritans and not earlier in church history; and however much I would like to argue that the WCF does not take an exclusive position but in fact is promoting Psalms in an age of apostasy from the singing of them, I will, alas, sheath my keyboard and await another occasion, believing that the main pillars upon which the EPS argument rests have been considered and have been shown to be more than wanting in spite of the excellent scholarship and thought that has been given them.
B. I would also categorically state that on the basis of the above responses to the EPS position, that hymns and spiritual songs in addition to the Psalter are to be sung in the worship of God and on ordinary occasions. It is not, in this writers view, a sin to sing a hymn.
C. As an interesting aside, after receiving both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Committee on Song in Worship at the 13th and 14th General Assemblies of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the 16th General Assembly (1949) ordered the production of the Trinity Hymnal which contains Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. No mention is made of the EPS debate in the Minutes of the 15th, GA.
D. It is instructive to note that Calvin does not take an EPS position in his commentary on Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 and in fact supports the position this writer has taken as outlined above.
E. This writer would note that he is in agreement with his EPS brethren that there are some very theologically off base and error ridden hymns and spiritual songs being promoted in the Church today. The presence of these is not an argument against hymns and spiritual songs per se but a call to diligence upon the part of worship leaders to ensure that what is sung is true and in accord with the revealed Word of God, in the same way that what is preached and prayed must be true and in accord with the revealed Word of God.
F. The position of the Reformed Church in the United States which is of 16th century continental origin has never been an EPS position. Its position accords with Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 as stated above. The EPS position is of Presbyterian extraction, not continental Reformed.
IV. This writer would like
to acknowledge the following persons and sources who contributed to his
knowledge of the EPS debate and which helped him formulate his response and
position.
A. Rev. Robert Grossmann
who conferred with this writer and gave permission to use material he had
produced on the subject of EPS and who as well as secured the Minutes of the
OPC GA's referred to frequently, for this writer's use.
B. Rev. Roger Wagner,
Pastor of Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church, San Diego who gave permission
to use a study paper produced for his Church's use on the subject of EPS.
C. The introduction to the
OPC reports cited above written by Peter A Lillback summarizing the development
of the regulative principle in the Reformed tradition.
D. Antithesis, a now
defunct publication (Volume 1, No. 2, March/April, 1990) in which a debate took
place on the issue of: “Does Scripture permit the use of hymns other than
Psalms in worship.”
E. The Council of
Chalcedon, May 1991, in which the following article appeared by Gary
Crampton: Thoughts on Exclusive Psalmnody.
G.
Volumes consulted included
those listed in the footnotes as well as: the Heidelberg Catechism; the Westminster
Standards; Ursinus's Commentary on the Heidelberg: The Psalms in
Worship, United Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1907; Calvin's Commentary
on Ephesians and Colossians; and The History of Christianity by
Latourette together with the initial documents provided by B__ A__ consisting
of a sermon by Rev. G.I. Williamson and three successive essays by Rev. A__
A__.
***************************
The above paper has been edited by Dr. C. W. Powell.
Original footnotes have been removed in order to save
space. Those who would like them should correspond with
Rev. Potter. It is used by the gracious permission
of Rev. Ron Potter, who is now Pastor of Covenant RCUS 47
S. Church St., Carbondale, Pa. 18407
Additional
notes
by Dr. C. W. Powell:
Spiritual Worship: An
additional consideration which I find compelling is the necessity of moving
toward externalism in worship if exclusive Psalmody is used, especially if we
also forbid musical instruments. Assuming that we use all the Psalms, we may
find on occasion that we are singing a passage such as “Praise God in his
sanctuary.... Praise him with the sound of the trumpet; praise him with the
psaltery and harp....” (Psalm 100). But, of course, we cannot do that, if we
are committed to EPS. Therefore, we must not even think of doing it, for to
think something that is forbidden is sinful. The Scriptures must, therefore,
become a snare to us if we even think of praising God in his sanctuary with a
trumpet or a stringed instrument. We must constantly be making allowances and
going through external motions, without giving true assent to these things in
our hearts and spirits. In this matter we cannot worship God in spiritual
worship (as opposed to meaningless ceremonies). What can be more meaningless
than to sing of praising God with a trumpet in his sanctuary, but not being
allowed to do so? Do we really believe that it is more “spiritual” to sing in
the church that Moab is a washpot, than it is to sing with Handel, "The
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised"? [I think I know the
meaning of the washpot (Psalm 60), but do I have to sing it in church? Wouldn't
it be better to sing Timothy Dwight's “I Love Thy Kingdom, Lord" the
spiritual fulfillment of the Psalm? If I can preach it and explain it, why
can't I explain it in song?]
There are many such references in the Psalms which have
particular reference to Israel, or David, or local circumstances, which cannot
be applied in any meaningful way to the spiritual worship required in the Gospel
age. The result is simply going through motions, without meaningful worship
taking place.
Then there are places like Ps. 96:1,2 “O sing unto the Lord
a new song: sing unto the Lord all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, bless his
name; show forth his salvation from day to day.” What? we are to sing of the salvation of the Lord, and never mention the
Savior, the Lord Jesus, except in veiled figures and hidden parables? Does “new
song” simply mean the same old songs with new meaning, or is it a prophecy
about Gospel worship? The rest of the Psalm is clearly a prophecy concerning
the taking of the Gospel to the ends of the earth and the establishing of
Gospel mercies and praises among the Gentiles. In those days the people would
sing a new song over the whole earth, coming into his courts in the beauty of
holiness. Must this not mean that wonderful music that the Jews could never
have known will carry the praises of the Redeemed into Heaven: “Worthy is the
Lamb that was slain!”
But is the church just to sing about singing a new song and
never sing it? Isn't this ceremonialism with a vengeance? Are we to be blind
leaders of the blind, singing puzzles and conundrums which only the initiated know?
Worship Is to Be In Spirit (John 4:23,24) Francis Turretin says that the phrase “in spirit” means
with spiritual worship, in opposition to the carnal and external worship which
prevailed under the Old Testament (Heb. 9:10). The Church's view of Christ was hidden
under types and shadows, but now we see clearly and plainly, and are changed
because we see Christ “evidently set forth, crucified” among us (Gal. 3:1). It
is just as wrong to insist that music be confined to the Old Testament, as it
would be to confine preaching and prayers to the Old Testament. It is wrong to
keep Christ hidden under figures and shadows.
Unbiblical, Unnecessary Divisions : The body of Christ is rent apart. Private interpretations
of Scripture have been used to mutilate the body of Christ so that we cannot
even worship together. The Reformers rightfully rejected the Anabaptist attempt
to build an elite church based upon a private interpretation concerning baptism
and the nature of the true church.
This church [Trinity Covenant in Colorado Springs] has had
visitors from EPS churches who refused to sing in our worship, not because we
sang hymns, but they even refused to sing Psalms, because we used a piano to
accompany the singing. If songs are prayers, then our prayers were considered
ungodly and irreverent because of a musical instrument--even biblical prayers
were considered irreverent because of a piano!
Shall we intrude our private interpretations into the
worship of the Lord, and divide the body of Christ over a
piano string? Is this what it means to submit one to
another in the fear of God? Is this what it means to esteem other better than
ourselves? I do not think so. Elitism of all kinds is reproved by the spirit
and the mind of the Lord Jesus, according to Philippians 2.
Regulative Principle: The
regulative principle cuts both ways. It not only forbids us to add to the
Scriptures, but also forbids us to subtract from them. If we are commanded to
pray in the name of Jesus, the regulative principle forbids us from banning the
name of Jesus from our sung prayers. The regulative principle was put forward
to deliver the church from the weight of tradition and man- made regulations
that had encrusted the Church of Jesus Christ over the years of papal
domination, not to free the church from singing songs of praise to the Name
which is above every name. It would appear to be sinful to forbid such singing,
especially in the temple, the House of Prayer, where public prayers are to most
fit to be made.
Legal, Wrathful Prayers :
Many of the Psalms breathe the spirit of Moses, and seem inappropriate for Christian
worship, without a great many mental caveats. Wrathful vengeance upon enemies,
God's hatred of sinners, blessings upon those who destroy God's enemies are
recurring themes. The spirit of Moses does not agree with the spirit of Christ,
who commands us to pray for our enemies, do good to those who despitefully use
us, and to forgive those who do all manner of evil against us.
Jesus gave us the pattern. Not once did He pray for judgment
upon his enemies, or call down vengeance upon them. In fact, He rebuked the
apostles for wanting to do this, “Ye know not what spirit ye are, for the Son
of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.” On the cross He
prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Certainly there is internal harmony between Moses
and Christ, which is beyond the scope of this paper. When Christ sent His
disciples forth into all the world to preach the Gospel, he forbade them to
take vengeance but to turn the other cheek. They were to do good to all men, to
bless and not to curse (James 3), to preach the righteousness of faith, not of
precept.
Did He expect them to fill their worship services with
prayers of vengeance and wrath? How can we sing and make melody in our hearts
unto the Lord, while praying for His wrath upon our families, our neighbors,
our enemies, and our fellow-citizens, contrary to the spirit and the example of
Christ? The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God. Moses will
always have those who preach him (Acts 15:21), but we are called to bless, and
not to curse.
The Gospel is certainly concealed in the book of Psalms.
There are many of the Psalms that breathe the spirit of Christ and the love and
mercy of God. But even in these, the Gospel truth is cast in Old Testament
figures and hidden under the uses and traditions of Moses. In Christian worship
we are to sweep away the veils and behold with open face the glory of the Lord,
in order to be changed into his image, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
(2Cor. 3:17,18)
“The tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of
deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we
men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedth
blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a
fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree,
my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both
yield salt water and fresh.” (James 3:8-12)
Jesus has died. The veil has been torn in two. The good
news goes to all the world. It is a message of peace and blessing.
“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take
the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and hast redeemed
us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and
priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” (Rev. 5:9,10)
------------------------------------
Write:
Pastor C. W. Powell
Trinity Covenant Church (RCUS)
6050 Del Paz Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
719-590-1477