|
|
|
Continuing
Thoughts on Worship: Four Years On By James Gunn Copyright 2008 Over the
past several weeks, I have been engaged in a review of my position concerning
Exclusive Psalmody (EP). And I have come to the realization that EP is not
something that can be isolated or examined entirely on its own. Rather, we
must strive to understand it in light of other issues such as Sola Scriptura,
the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) and ultimately—so I have come
to believe—the complete, sufficient and final work of Christ. In what
follows, I hope to be able to unpack some of my thinking along these lines. First,
I think it is important to remember in such a discussion as this that
if we choose to sing only from the Psalter our decision concerns merely
a matter of form, not substance, as I hope to show. Let me clarify.
The form of worship was of great concern
to the religious leaders of the Jewish nation during the inauguration
of the Solomonic temple, as instituted by the King and Prophet, David.
1 Chronicles, chapter 25 gives a full description. These musical forms
and the ceremonies that they accompanied became integrally associated
and part of the law of the temple. There were very specific forms
allowed and no others (refer to my discussion below). Yet in John
4:21-24, it appears that Christ changed that by describing worship
in completely different terms, commanding His believers to worship
in spirit and truth which terms He used to describe the substance
of worship as opposed to the mere form such worship might take. Now
while it might seem that in the OT, the external
form dominated while in the NT, the internal
motive dominates, such is not really the case. We can see this
in Isaiah 1:11 (and its context) where God says, "What are your
multiplied sacrifices to me?" Says the LORD. "I have had
enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; and I
take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats." Note
that the internal motive (the spiritual element) cannot be divorced
from the underlying biblical theology of which it is an expression
(the truth element) of worship. God demands that both be present.
I trust this will become clear as we progress. So for
me, the question really at issue is not the form of our expression of worship
but rather the underlying theology or truth expressed by our acts of worship.
In this context, the question that I must answer is not whether EP is the
only legitimate form of musical praise warranted by Scripture, but rather,
“Has Christ’s fulfillment of all the requirements of the OT law rendered
exclusive psalmody non-binding on
the Christian today?” In my previous article,
on this subject, I argued that EP was the only legitimate form of praise
permissible by Holy Scripture. This was partially the
result of being a member of two congregations in two different denominations that
gave short shrift to the theology of worship. In one so-called
seeker-sensitive congregation, praise was modern, upbeat, and often fluffy.
It was full of choruses that were devoid of any theological content
whatsoever, and was calculated to make the so-called
worshipper feel good with virtually no regard for what God required from His
worshippers, even though worship is fundamentally about giving Him honour and
glory and not ourselves. From this extreme, I began a process of looking at
worship with fresh eyes. The result of this investigation was an article that
fully endorsed the EP position. It was based on a
considered examination of the biblical facts as I found them and from which I
arrived at my conclusion. (It was also partially a result of this process
that led me to believe in the essential apostasy of the whole
“seeker-sensitive” movement within modern evangelicalism, and helped
lead me to the Reformed Church and its insistence on the great Reformation
principles of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Solus Christos (Christ alone), Sola Gratia, (Grace alone) Sola Fide (Faith alone), and Sola Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone). I am now
prepared to say that while I was well intentioned and that I was correct in
many specific observations, my
overall position in support of EP seems to me now to have been incorrect. I come
to this conclusion by a further examination of the issue from the point of
view that Christ has fulfilled all the requirements
of the law and so has rendered any obligations we might have outside of Him
as null and void. Once
ensconced within the Reformed tradition however, I soon began to discern two camps when it came to worship,
both of which were saying many of the same things though for very different
reasons. Mainstream Reformed Christianity sees the practice of EP as being
irrelevant and non-binding on the Christian and is happy to use uninspired
hymns along with psalms in the praise of God, while a minority of Reformed congregations
(such as the congregation of which I am currently a member) sees EP as the
only permissible form of musical praise with biblical warrant. The two NT
proof-texts most often quoted by members of the latter camp are Col. 3:16 and
Eph. 5:19. As well, many passages from the OT are also used
to prove the validity of the EP position. Moreover, both camps resort to the
Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) for justification. In line
with this train of thought is a two-part article written by Vern Poythress of
Westminster Seminary entitled “Ezra 3, Union With Christ, And Exclusive
Psalmody” (Part
1), (Part
2) in which he examines five points-of-view and makes a case for what he
calls the didascalia position. (My
own views—expressed here in broad terms—can be better
understood and seen in proper context when being read with a copy of
Poythress’ article, and an open bible, close to hand.) In
essence, Poythress maintains that we are not limited to the 150 Psalms from
the biblical psalter but are free to create hymnic material from portions of
the Bible in such a way that they teach about God’s revelation of
Himself from His Holy Scriptures, including the NT (Although he does not
address the issue, I assume his argument would allow, as part of musical
praise, any traditional hymn that could demonstrate the teaching or
proclaiming of biblical truth—the didascalia
position.) When confronted by this idea initially, I rejected it, as I
still maintained the EP position. While until recently I have considered much
of Poythress’ logic quite hypothetical and (for my own comfort level at
any rate) insufficiently supported by Scripture in general, I must admit that
I have come to see the validity of his argument and would now have to
consider myself in overall agreement with him, especially after seeing more
scriptural support than hitherto, as well as discovering that his ideas are
not all that new or radical (for instance, it seems supported by such men as
Donald Grey Barnhouse and others of his ilk). Let me give an example of what I
mean, quoting Poythress from his article, concerning the “singing of
Christ” as found in Rom.
15:9 and Heb.
2:12, Heb 2:12 pictures Christ as announcing God’s name in
its full, eschatologically deepened meaning, of which the psalms give only a
provisional taste. We must remember that in the context of Old Testament
revelation a person’s name is not merely a vocable but is meant to describe his character (Gen. 17:5, 15
21:5–6, 25:25–26). This is also true of the name of God (Exo.
3:13–16, 6:3, Gen. 32:28–29, Judg. 13:17–18). Hence to
“proclaim thy name” is to proclaim God’s character. Now, in
the fullness of time, God’s name is “the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ,” “the God who raised Christ Jesus from the
dead”! Furthermore, Heb. 2:12 pictures Christ as singing to the
congregation the account of the eschatological deliverance of God’s
chosen One (cf. the context of Ps. 22), which the psalter speaks of only in
provisional form. Hence Christ sings more words than
the 150 psalms. Barnhouse,
in his commentary on Romans (Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, 1964) in discussing the mind of Christ (volume 4, “God’s
Glory,” p. 57) has this to say about the “singing Christ”
of Rom. 5:19 and Heb. 2:12, It is certain that the one mind refers not only to a
community of thought among all true believers, but
to the domination of all believers by the mind of Christ. Let me suggest,
therefore, that the one voice indicates not only union with one another but union with our Savior God. The mind is Christ’s
mind thinking in us; the voice is Christ’s voice singing through
us….We should not be astonished at the thought of the singing Christ,
for it is beautifully expressed in the second chapter of Hebrews…
“Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the
church will I—Jesus Christ—sing praise unto thee” (Heb.
2:12). My own overarching
reason for abandoning the EP position is simply that Christ has fulfilled all
the requirements of the OT law (including the singing of the Psalms as part
of the cultic and ceremonial worship practices of the OT temple and
synagogues). Having said that, I am not maintaining that we should abandon
the singing of psalms, but merely that we exercise liberty in this regard as
the Psalms have weathered the storm since the time of Moses and they are
capable of expressing deep knowledge about God and His provision of
redemption. For instance, in the second half of his article, Poythress
maintains that Psalm 18 is a messianic Psalm (so far so good) and that verse
49 specifically refers to Christ’s singing
as a form of preaching or teaching. He says, “…there is no
obstacle to saying without qualification that Christ’s singing is a way
of preaching. And now the conclusion follows: as Christ brings the word of
God to the Gentiles in song, so we are to bring the word of God to our bothers
and Gentiles in song. Hence we may sing anything we may preach.” Most commentators
would agree with Poythress in saying that Psalm 18 is messianic. Others
however, might contend that Poythress goes too far in his assertions
especially concerning verse
49. For instance, let me quote from Albert Barnes’ commentary on
this particular verse, “The meaning is that he [David/Christ] would cause
the praises of God to be celebrated among foreign or heathen nations, as the
result of what God has done for him [David]. Far, probably, very far beyond
what David anticipated when he penned this psalm has been done. The psalm itself has
been chanted by millions who were not in existence, and in lands of which the
psalmist had no knowledge; and, connected as it has been with the other
psalms in Christian worship, it has contributed in an eminent degree to
extend the praises of God far in the earth and to transmit the knowledge of
him to generations….Millions not yet born will make use of this psalm
…as the medium of praise to God; and down to the most distant times this sacred song, in conexion
[sic] with the others in the Book
of Psalms, will contribute to make God known in the earth, and to secure
for him the praises of mankind” [emphasis added]. On one hand Barnes
seems to agree with the preaching/teaching function of biblical song, but on
the other to differ with Poythress in that he maintains the psalms themselves
are capable and sufficient for such teaching and preaching, without the need
for further (and uninspired) song. Poythress would counter by saying the
teaching and preaching found in the Psalms are, by and large, true but
provisional, awaiting the deeper meaning only to be found
with the advent of the new covenant. This argument skirts around the subject
of prophecy and its role in both teaching and proclamation so it might be
profitable to take a quick look at how prophecy fits into this discussion. Prophecy Prophecy
or prophesying is—in its broadest
sense—just proclaiming the words of God to His people (“Thus
saith the LORD”, “Verily, verily, I say unto you”, “It
is written”). Prophecy is often future-telling,
but it is not always so. Also, during OT times it was possible (although
unusual) for anyone to prophesy, at least temporarily i.e. King Saul. (In a sense,
one could say that the entire Bible is nothing other than one long, complex
prophecy.) It seems
in such verses as Col.
3:16 and Eph.
5:19 the “speaking” or “singing” to one another
is to be considered as a form of prophecy in the broad definition of a
proclamation or teaching function. We are able to consider psalm singing a
form of prophecy because of the inspired nature of the individual works found
in the Book of Psalms; that alone is why the psalms (I’m using the name
here in its generic all-inclusive sense) should be understood
as a form of prophecy in the broad meaning of the word. The psalms constitute
a portion of God’s undying Word by which He teaches, edifies, encourages,
chastises, and reminds His people. In this way, we consider the psalms as an
expression of God’s moral
law. The ceremonial aspect, however, is a different matter. In the OT, the
singing of the various psalms was part of the ceremonial law in the temple
but now has been fulfilled (and therefore made obsolete and of no effect) by
Christ’s fulfillment of the law in its entirety (refer to Heb.
9:1-14; 10:1-26
etc.). The OT (including the law portions and the Psalms) was
meant for our instruction (Exo.24:12;
Mal.
2:7; Rom.
15:4; 1
Cor. 10:11). We learn from the OT what are the standards and expectations
of God’s will for His people, not so that we might ever be able to live
up to these standards (we are hopelessly unable) but that we may know what
those standards are and see clearly thereby how miserably short of the mark
we come, in and of ourselves, and how that Christ in His perfect passive and
active obedience has met each and every standard and requirement for us, that
is, on our behalf. It is not binding as a rule but is to be taken as our schoolmaster
or tutor teaching us what God has always expected and what He will always expect,
leading us to Christ (Gal.
3:24-25). Since the ceremonial aspect of the law is now obsolete so it
would seem is the exclusive singing
of the psalms. RPW and Adding to or Taking Away
from God’s Word In the
application of the RPW to this question, it is common for the defenders of EP
to remind us that we are not to take a way or to add to the Word of God, and
this injunction we get directly from Scripture. The reason most often given
is that God has commanded us, by His own revelation in Scripture, what He has
required of us. The record is complete and sufficient and therefore there is
no need to add anything to it or to take away what God has already told us.
For instance, Moses (as God’s spokesman and prophet) in such verses as Deut.
4:2 tells the people “You shall not add to the word which I command
you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your
God which I command you” and later in a similar vein, he says, “Be
careful to listen to all these words which I command you, so that it may be
well with you and your sons after you forever, for you will be doing what is
good and right in the sight of the LORD your God. Whatever I command you, you
shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (Deut.
12:28, 32; see also Exo.
20:4;1
Sam. 15:22). But this injunction
God does not apply to Himself. Indeed, God, through the agency of His
prophets, did in fact add much to Scripture as found for instance in such
verses as 1
Sam.10:25; 1
Chron. 29:29; 2
Chron. 20:34; cf.1 Kings 16:7; 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:32; Jer. 30:2 among
others. Moreover God kept adding to
His own Word via the apostles (i.e. 1
Cor. 2:13; 14:37;
2
Cor. 13:3; 2
Pet. 3:15-16 among others) in the age of the new covenant until the
closing of further revelation and
the consequent establishing of the Canon in the days after Christ’s
ascension. When Christ—in John
4:21—told the woman that worship was no longer to take place in
Jerusalem (which place stood for the entire system of temple worship and
therefore of Judaism itself) and that real, authentic, acceptable worship was
now to take place in spirit and truth, He forever changed the way all His
followers were to worship Him, by adding
new content and meaning to what He had previously revealed in the OT. As
part of His new covenant—inaugurated in His blood on the cross and the
tearing of the veil in the Holy of Holies and which would later be “confirmed”
by the destruction of the temple in AD 70—Jesus was telling the woman
at the well that the old system was now effectively obsolete and was passing
away (Acts
6:14 and Luke
21:20, 23-24) and that a new way was made available by Him (and as
further elaborated upon by the writer of Hebrews, see below). And since all authority had been given Him in Heaven
and on earth (Psalm 115:3; Matt.
28:18) it was effectively accomplished by His word (the word of Christ, Col. 3:16) which He
spoke to her. The “word of Christ” includes all that Christ taught
(and is teaching as mediator and through the Holy Spirit?) concerning such
things as the new birth, the purpose and extent of the atoning and penal
sacrifice on the cross, and so forth (i.e. all the major soteriological
and Christological doctrines). What is more, it includes all His teachings as
recorded and written in the NT including His teaching concerning the extent
and purpose of the OT (Luke
24:27, 44) and its role in foreshadowing the complete and fulfilled new
covenant in typological fashion. It does not exclude the OT but rather includes
all the teachings of the OT (i.e. the “law and the prophets”) but
in a way that could only be true in their fulfillment by Christ. JM Boice
points out, in his commentary on the Gospel of John (Gospel of John, Vol. 1, 288-299)
that there are three “must” statements in the gospel:
These musts are not optional. The word
“must” is die in Grk. and
has the meaning of a necessity by the very nature of the case, an inherent
necessity, also a (necessary) duty to be rendered (see also Rom.
12:1-2). To worship in spirit and truth is a command by God (in Christ)
to His people. As such, it is an expression of the RPW. If the RPW is valid,
surely it must be applied to this verse (John 4:24). Accordingly, we are
obliged to worship in spirit and truth when we assemble as God’s
people. Let me
briefly look in closer proximity at these two words. “spirit” According
to Leon Morris, to worship in spirit means to worship in a manner that is
befitting Him as the triune, covenant making, saving God. Such befitting
qualities include:
According
to theologian Wayne Grudem, the words “in spirit” refer to the
“spiritual realm” or the “realm of spiritual
activity.” Surely, if this is true, then what Grudem is referring to is
in fact the “ Since God
is a spirit, (“There is but one only living and true God, who is
infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body…”
WCF 2/1) we are only able to worship Him by, with, or in our own spirit. The
place, physical circumstances, postures and so on are not part of the spirit
and therefore are not important (or have only relative importance at best)
and do not play a significant or necessarily meaningful role in our worship. The
spirit in man is that part of Him which is invisible and immaterial and is
that which can comprehend and relate to God, especially God as Holy Spirit.
In this regard we must remember God’s
invisibility as well as the second commandment (Exo.
20:4). If our worship involves images of any sort, we can be sure that we
are not worshipping as God commands in John 4:24. And if our spirit is not in
an intimate relationship with God (made possible by our rebirth in the Spirit),
we cannot worship God as He requires of us as in
John 4:24. Yet to do so is a “must”. When we
acknowledge such verses as Deut. 4:2; 12:28, 32 and
so on, we do not deny the further revelation of the NT. We are simply
applying the RPW in the context of the NT. The OT verses have not lost their
authority and force; we simply must understand them in light of the new
covenant as described in the NT. So, for instance, all the words concerning
worship in the tabernacle/temple from the OT are still true, but now we must
understand them in light of NT verses such as John
4:24; Rev.
21:22. Since Christ is truly the new temple, temple worship now takes
place in Him and in His worshippers who are also components or members of the
new temple, Christ. Let me quote from my previous article: So the examples originally given in the OT by which we are
to ascribe worth to God have not so much been abolished
as rather fulfilled in the NT, in the sense of being made perfect in Christ
and because of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. He has told us, “Do
not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to
abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished” (Matt 5:17-18). If we take the position, as I do, that
the Old and New Testaments are different expressions of a single redemptive
history, then we should gladly accept the notion that God has never put into
abeyance His commandments concerning worship. We do not worship two Gods,
with two different agendas. It is the same Triune God we worship who has
revealed Himself in all His covenants with His chosen people, from the very
beginning with Adam, through the patriarchs and culminating in the person and
work of Christ Jesus, God’s Messiah. The worship inaugurated in
Solomon’s, and continued in Herod’s, temple has found its perfect
expression and fulfillment in Christ, the “truth”
See also
John 1:14, 17; 3:21; 14:6; 17:17; 1 Cor. 14:15, 26 To
worship in truth must mean primarily and pre-eminently two things: to worship
Christ as God (John
1:14; Heb.
1:1-4; etc.) and to worship according to the “word of Christ”
which I take to be equivalent to the “word of God.” The word of
God refers to both the actual words of Scripture and the revealed will of God
as is found in those, His words, particularly those of the NT (John
1:17, 17:17
which constitutes the fuller revelation). Doing
this with diligence is in keeping with the Reformation principle of sola
Scriptura as well as solus Christos. It is also the very application of the
RPW. The “truth” spoken of in John 4:24 includes Christ as the object of our worship (as God the Son)
standing as mediator for God the Father (we can only worship the Father
through His Christ/Son—John
1:18; 6:57;
8:42;
10:38;
14:6,
9). It also refers to the practice
of worship; our worship—our “spiritual service of worship”
(Rom. 12:1) “must” be done according to God’s word and will
and not according to what we might want it to be (Mark
7:6-9). Before
continuing with this line of thought, a slight excursus on the medium or form
of musical praise from Scripture might now be in order, so that I can
establish some of the background of my argument. The section that follows is substantially taken from my own previous article. The Medium of Praise The medium
used in both testaments for musical worship was, until recent times, the
Psalter or book of Psalms. There is no conclusive evidence of songs or hymns
in the writings of the early church that were not already
found in the Psalter. (Incidentally, we can see from reading both
Philo and Josephus that it was common usage around NT times to refer to a spiritual
song or hymn by the word psalmos or
a psalm. These terms were commonly thought of as interchangeable.) When we come
to consider the Scriptural evidence, we must remember that it is not how we
understand word meaning today that matters most, but what the meaning would
have been to the biblical writer, writing in his time. It is evident to even
a casual reader that the book of Psalms is primarily made
up of compositions called psalms but also compositions called songs.
For instance, referring to my copy of the NASB, I counted 63 works described
as psalms, 14 described as songs, 13 described as both a psalm and a song and
22 other works variously described as song, prayer, maskil (which means used for instruction) or miktam (which means a permanent record) and others. We find the
word húmnos (or hymn) seventeen
times in the Septuagint (LXX)—the version of the Bible used by
Christians and Jews during NT times—thirteen in the book of Psalms
alone. The title of the book of Psalms itself in Hebrew is tephilla or tehillim, which is invariably rendered
as praise or praises. The general meaning of the Hebrew tehillim includes all
that is worthy of praise or celebration and especially of the works and ways
of the LORD. The Greek psalmói
is from the LXX and is a good representation of the Hebrew tehillim as it
means essentially songs of a spiritual kind directed toward the LORD. Paul,
in such passages as Col
3:16 and Eph
5:19, was not referring to specific psalms but the works in general from
the book of Psalms, for the word he used is the word used most often in the
NT in reference to that book as a whole: Luke
20:42; 24:44;
Acts
1:20 and 13:33
for instance. The Hebrew word for any specific psalm is mizmór while the word for a song is shir. We find both words included in the titles of individual
psalms, often together, (Psalm 72, for example). In Col 3:16 we read,
“Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom
teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” and likewise
in Eph 5:19, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” As I
have said, the word Paul used in both verses is psalmói. He also uses the word hymns (húmnoi) that are spiritual songs characterized by the
proclamation of greatness—in this context, God’s. Odé is the word used for
“spiritual songs” and means songs of either praise or confession.
Furthermore, note the following. At the close of Jesus’ Last Supper, it
is recorded of Him and His disciples that
“After singing a hymn, they went out to the To
summarize this section then, it is my opinion that to interpret such
passages, for instance Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19, as being songs or hymns other
than from the Psalter is to disregard the direct meanings of the words of
Paul and others and to do violence to the integrity of the verses and to
their larger context. (The
reference to a new song, found in Rev 14:3, “And they sang a new song
before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no
one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who
had been purchased from the earth” can mean a new song or a song that
is sung in a completely, qualitatively new way, for a new reason. This is
certainly the context of the verse. Here is a picture of worship as it shall
be not how it is. In Revelation, we have a symbolic picture of the eschatological
worship. I believe it is not until we get to heaven that we are able to offer
God new songs for His worship. It is instructive that it is the idea of
renewal that is behind the Greek, kainós
or new song, and that is the overall theme of the book of Revelation itself, surely.) The Book of Hebrews The Book
of Hebrews has much to say in reference to the new covenant that has come because
of the passing of the old priesthood. Hebrews teaches us much that sheds
light on Christ’s fulfillment of the promises of the OT and which therefore
renders the OT of no further use except as that from which we may learn about
God and His plans for His creation, all of which have found their fulfillment
in Christ. In particular, several specific verses seem to indicate that we
are no longer to look to the OT for our final answers concerning such issues
as worship. While we may seek to know more about worship from the OT, the OT
is no longer the sole authority or final arbiter; the NT having taken
precedence by God’s own determination and plan. What then can we glean
from a careful examination of the relevant verses from Hebrews that may add
credence to our newfound position? The verses that contain the most
information in respect to our argument are 7:11-12,
18-22;
8:1,
4-7; 9:1,
6, 8-10; 10:1,
8-9, 19-22; 13:15. A close
reading of these verses will inevitably lead one to understand that the
writer (and the Holy Spirit, Whose Word this really is) is telling us that
the old way is done, as in Christ there has been a required (and appointed or
prophesied) change in the priesthood serving God. The writer makes it clear
that such a change in the priesthood necessitates a change in the law. The
change in the law was in turn necessitated by the radical change in the
system of the priests, for the Aaronic priests and attending Levites were
intended for the maintenance of one system of sacrifice and worship which by
its very nature was temporary and which in and of itself was devoid of the
ability to make atonement for sin. The writer of Hebrews announces the
imperfection of the law because of the repetitive (and consequently incomplete
or never-sufficient) nature of the sacrifices and ordinances. The new
high priest spoken of in these verses is none other than the Son of God, the
second person of the Trinity, who alone through Himself is able to make final
atonement for sin, He being infinite, eternal and whose sacrifice is
complete, sufficient and absolute. Hebrews
tells us that the entire system of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood was,
in Abraham, already considered by God as a kind of stopgap measure, put into
place in order to save all those who would believe in the promise given to
Adam and Eve in the Garden (Gen.
3:15) and later to Abram himself (Gen.
15:1-7). With an oath, God ordained the old commandment (because it
was—according to the author of Hebrews—weak and ultimately
useless) to be replaced by a “new and living way” inaugurated
through the torn veil that is Christ’s body and by the shedding of the
Saviour’s blood. This new way is now open to us because Christ, as our
great high priest after the order of Melchizedec, has made the way possible
by fulfilling the requirements of God once for all and fully in every
respect. This includes, of necessity, the ceremonial requirements of the
temple by which earlier generations of Jews offered up their praises to God.
Christ’s life of obedience and His bringing in a new and better way was
not just concerned with justification and salvation of sinners, but included
all that was part and parcel of the ceremonial law. Let me
again quote from Barnhouse’s commentary on Romans, the immediate
context of which (Romans, chapter 14) has to do with the change in the
dietary law, Beyond question, the Old Testament law forbade the use of
certain foods. Equally beyond question, the New
Testament changed all that. The
change is described in the epistle to the Hebrews, where we read, “For
when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in
the law as well” (Heb. 7:12). Chapters 7 through 10 of the epistle to
the Hebrews reveal that God did away with all
the forms and ceremonies of the law of Moses. Instead of Moses: Christ.
Instead of Aaron: Christ. Instead of the lamb: Christ. Instead of the temple:
Christ. Instead of the priesthood: Christ. Instead of the
alter and the daily atonement: Christ. And, we are
reminded, Christ did not come from the tribe of Levi [the priestly
tribe] but from the tribe of In Sum I have
tried to answer, admittedly in broad strokes, the question posed at the
beginning: “Has
Christ’s fulfillment of all the requirements of the OT law rendered
exclusive psalmody non-binding on
the Christian today?” Rather
than taking the legalistic position that we must not now practice EP because of the change in the law and the
inauguration of a new covenant, which is a “new and living way”,
I would rather conclude that we are to exercise our Christian liberty in
regard to the proper or required form our worship is to take. Nonetheless, I also
believe the desire and intention of God is clear in the passage of John
4:21-24. In this passage, God tells us what constitutes right and proper
worship. This is His word on the subject. I believe that in this regard, it
is wise and prudent to take a neutral position in terms of what forms we are to employ and perhaps to
fall back for support on the wise adage of Peter Meiderlin (aka Rupertus
Meldenius, 1582-1651), who said “In
necessariis unites, in non necessariis libertas, in omnibus caritas” (On
the necessary points, unity. On the questionable points,
liberty. In everything, love.) |