Listening to a recent sermon on Psalm 3, I noted the preacher's insistence on the abiding validity of the imprecatory psalms. This became an issue back in the 1990's when some Theonomist-inspired leaders began to call for their use in the context of the Clinton presidency. The problem for them is that intuitively most Christians see a problem or conflict with their employment given the commands and general ethos of New Covenant spirituality - and the command to turn the other cheek and to love one's enemies. They're right, and yet the contemporary situation (with the call to use imprecatory psalms) is indicative of even greater doctrinal and theological problems.
A solid understanding of redemptive history posits the Scriptures are Christocentric. While we may be inspired by Old Testament character narratives - David vs. Goliath or Daniel in the Lion's Den, these historical persons and events are part of a redemptive-historical tapestry. They are types and pictures of Christ the true Prophet, Priest, and King. We may be encouraged by their faith and roused by their courage and yet their lives were acting out in real time and history the role of the coming Messiah. Ultimately the prophets, priests, and kings of the old order failed - they were not the True Christ. Christ fulfills the true role and is righteous, the true Word of God, and Risen King that defeats death.
Redemptive history also informs us that aspects of Old Testament law were typological - pointing to righteousness required for salvation, a demand that we are unable to fulfill due to sin. The Mosaic period was a kind of typological Edenic sequel utilised to re-emphasize the lessons of Adam and the failed first Zion - by means of a second one. It revealed Christ as either Judge or Saviour.
The New Covenant order is eschatological and because we live in the interlude of the Last Days (the period of the Parousia-Coming which though one eschatological event has been mercifully delayed and split into two chronological events) we are in fact called to a higher ethical calling. We are to live as pilgrims and strangers and citizens of heaven. We are not in the land and thus the kind of sword and coin concerns that such a citizenship entails is outside the boundaries of our calling.
Obviously the post-Constantinian Church has largely rejected this calling and these same concerns drive the main Judaizing tendencies within Church history which necessarily look back to the Old Testament for guidance. The New Testament doesn't give them the answers or categories they seek and a closer Christ-centered read would reveal why. Their motivations and the questions which drive them are not merely absent in the New Testament. In fact, the apostolic writings reject their assumptions and replace them with different ones - ones they sadly will not accept.
David the author of Psalm 3, experienced anguish and frustration and under inspiration of the Holy Spirit recorded the words of the psalm. But the ultimate voice is that of the true Psalmist/Prophet - Christ Himself. And it is only Christ that has the right to call down judgment on the wicked and to righteously rejoice in the breaking of their teeth. We too will rejoice with Him on that Day, but in the meantime we are are still awaiting the end of our salvation and as such are called to love our enemies, pray for them, and do good to them. We are called to witness against evil and that will invite hatred and persecution and we must be willing to take up the cross following in the path our Lord established.
Psalm 3 is glorious to be sure but in order to understand it rightly, in Christocentric terms, it must be read in light of the New Testament. To do otherwise is to read it as a Jew or non-Christian. It is to read it apart from Christ which me must never do. When read through the eschatological lens of New Covenant Christocentricity we can rightly understand the voice of the psalmist and its place in redemptive-history. The conclusion is not to resort to praying imprecatory psalms as wielding a weapon, or taking up an actual sword like Joshua, or in seeking the wealth and thus the power of Solomon, but to understand (as expressed in Romans 12) that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and as Revelation shows us, the Righteous and Glorious Judge will come and set things right in that great and terrible Day of the Lord.
Finally it must be said this understanding also precludes arguments for Exclusive Psalmody. First, there's no evidence to suggest this was how either the Old Covenant Jews or Early Church viewed the Psalms - and no warrant for their oft refusal to sing other portions of Scripture. Second, it is inconceivable that the New Testament Church would simply sing the psalms which are (if you will pardon the expression) mired in the unfulfilled context of the Old Covenant.
There's nothing wrong with singing the psalms, but the exclusivist position is unwarranted and misguided.
That said, the notion of a capella singing is often associated with this position - but wrongly so. Many of its advocates rightly argue there's no basis for instrumentation in the New Testament. But this appeal to the regulative principle alone (while valid enough) falls short. We see this for example in the Stone-Campbellite Churches of Christ who also reject instrumentation but sing hymns. For them, the New Testament doesn't tell them to use instruments and so they don't. As much as they are to be lauded on this issue, they are very inconsistent on other points.
A redemptive-historical understanding will posit that the instruments in the Temple order were typological as they were played by Levites. They were part of the larger sacrificial system akin to the altar, robes, and temple itself. If we were to have instruments today, then we would (if consistent) need to find Levites to play them. They don't function outside the tabernacle-temple system. As such their use in New Covenant worship is an expression of Judaizing theology and represents a misunderstanding of redemptive history.
The instrumentation of the Old order has been fulfilled just as with the altar and sacrificial system - for they are one and the same. The building and vestments were not (as some argue) about artistic expression or aesthetics. The beauty and glory were typological pointing to the righteousness and holiness of Christ and to the transcendence of heaven. That typology has been fulfilled and under the New Covenant we worship in heaven itself with the heavenly host. In the age of maturation we don't need types or props in order to act out a typological drama - nor can they be repeated. Nor is their warrant for innovation. We have the substance. The only elements we're given are plain bread, wine, and water - simple sacramental tokens we may employ, means utilised by and sanctified by the Word and Spirit in this time between the times.
The pastor in question (who I believe is also an exclusive psalmist) mishandled the passage. In the context of the New Covenant, there is no call to employ imprecation nor does a right understanding of its context support exclusive psalmody. The arguments that help us to understand the psalm rightly in the New Covenant context also reveal the problems with the exclusivist argument. They're right about instrumentation but if they followed through on the implications they would understand the problems with their argument regarding psalmody itself. A New Testament-only position (like with the Churches of Christ) is a fine thing but a richer and more informed understanding of doctrine requires a grasp and application of redemptive-historical categories which provide development, flow, and the reasons why we do or don't do certain things.
With this understanding, the Scriptures come alive and though the Old Testament is fulfilled and that covenant is no longer in effect (as Hebrews and Galatians make abundantly clear) - the writings are still rich with spiritual blessings and help us to better understand the glory of the New Covenant as expressed in the person and work of Christ.
See also:
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2022/03/imprecatory-prayers-and-biden.html
No comments:
Post a Comment