There are many cultural or religious references in the psalms that cause problems for us. As Isaac Watts1 pointed out, thoughtful and honest people will not want to express sentiments that they do not feel; they cannot conscientiously sing promises to offer temple sacrifices or "sing praises to God with a harp.2" Therefore, his approach3 was either to remove the offensive lines, or substitute something "analogous" from the New Testament.
We may look at other psalms featuring elaborate list of musical instruments4 and react in the same way: with horror, because we would never use those instruments in worship. But the difficulty is sometimes with our understanding; and by facing it, we may learn something more of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the nature of language, and even the meaning of worship.
In fact, the necessary implication of these psalm texts is often that the references to musical instruments (1) had nothing literally to do with formal worship; (2) had nothing at all to do with accompanying singing of praise; and (3) were metaphorical, and had nothing even to do with actual instruments! And throughout history this fact has been widely recognized. If we could first learn to read the Bible with understanding, we should be able to sing Biblical songs with the spirit.
Charles Wesley5 was a master of this approach, exemplified by his version of Psalm 150. His exegetical approach is clearly laid out there, and will help illuminate other less explicit texts and more remote interpreters.
It is well-known that the Wesleys did not permit instrumental music6 in their chapels; and if instrumental music was not positively anathema to Anglicans, surely dancing in the aisles would have been! So whatever this meant to them, it was not a call for their congregations to string their harps and march around the chapel.
Why, then, did Wesley write this psalm version? Several conceivable motivations may obviously be eliminated out of hand. Unlike the Scottish Presbyterians, Wesley felt no compulsion to have a metric version of every psalm; he wrote several, and included a few others in his hymnals, but neither his 8000 hymns nor his 56 published books of hymns included a systematic or complete metrical psalter. Evidently, he thought these words from this psalm would build up a congregation and praise God in the context of the New Covenant. Furthermore, when versifying a Biblical passage,7 he did not necessarily include every idea therein; evidently he thought the picturesque details of this psalm were effective, even though he could not possibly have intended for them to be taken as a literal imperative. He must have intended them to be taken metaphorically.
Now, Wesley may have been wrong. But nobody who has ever studied one of his hymns, looking up all the Biblical allusions and references, will ever suspect that he had not considered the application he was making; and nobody who has reviewed the organization and content of his hymnals8 can deny that he carefully considered how each hymn might be used. Any comparision with our own hymnals and their original hymns will be sobering. Having shown so little evidence of thought on these matters ourselves, in justice we must at least attempt to follow his reasoning.
Let us begin with the expression "virgin choir". A quick glance will show that it doesn't come from the psalm itself; it is obviously drawn from knowledge of actual Jewish victory processions.9 But why deliberately introduce and emphasize such an anachronistic detail? I can see two possible purposes. One is to make the metaphor so blatant that it could not possibly be taken literally.10 But I think this is also an allusion to the "virgin choir" of Rev. 14:4, connecting the "praise him in the expanse of the heavens" with the heavenly praise of John's vision. Thus, from his knowledge of Old Testament history and New Testament eschatology, Wesley has found a post-Mosaic meaning for this most Jewish psalm. A review of other Wesleyan texts11 will show that this technique is is typical.
Is there evidence that Wesley has done the same thing with the musical instruments? Note that the original psalm does not mention singing; and yet Wesley's version adds "the music of the heart." That language recalls Eph. 5:19 "singing and making melody in your heart.12" In exactly the same way, the additional physical detail is based on historical knowledge, and alludes to a New Testament reference which forces the detail to be taken metaphorically.
Is there evidence that Wesley's approach is hermeneutically valid? Is this really the way that early Christians would have understood these psalms? Is this what the psalmist actually meant?
For the early Christians, the answer is surprisingly simple, from either of two approaches:
The latter argument obviously applies as well to the original psalmists as to their first-century readers. But does the former argument? Did the original psalmist mean to command his hearers to organize a parade, or was he speaking metaphorically? Psalm 150 opens with "Praise God in his sanctuary, ... in his mighty firmament!" Did the psalmist expect a literal victory parade starting from the temple and going through the air? No, the literal interpretation is excluded15 from the very beginning.
But, given that processionals form no part of our religious practice, can and should we sing songs containing such images? One could retort: why should we cavil at this, and yet sing Onward, Christian Soldiers or Guide me, O thou great Jehovah, when crusades and pilgrimages are no part of our worship either? But the fundamental answer lies in the nature of metaphor. A metaphor draws from familiar everyday experiences to give life and meaning16 to less familiar (e.g., spiritual) ideas.
It only remains to ask: can we recognize the same kind of language in other psalms? Henry W. Baker's version of Psalm 150 is not so transparent, but the expression "all things that give sound" suggests that he envisions the noisemakers, not the choir's orchestral accompaniment: and there is no reason to interpret his version any differently.
Anyone reading Psalm 98 with the same question in mind, will quickly recognize the "victory parade" metaphor: and surely its trumpets and lyres are no more to be taken literally than the singing hills and hand-clapping waves. Erik Routley's version also gives a verbal clue that the trumpets and organs are resonators for the cosmos, not accompanists for the choir. We do not stumble over the singing dragons and musical blizzards of Psalm 148; there's no logical reason17 these psalms should cause any more difficulty.
Some commentators have suggested that these psalms are intended to be sung in victory processions. Is this a valid assumption? Indeed, sometimes we sing songs that are more about our acts of worship than about God's acts of salvation. Such a focus is not typical of the psalms. Even if it were possible to engage in choral singing in a procession, the simple fact is that the genuine victory processional songs in the Old Testament do not talk about the processional activities; they talk about the victory. [[details]]
DRAFT COPY: CIRCULATED FOR REVIEW
Copyright © 2002,2003,2004, Stephen Hutcheson
Please circulate copies to elicit comments, but do not broadcast or publish.
Feedback would be received with gratitude.
| These studies are created by members of the West Allen Church of Christ in Allen, Texas |