Psalm 95

In recent conversations with a friend, the question came up as to whether or not we "ought" to sing the Psalms in our corporate worship services. We considered two questions: 1) Do the Psalms apply to Christians? and 2) How can I honor God with my worship if I'm singing something I don't understand? Of course, these two questions have everything to do with each other. Because it is our failure to understand the Psalms that leads us to miss their implications and applicability (and therefore, usefulness and requirement) for the church today.

For a while now, I've occasionally used the Anglican Book of Common Prayer's "Morning Prayer" service as something of a starting point for my own prayers. The prayers are solid and Biblical and, when I use them thoughtfully they always help me come into a real attitude of prayerfulness. I once had a little tiny copy, smaller than a Gideon's NT, with microscopic font. I loved it for its inconspicuous and tote-able size, and because it was old and worn and probably once used frequently by some old saint. But it fell apart and taping the cover back on wasn't helping.

Anyway, back to the point. I picked up a new copy. This time a re-published 1928 edition. And to my great disappointment and surprise, there was a significant change. The Morning Prayer begins with a call to worship, then a confession and absolution. The Lord's Prayer follows, with a short dialectic just before the first song used - Psalm 95. My old edition included the entirety of the psalm . But my new edition left off Psalm 95:7-11, i.e., it lopped off the whole end of the Psalm, substituting instead Psalm 96:9&13. Of course, it's renamed a "canticle" (because it's no longer an intact Psalm) and the option to sing Ps. 95 is still offered as a substitute.

It wasn't hard to figure out why this change was made, although I'm only guessing and haven't done the research to know for sure. But the fact is, vv7b-11 are not readily accessible to us in our Dispensationally-influenced churches. And since a short corporate service doesn't provide the opportunity to explain exactly how they relate to Christians today, it was much easier just to substitute verses requiring less understanding and therefore having more universal appeal.

Well, I had to go and see what the Reformed Episcopals did with their "revised" edition. I figured that, being "Reformed," they'd have a firm enough grasp on covenant theology to see the implications of that last section of the psalm for the NT church and choose rather to include it than leave it off. But to my dismay, they left the change unchanged.

So, what's so important about the last verses of Psalm 95? Just this - the warning given to approaching, worshipping Israelites being addressed is precisely the same warning given by Paul to Christians in 1 Corinthians 10:5 and Hebrews 3:5-19. It's not simply the same warning in some abstract, universal sense, but in a connective-corporate sense. Those were our fathers who fell in the wilderness because of their unbelief and rebellion. The house they were approaching, over which Moses was the steward, is now tended by its rightful owner, Jesus Christ in the same way that the throne which was occupied by David is now occupied by his royal Seed. This is why Paul calls Christians, i.e., those loyal to the King of the Jews whether Jew or Gentile, the true "Israel." The kingdom of God has expanded beyond the nation of Israel. And though Israel remains a unique and particular nation having returned from exile in Christ, now the kingdom includes the other nations of the world, just as prophesied by Isaiah (Isaiah 2:2) and promised to Abraham (Gen. 17:4).

In fact, Paul says that our fathers who fell because of unbelief had the same gospel preached to them that we have: Hebrews 4:1-2 "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it" (NKJV). Thus, the people of Israel who fell in the wilderness are an example for us of what not to do, not merely because their God is our God, or that what they did can repeat itself in any context, but also because their house of worship is the same house in which we worship.

This is why the Holy Spirit "says" (present tense!) "Today." Today, if you hear His voice calling you to worship, don't stiffen your hearts, but rather, approach His throne in faith and give Him the adoration He deserves. This is one reason why I believe the book of Hebrews to be discussing the corporate worship of God's people and not simply referring to worship in an abstracted sense. And I believe the warnings in Hebrews 10:26-29 to be referring specifically to a neglect of believing and faithful corporate worship, as is indicated by the preceding verse Hebrews 10:25.

Now, admittedly, even though I had many of the pieces of this theological puzzle spread out on the table, I wasn't able to put it together so clearly in my mind when I began using the Book of Common Prayer and singing and praying Psalm 95 in the beginning of its "Morning Prayer." But now I can see the applicability of the last verses of this Psalm which were lopped of for (perhaps) the sake of something easier to understand. Does my original deficit in understanding, though, mean I should not have been singing it, or rather, does it mean I needed to keep singing the song God had written, prayerfully seeking a better understanding? I think you know the answer.

The Psalms are for the Christian church. Of course we must read them in light of the bigger story that has come to fruition in Christ, but they belong to us, nonetheless. There are plenty more that I have trouble "meaning" as I sing them. But I think this little anecdote demonstrates that I need to grow in my understanding rather than losing their message through my neglect.