Tag: Messiah

Book Briefs: “Lighthouse Faith: God as a Living Reality in a World Immersed in Fog” by Lauren Green

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Lauren Green is a religion correspondent for Fox News, and also an accomplished pianist and former Miss Minnesota. She shares lessons from her faith journey in her new book Lighthouse Faith.

The book is a compilation of thoughts and reflections on life and spirituality and includes insights from some of the many scientists and religious leaders that she has interviewed over the years. She compares the Christian life to a lighthouse but switches metaphors often in her intriguing book. She finds spiritual power in places and poignant metaphors, and leads us from a quiet cottage, to a rocky shore and on to a vineyard and then into a musical analysis of none other than Handel’s Messiah.

The book does go in circles but the reflections and thoughts shared are honest, heart-warming and rooted in a simple Christian faith. Green attends Redeemer Presbyterian Church pastored by Tim Keller as she notes in her acknowledgements and throughout the book, but her roots are in an AME church and her work brings her in touch with Christians of all stripes.

I was not moved by some of her observations. She finds the cross in the Pythagorean theorem (4 right angles = a cross in the middle) — and so to her, every building that stands, does so by power of the cross. Even in blood some of the molecules have a shape of the cross in them, she observes. She also leans on biblical numerology and makes tenuous connections. Perhaps even more troubling is her attempt to read motives into tragic events and look for a deeper meaning.

That said, her meditations make for interesting reading and no great damage is done. The eye of faith stands behind her work and many will benefit from her simple approach and sometimes deeply personal life-lessons.

Blurbs:
“Though many in the media and the academy portray belief in God as passé in our modern world, Lauren Green astutely observes that the heartfelt question, ‘Where is God in my hour of need?’ is universal. In more than forty years of travel I have heard this plea countless times, whether from students in university forums or corporate leaders in private conversations. A seasoned journalist and an accomplished pianist, Lauren interviews scholars and discloses her own journey to understand God as a living reality. She has lived out her faith with courage and grace in a difficult arena. Her words will encourage and challenge you.”
—Ravi Zacharias, Founder and President of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries; Author and Speaker

“I have known Lauren Green since she played piano on my old Fox News show After Hours. Her discovery of who God is and what it means to be loved and find meaning in a relationship with him will help the reader find meaning and purpose in his or her own life. Isn’t that what we all seek?”
—Cal Thomas, Syndicated Columnist

“Lauren Green is one of the bright lights in American journalism, and she has distinguished herself as an astute analyst of religion and culture. Lighthouse Faith is her new book, and, in it, she brings fresh insights and perspectives that readers will not have heard anywhere else! Her voice is thoroughly original, solidly biblical, and consistently inspiring. having personally interviewed the world’s leading figures in religion, plus drawing from her own knowledge of history and current events, Green introduces timeless truths in fresh new ways. her explanation of how music theory relates to God (specifically as used by G.F. Handel) is absolutely riveting. In Lighthouse Faith Lauren Green brings readers content that truly is unique.”
—Alex McFarland, Director of the Center for Apologetics and Christian Worldview, North Greenville University

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Thomas Nelson.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

The Typology of “On the Third Day”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I was recently stumbled across a jewel of a journal article, from Dr. Jim Hamilton on the ways David is a type of Christ. It is chuck full of useful information on typology and David in particular, but tucked away in there is a fascinating discussion of the typology of the expression “on the third day.”

I’ve recently wondered about Paul’s contention that Jesus rose from the dead “on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4). What Hamilton writes below provides more insight into a possible background for Paul’s understanding of the OT Scriptures with regard to the third day.

ON THE THIRD DAY

The narrator of Samuel is clear about the sequence of events surrounding Saul’s death. While David was living in Ziklag under the authority of Achish the Philistine king of Gath (1 Sam 27:6), the Philistines mustered their forces for battle against Israel (28:1). Saul panicked (28:5) and sought out a medium (28:7). When he went to the witch of Endor, he had an encounter with Samuel, whom the witch brought up for him (28:11-14). Among other things, Samuel told Saul, “Tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me” (28:19), that is, dead.

The next day, on which Saul would join Samuel, appears to be the day that David was sent home by the Philistine lords who feared that he would turn on them in battle (29:1-11). Curiously, the narrator of Samuel then relates that David and his men found their home city of Ziklag raided when they arrived “on the third day” (1 Sam 30:1). This seems to be the third day after the Philistines mustered for battle against Israel (cf. 30:13). In this way, the narrator shows that David was not with the Philistines in battle when Saul met his end. The narrator then relates what happened on the day the Philistines dismissed David: they defeated Saul’s army and Saul took his own life (31:1-7). This means that a death brought the reign of the king who opposed the Lord’s anointed to an end. Three days later, David overcame the thought his men had of stoning him, “strengthened himself in the Lord his God” (30:6), and, rising from the near stoning, pursued his enemies, and recaptured his people—all of them. But this is not the only significant third day in this account. 2 Samuel 1 opens by relating that after David had struck the Amelakites who had raided Ziklag, he remained in Ziklag for two days, and then “on the third day” the messenger came with the news that Saul was dead (2 Sam 1:1-2). This means that “on the third day” David conquered his enemies, took captivity captive, and gave gifts to men when he sent spoil to the elders of Judah (1 Sam 30:26-31). And then “on the third day” he received news that the death of Saul meant that as the Lord’s anointed he, David, was now to be king.

Nor are these the only two significant “third days” in the Old Testament: Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac “on the third day” (Gen 22:4). Yahweh came down on Mount Sinai to meet Israel “on the third day” (Exod 19:11, 16). The Lord raised up Hezekiah “on the third day” (2 Kgs 20:5). The second temple was completed “on the third day” (Ezra 6:15). Esther interceded on behalf of the Jewish people “on the third day” (Esth 5:1). And perhaps most significantly, Jonah was in the belly of the whale “three days and three nights” (Jon 2:1 [ET 1:17]), while Hosea prophesied that the people, having been torn by Yahweh as by a lion (Hos 5:14-6:1), would be raised up “on the third day” (6:2).

These significant events in the Old Testament took place “on the third day,” and this pattern found its fulfillment when Jesus “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). Perhaps the references in the Old Testament to the remarkable things that took place “on the third day” were themselves read typologically by Hosea, leading him to the conclusion that the restoration of the people after Yahweh’s judgment of the nation would take place “on the third day” (Hos 6:2, cf. 5:14-6:1). Perhaps the same typological reading of these instances led Jesus to the conclusion that he would be the suffering servant who would be torn by Yahweh’s judgment and then raised up “on the third day” (cf. Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22).

Just as David defeated the Amelakites on the third day (1 Sam 30:1), Jesus defeated death on the third day. As David took captivity captive and gave gifts to men, Jesus did the same (cf. Eph 4:8-11). Just as David received word that Saul was no more on the third day (2 Sam 2:1), Acts 13:33 links the announcement of enthronement from Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” to the resurrection: “this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’” (Acts 13:33). The death of the reigning king brought the end of hostility, and the news of that death announced the beginning of the reign of the Lord’s anointed.

…D. A. Carson’s conclusion regarding Jesus being raised from the dead on the third day “according to the Scriptures” is similar: “It is difficult to make sense of such claims unless some form of typology is recognized…. The cross and the resurrection of the Messiah were, in Paul’s view, anticipated by the patterns of Old Testament revelation.”

— excerpted from pg. 16-17, Southern Baptist Theological Journal, (volume 16, number 2 -Summer 2012), “The Typology of David’s Rise to Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel” – (accessible online here).

The Old Testament: All about Christ, or Not?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 21 Comments

Fascinating debate recently about how to read the OT. The first two statements below are from Professor Mark Snoeberger of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

First:

But since I’ve spent almost all my study time in the OT during the last two months, it’s almost as though I’ve left the Gospel Carnival behind. Kind of like going for a drive in the country, but better. It’s been very refreshing, but the funny thing is that, despite the fact that I have been spending considerably more time than normal in my Bible for the past two months, I’ve read virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel.

Now some of you are probably shaking your heads right now and saying, “This guy doesn’t know how to read his Bible–it’s ALL about Christ if you know how to successfully navigate between the lines!” And I’m not blind to the redemptive thread that winds through the Bible. But the thing is, when I stop reading between the lines and just start reading the lines, Christ and the Gospel do not emerge as major OT themes. In fact, they’re not themes at all.

and then in the first comment under this post:

Revelation concerning the common or civic sphere, on the other hand, begins with the dominion mandate, takes peculiar shape with the Noahic Covenant and the second table of the Law, and dominates the theocratic period.

Dispensationalism, I think, can be demonstrated to be a variation of this latter model (some would say a perversion) that offers multiple adminstrations–not just two. The various purposes of God are inter-connected, but what is key is that they are not limited to redemptive concerns. What binds them together is not so much the Gospel as it is the manifold glory of God. It’s BIGGER than the Gospel.

Let’s take one example: the OT sacrificial system. There are diverse understandings within dispensationalism on the OT sacrifices, but one that I have felt comfortable embracing is John Whitcomb’s theocratic understanding of the sacrifices, viz., that the sacrifices were only incidentally connected with being redemptively right with God; instead they were concerned with being theocratically right with the (K)ing and with the covenant community. That these sacrifices became a pattern for the redemptive arrangement in the death of Christ is not accidental, of course. And God certainly arranged history so that there is a continuity of form. However, it seems to me that rather than seeing the OT sacrifices as anticipating Christ, it is better to say that God modeled Christ’s sacrifice retrospectively after the theocratic system.

If this is the case, then the the Mosaic system has its own meaning, known plainly by the OT saint, without reference to Christ. It was not intrinsically anticipatory.

Over and against this, Brian McCrorie in the comments here shared my basic view on this matter:

Ben I don’t think I fundamentally disagree with you. However, I would only add that we should not only interpret the OT on it’s own terms, but also interpret it canonically (ie, the Bible as one book)

If we simply isolate the OT from the NT, and interpret it “on it’s own terms”, and not canonically, would we ever come to the conclusion that Jonah could be a picture of Christ? Furthermore, I don’t need an OT text to explicitly tell me the rock in the wilderness was Christ when Paul tells me as much in 1 Cor.

If we isolate the testaments we may not even (like some comments above) see how Adam prefigured Christ. But it blows my mind that someone who has the NT would even question the correlation of the first Adam to the second, or King David to his greater Son whom he calls “Lord”.

The bigger question in all of this I think is how or if we can do what the NT writers do. For instance, we don’t have explicitly or implicity (that I know of)in the NT that Joseph was a type of Christ. But the correlations are almost as clear as day. I agree with James that Keller’s references to Esther and others are much more of a stretch. However, that doesn’t make his hermeneutic “special”, he’s just trying to follow the pattern of intertextual canonical interpretation. How confidently we do that today without divine inspiration is the sticking point (at least for me).

Lastly, I wanted to comment on something Keith said:
“How could God, ‘retrospectively’ do anything when he decreed it all outside of time?”

Marriage from the perspective of Eph 5 is a perfect example of this. We know now, this side of the cross and through later revelation, that marriage was instituted to be a picture of Christ and the church. In other words, the cross and the church preexisted (in the purpose of God, not strictly in time) the marriage of man and woman. Why then would we be surprised to find the events and words of the OT orchestrated and inspired to point to Christ? We’re not necessarilty reading Christ and the NT back into the OT. It’s almost as if we’re going back before the OT, now with the knowledge of God’s ultimate plan climaxing in Christ. We have now what angels and prophets once only dreamed of seeing. Please don’t make me go back to that day.

and then:

Here [is an] illustration supporting canonical reading (or reading the NT back into the OT):

Black box: Imagine a FAA flight inspection team reviewing data and clues from the site of a plane crash. All their information is leading them down a path of understanding the cause of the crash. But when they find the black box they have the pilot’s definitive word on how and why the plane went down. Wouldn’t they then go back and look at all the collected data and see how all along it pointed to that particular failure. But without the black box it wasn’t clear. The recording didn’t change the data (NT revelation doesn’t alter the OT), but shed new light on its proper and full interpretation. Furthermore, without the box, the collected data could never have been fully understood. Why would any inspector then go back and disregard the recording, or separate it from the data, and try to interpret the two separately? Instead, he would interpret the (less clear) clues with the definitive recording….

By isolating the OT and having a hermeneutic based on original authorial intent instead of a wider canonical interpretation based on divine Authorial intent, we are severely limiting our understanding of the text. We can better locate, appreciate, and interpret the signs and symbols pointing to Christ in the OT only as we see them through the lens of the NT. Lastly, we must be very careful to isolate the OT from the NT because, in my opinion, the function of OT revelation (as well as parables, for example) is not simply to reveal, but also to conceal. We weren’t meant to get all the information on God’s redemptive plan from the OT. Throughout the OT God gives us clues which only later can be identified for what they were. My guess is that originally God intentionally concealed the whole story (like any good writer) from all people, but particularly from rulers and authorities, and ultimately Satan himself. How else can we explain Satan killing the King of the Jews only to realize the salvation of the world and his own defeat?

I encourage you to read the comments where Brian made these statements above. There is an in-depth discussion of this question and all participants are quite irenic and charitable. Makes for great reading. The comments at Snoeberger’s blog will just puzzle you more than anything. If that is the result of dispensationalist thinking, I say beware.

Makes me excited that I’ll be going to the Gospel Coalition Conference this year where the theme is preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Maybe that’s why the Conservative Evangelicals have such an appeal to young fundamentalists, they get what the message of the Bible is all about.

John Sailhamer’s Messianic Interpretation of the Song of Solomon

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

I came across the NIV Compact Bible Commentary and was delighted to find that John Sailhamer was its author. I’ve so enjoyed his The Meaning of the Pentateuch, that I picked up his commentary on the Pentateuch. I’m going to have to pick up this compact Bible commentary of his as well.

I was able to read the section on the Song of Solomon and was fascinated by Sailhamer’s insights, which I plan to share here. The following quotes are from his treatment of the book on pages 359-361 in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1994), emphasis added.

Sailhamer begins by briefly recounting the traditional figurative interpretations of the book and the quite literal modern interpretations.

Although it is, on the face of it, just that–an ode to human love–one must ask whether it was originally intended to be read as such by its first audience. There are some indications within the book itself that suggest it was not…. There is no question that the book is a poetic drama of a lover’s longing for his beloved and of her willing complicity. To suggest, however, that this drama of two lovers is, in fact, the intent of the book is to confuse the poetic imagery with the purpose of the poem.

He is careful to say that this does not “justify the wholesale allegorizations of the poem that have characterized much of its history.” He admits the picture of the relationship of God/Christ with Israel/the Church, is a wonderful picture, but avers “there are no clues within the book itself to support such a reading. In the last analysis, one’s interpretation should come from within the book itself, and preferably from the clues given by the author himself.”

Sailhamer goes on to uncover several clues which do confirm that there is more to the Song than may meet the natural eye, however. He first points out from the overall structure of the book, that “the ‘reflections of love’ of the lover and the beloved do not progress and build in intensity in the course of the poem itself.” This is no average love story. He also argues that “though the poetic imagery comes close at times to suggesting the lover and his beloved have in fact come together and joined themselves in that union that they so longingly describe, the structure of the book itself suggests that has not yet happened.” Rather, the “lovers’ quest is an ideal, a longed-for desire that lies beyond their own grasp.”

Setting aside these preliminary observations for the moment, we come to Sailhamer’s focus on the “larger structural movement given to the poem by the author.” The repeated refrain throughout the book reads, “Do not arouse or awaken love until she [NIV, it] so desires” (2:7b; 3:5b; 8:4b). The meaning of this refrain comes from its connection to 8:5b where the author links it with the last statements made by the beloved (the woman): “Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth.” In this connection, Sailhamer sees an allusion to two other key biblical texts: the prologue of Proverbs (chapters 1-9), and the account of the Fall in Genesis 3.

If an illusion [sic] is intended to these passages, it suggests that “the beloved” in the Song of Solomon is intended to be understood as a personification of “wisdom” and Solomon, or “the lover,” is intended as a picture of the “promised seed” of Ge 3:15, i.e., the Messiah.

He goes on:

What appears to have happened in the composition of the Song of Songs is that the author has seen in this love-song the possibility of a portrait of Israel’s long-awaited messianic king. Solomon, the son of David (cf. 2Sa 7:16), whose quest for wisdom characterizes the central core of the book of Proverbs, speaks in the prologue of that book of binding wisdom to himself and on his heart (Pr 3:3; 7:1-3) in the same way that in this book [Song of Solomon] the beloved says, “Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm” (8:6). Moreover, in Proverbs Solomon says, “Say to wisdom, ‘You are my sister'” (Pr 7:4), just as here the beloved says, “If only you were to me like a brother” (8:1). An extended comparison of these two books suggests that these are not mere coincidental similarities of words and phrases, but rather a deliberate “inter-textuality,” or allusion of one text to another. Such verbal links and allusions between the personified Dame Wisdom in the book of Proverbs and the young beloved in the Song of Songs invite our attempts to see a larger purpose behind this love song. I have suggested that such a purpose is to be found in the growing messianic hope found in these sections [i.e. the Wisdom Literature] of the OT.

Thus far then, Sailhamer has shown “the Song of Songs is intended as a portrait of the promised Messiah’s love for divine wisdom.” He goes on:

The Messiah is here pictured by Solomon, and “wisdom” is personified by the young and beautiful beloved. Throughout the poem the notion of love is idealized by the fact that its obtainment lies in the future. The quest for wisdom was aroused “under the apple tree” (8:4a), probably an allusion to the time of the Garden of Eden when the first woman “saw that the fruit of the tree was…desirable for gaining wisdom [and] she took some and ate it” (Ge 3:6). The obtainment of wisdom, however, will come only when one like Solomon comes to claim his beloved.

Sailhamer also sees the reference to “there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth” (8:5b) as suggesting that the author of the Song of Solomon “also understood both the promised ‘seed’ in Ge 3:15 and the reference to Eve as ‘the mother of all living’ (Ge 3:20) messianically.”

The result of these inter-textual links, “if… intended by the author of this book” then,

…would place this song on a quite different level than that of an ode to human love. It would, in fact, give credence to the traditional attempts to see more in this poem than meets the eye. It would also provide some guidelines along which the symbolism of the book is to be read.

One final argument supports Sailhamer’s conclusions:

Finally, such a reading of the book would also provide needed insight into the underlying justification for the book’s inclusion into the OT. There is general recognition today that the time of the formation of the OT canon coincided with a significant surge in the hope of the imminent return of the messianic king. This book was included in the canon, one might say, because it was intended as a picture of the Messiah.

I am not one to discount seeing the Divine Author’s hand behind the human book as intentionally foreshadowing future covenant realities. I would see no problem in taking Sailhamer’s lead and affirming that this authorial intent was expanded in the wisdom of God, to allow the book as we have it in our Bible to suggest analogies between Christ and the Church. Think of the many songs that have been written culling from the poetic imagery of this Song of Songs.

Still, I had never seen Sailhamer’s reasoning for seeing a human authorial intent behind the Song of Solomon including an explicit Messianic connection. I’d be interested to know, if any of my readers knows whether Sailhamer has written more explicitly of this connection. The section on the Song is only a few pages long in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary. Along these lines, I’d also love to know what you think of this. Does this ring true to you? Or do you think Sailhamer is off base?

You can pick up a copy of this little book at Amazon.com or direct from Zondervan.

Book Excerpt — Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms by Michael LeFebvre

~ Bob Hayton

I’m reading through a new Christian Focus book entitled Singing the Songs of Jesus: Revisiting the Psalms by Michael LeFebvre. In this book, the author explains why singing the Psalms was so precious to saints through all ages, prior to the rise of the 18th century hymnwriting movement. LeFebre succeeds in making the Psalms come alive and in equipping the modern church with tools for recovering the use of the Psalms.

I wanted to offer an excerpt which has captivated me. LeFebvre describes the difference between singing to Christ, and singing with Christ. He avers that when Christians sing the Psalms, we are singing with Christ in a unique way.

You can learn more about the book at Christianfocus.com, and in the next couple weeks, I’ve heard this book will be showcased at their new Christian Focus Booknotes blog, too.

Without further ado, I provide an extended book excerpt. For more, you’ll have to get the book!

In the Gospels, Jesus often took the Psalms to his lips as his own praises. He sang Psalm 41 as his own song: ‘My close friend in whom I trusted…has lifted his heel against me’ (Ps. 41:9/John 13:18). He sang Psalm 118, not as a common experience of God’s people but as his own experience as our true king: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’ (Ps. 118:22/Matt. 21:42). Jesus identified himself as the anointed king in psalm 110: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand.”‘ (Ps. 110:1/Mark 12:36). In these and other examples, Jesus frequently showed himself to be the Son of David by taking the Psalms of David to his lips as his own songs (e.g., Matt. 27:46/Ps. 22:1; Luke 23:46/Ps. 31:5; John 2:17/Ps. 69:9).

In fact here is Jesus’ own explanation about his relationship to the Psalms of David:

As Jesus taught in the temple, he said, ‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son (Mark 12:35-37, quoting Ps. 110:1)?

Jesus says that David wrote Psalms for a descendant who would be greater than himself — the coming Christ. In the Holy Spirit, David understood that his songs would ultimately be taken up by the Christ.

Peter makes a similar point in his sermon at Pentecost. Peter preached from a string of Old Testament texts, including several Psalms (Pss. 16, 89, 110, 132)…. According to Peter, David wrote the Psalms ‘knowing’ that God had promised the Christ would come from his line. And he wrote Psalm 16 ‘foreseeing’ the resurrection of Christ. The Psalms were born out of the experiences of David and his heirs, but David wrote with awareness of the coming Son of David who would ultimately take the Psalms to his lips as our perfect king and songleader.

From the beginning, the Psalms were composed for Jesus — as his songs. No wonder the New Testament church never set the Psalmbook aside. They took up the Psalms in great delight, singing in them with Jesus.

Let me offer a word picture to anchor this principle. Imagine that a friend of yours has invited you to a concert. A famous choir is in town, and your friend bought two tickets. As you slip into your seats in the concert hall, a one hundred voice choir lines the platform before you. And the music begins. The singing is superb. It could not be better. It is such a pleasant evening, you and your friend decide to return the next week for another concert.

The next week, you return to the hall and find the same choir singing again. This time, however, a world famous tenor is going to be on the platform with them. As you sit in the audience listening, you are entranced by the beauty of the soloist’s voice, surrounded majestically by the hundred-voice choir behind him. Perhaps you will come again another time to hear more.

What is the difference between these to, imagined performances? In the first, the audience is listening to the voices of a hundred singers. The song is the choir’s song. In the second performance, however, the audience is listening to the voice of one singer accompanied by a hundred others. But it is the one singer in front who stands under the spotlight. His song is being performed, and the rest join him in singing it.

In Christian worship, God is the audience of our singing. Many congregations today see themselves as that hundred-person choir singing to God. They imagine that they stand as a mass of worshipers, singing their songs of faith to him. That is the expectation behind modern hymns and praise songs. Modern hymns do not say, for example, ‘What a friend I, Joseph Scriven, have in Jesus.’ Hymnwriters compose songs for the congregation to sing as their song to God, with the song’s original author and his experience disappearing from view.

This is where the Psalms are radically different. The Psalms are composed for a use like the second performance imagined above. Our divinely appointed leader, King Jesus, leads our praise. Jesus sings his own songs in his own words (composed prophetically for him). They are his praises of the Father which he calls us, as his subjects, to join him in singing. Rather than disappearing from view, we are supposed to sing in conscious identification with Jesus as our Psalm leader, and with his experience of the cross and resurrection before us.

[emphasis added, from pg. 51-54]

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Christian Focus Publications. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

You can pick up a copy from Amazon.com, Monergism Books, or direct from Christian Focus.