Why Exclusive Psalmody?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The obvious questions for this position (which is standard in EP) are "Which psalter?" and "In what other context than public worship were these psalms transmitted prior to being incorporated into the canonical psalter, given that (as you correctly state) the present psalter dates from some time after the exile?

The first psalm to be written, as you say, was that of Moses (Psalm 90). In what context was it sung prior to the formation of the psalter? Is it plausible that it was never sung in worship prior to the inspired collector adding it to the canonical book? Likewise 2 Samuel 22, which forms the basis for Psalm 18. Was the first time it was sung when it became part of an official written "hymnscroll" in the temple? Would it have been sinful to sing 2 Sam 22 or Ps 90 in worship prior to that time?

And when was that? Did David have a collection of his own psalms? The subscript to Psalm 72 suggests that there was an early collection of the Prayers of David (3-72), but that is certainly not the only pre-existing collection (the Elohistic psalter covers 42-83, bound together by a notable preference for Elohim rather than Yahweh and adding the psalms of Asaph to those of David). The subscript suggest that it was collected after David's death. There is a Korahite collection, as well as the Songs of Ascents, which cover Psalms 120-134. Books 4-5 seem likely to be a later addition, perhaps after the whole present psalter was arranged around a set of distinctly post-exilic themes (see O. Palmer Robertson's The Flow of the Psalms). What is more, there are Davidic psalms included in all the layers of the composition of the final psalter. Where were these psalms being sung, if they were not part of the then-canonical collection?? And where did the non-canonical "Psalm 151" come from, recorded in most copies of the Septuagint and in Hebrew form at Qumran?

At the very least, we have to say that "the Psalter" (as we recognize the term) did not exist in the Solomonic era, though "a psalter" very likely did. That psalter was added to and edited in a variety of ways up to an after the Babylonian exile, including "new songs" that were newly written to address the development of redemptive history and "old psalms" (including some by David) that had not been included in the original version but had carried on being transmitted (most likely by being sung in some worship context).The most obvious explanation is that "exclusive psalmody" was not practiced in the Old Testament until after the return from Babylon, at least not as currently understood. "David's prayers" probably existed as one psalter alongside several others, which may well have included other psalms that were not chosen for inclusion in the final canonical version (just as there were other Davidic psalms not included in "David's prayers").

That doesn't prove that EP is unbiblical or wrong, or that we shouldn't perhaps sing more psalms than we do, but it does highlight the fact that the argument is a whole lot more complicated than "where is Scripture do we derive the notion that we can sing man-made songs?" or "Paul was merely exhorting to the continuance of a 1300 year tradition in the Church."
Dr. Duguid, I always appreciate your contributions to these discussions. They certainly make us think harder about the subject.
 
God's given us the words, not the musical notes.

The command is to sing the psalms, not to sing them to specified tunes.
I think you are missing the point. The argument for EP is that Paul is referring specifically to the Psalter and the Psalter only. Those songs from the Psalter had specific ways of being sung. To not sing them in that way by the EP argument is to not follow the command of Paul. To say that the tune does not matter is logically inconsistent with the EP argument.
 
I think you are missing the point. The argument for EP is that Paul is referring specifically to the Psalter and the Psalter only. Those songs from the Psalter had specific ways of being sung. To not sing them in that way by the EP argument is to not follow the command of Paul. To say that the tune does not matter is logically inconsistent with the EP argument.
"To not sing them in that way by the EP argument is to not follow the command of Paul."

No, because that is not the EP argument.

I repeat, the tunes are not commanded.

If we follow your logic, we arrive at the impossibility of singing the psalms at all. This is an obvious problem, since singing the psalms is clearly commanded (however you might take psalms, hymns and songs).
 
If we follow your logic, we arrive at the impossibility of singing the psalms at all. This is an obvious problem, since singing the psalms is clearly commanded (however you might take psalms, hymns and songs).
I disagree, my argument is that the Bible does not command EP, so no, that is not a problem in my logic.
 
Do you agree that the Scriptures include the command to sing psalms?
Of course. But again, not to the level that EP takes that command. The arguments I am seeing from the EP position are saying that we are to sing as the NT church sang.

But if you are not also singing the same tunes, you are not singing as the NT church sang.

I understand your argument that you say it is not commanded to sing the tune, just the words. But to me, that is a logical inconsistency with your overall argument that the Psalms are all that is allowed.
 
Of course. But again, not to the level that EP takes that command. The arguments I am seeing from the EP position are saying that we are to sing as the NT church sang.

But if you are not also singing the same tunes, you are not singing as the NT church sang.
No one argues this.
I understand your argument that you say it is not commanded to sing the tune, just the words. But to me, that is a logical inconsistency with your overall argument that the Psalms are all that is allowed.
Who on earth would require the original tunes? It's an absurdity. You call it a logical inconsistency, but you will find that you cannot demonstrate it to be so.
 
Who on earth would require the original tunes? It's an absurdity. You call it a logical inconsistency, but you will find that you cannot demonstrate it to be so.
Like I said, I am listening to a series of sermos right now and the pastor is literally arguing that the reason for the Psalter is it is the exact same songs that Christ and the NT church sang. Same lyrics and different music is not the same song.

Also, remember, I hold to the LBCF, not the WCF. Our confession does not argue for EP as 22.5 was altered in the LBCF. The Baptists clearly saw a distinction of Psalms, Hyms, and Spiritual songs to be more than just the sections of the Psalms.

This is confirmed in Benjamin Keach, a signatory of the LBCF, who wrote 100 hymns to be sung in congregational use.
 
For the record, I am not saying it is wrong to hold to EP. I just do not see that as the explicit command of Scripture or required by the RPW.
 
What does the preacher mean when he says “songs”? Are you defining it as he is? If not, your arguing is a strawman. If you are listening to the sermons I recommended, the preacher is speaking about the words to be sung in public worship. The words that you read when you open the book of psalms in the middle of your bible. To say song must mean the tunes too, then you are just reading into it. There is no one who argues you have to sing to the same tune as Jesus and NT Christians. No one. So stop using strawman arguments, understand what he’s saying to then be able to argue against/for it. If you don’t know what he means, ask.
 
Like I said, I am listening to a series of sermons right now and the pastor is literally arguing that the reason for the Psalter is it is the exact same songs that Christ and the NT church sang. Same lyrics and different music is not the same song.

Just to clarify, when it is said the same songs, it means the same according to substance, not the same according to accidents. Just as we read the same Old Testament scriptures that Christ read according to substance, though we read them in a different translation, which is merely an accidental matter. If you were to deny the substance-accidents distinction with respect to the reading of the Word, then you would have to argue that you could not read the Bible unless you read Hebrew and Greek. Obviously, such an opinion is completely implausible, as it would mean that virtually no Christians have ever had access to the Word of God.

The substance-accidents distinction also helps us to avoid the extremism of hyper-regulativism, as only the substance of gospel ordinances are strictly regulated, not their accidents. Hence, we do not need to be singing psalms to the same tunes used by David or Paul in order to be singing the psalms.

Also, remember, I hold to the LBCF, not the WCF. Our confession does not argue for EP as 22.5 was altered in the LBCF. The Baptists clearly saw a distinction of Psalms, Hyms, and Spiritual songs to be more than just the sections of the Psalms.

This is confirmed in Benjamin Keach, a signatory of the LBCF, who wrote 100 hymns to be sung in congregational use.

That observation is a very important one. Thanks for making it.
 
A bit of an odd place to get hung up on the psalmody issue.
I'm actually not hung up on the Psalmody issue. I don't think EP is found in Scripture. I am, however, trying to understand the arguments and logic behind those arguments that those who hold to EP make.

What does the preacher mean when he says “songs”? Are you defining it as he is? If not, your arguing is a strawman. If you are listening to the sermons I recommended, the preacher is speaking about the words to be sung in public worship. The words that you read when you open the book of psalms in the middle of your bible. To say song must mean the tunes too, then you are just reading into it. There is no one who argues you have to sing to the same tune as Jesus and NT Christians. No one. So stop using strawman arguments, understand what he’s saying to then be able to argue against/for it. If you don’t know what he means, ask.
So let me ask you this. If I write a totally new tune today to one of the Psalms, would, in your view, that be allowed in corporate worship?
 
ust to clarify, when it is said the same songs, it means the same according to substance, not the same according to accidents. Just as we read the same Old Testament scriptures that Christ read according to substance, though we read them in a different translation, which is merely an accidental matter. If you were to deny the substance-accidents distinction with respect to the reading of the Word, then you would have to argue that you could not read the Bible unless you read Hebrew and Greek. Obviously, such an opinion is completely implausible, as it would mean that virtually no Christians have ever had access to the Word of God.
Thank you. That makes sense.
 
I'm actually not hung up on the Psalmody issue. I don't think EP is found in Scripture. I am, however, trying to understand the arguments and logic behind those arguments that those who hold to EP make.


So let me ask you this. If I write a totally new tune today to one of the Psalms, would, in your view, that be allowed in corporate worship?

As all who hold to EP, without making this complicated, yes that is allowed. What is commanded are that Psalms be sung. Psalms are found in the Bible in the book of psalms.
 
I am, however, trying to understand the arguments and logic behind those arguments that those who hold to EP make.

To boil it down, I think you could summarize as, EPers:
  1. See a command in the bible to sing Psalms in worship
  2. Do not see a command in the bible to sing other than Psalms
  3. Through RPW, will see that singing non-psalms as adding to an element of worship
 
The obvious questions for this position (which is standard in EP) are "Which psalter?" and "In what other context than public worship were these psalms transmitted prior to being incorporated into the canonical psalter, given that (as you correctly state) the present psalter dates from some time after the exile?

The first psalm to be written, as you say, was that of Moses (Psalm 90). In what context was it sung prior to the formation of the psalter? Is it plausible that it was never sung in worship prior to the inspired collector adding it to the canonical book? Likewise 2 Samuel 22, which forms the basis for Psalm 18. Was the first time it was sung when it became part of an official written "hymnscroll" in the temple? Would it have been sinful to sing 2 Sam 22 or Ps 90 in worship prior to that time?

And when was that? Did David have a collection of his own psalms? The subscript to Psalm 72 suggests that there was an early collection of the Prayers of David (3-72), but that is certainly not the only pre-existing collection (the Elohistic psalter covers 42-83, bound together by a notable preference for Elohim rather than Yahweh and adding the psalms of Asaph to those of David). The subscript suggest that it was collected after David's death. There is a Korahite collection, as well as the Songs of Ascents, which cover Psalms 120-134. Books 4-5 seem likely to be a later addition, perhaps after the whole present psalter was arranged around a set of distinctly post-exilic themes (see O. Palmer Robertson's The Flow of the Psalms). What is more, there are Davidic psalms included in all the layers of the composition of the final psalter. Where were these psalms being sung, if they were not part of the then-canonical collection?? And where did the non-canonical "Psalm 151" come from, recorded in most copies of the Septuagint and in Hebrew form at Qumran?

At the very least, we have to say that "the Psalter" (as we recognize the term) did not exist in the Solomonic era, though "a psalter" very likely did. That psalter was added to and edited in a variety of ways up to an after the Babylonian exile, including "new songs" that were newly written to address the development of redemptive history and "old psalms" (including some by David) that had not been included in the original version but had carried on being transmitted (most likely by being sung in some worship context).The most obvious explanation is that "exclusive psalmody" was not practiced in the Old Testament until after the return from Babylon, at least not as currently understood. "David's prayers" probably existed as one psalter alongside several others, which may well have included other psalms that were not chosen for inclusion in the final canonical version (just as there were other Davidic psalms not included in "David's prayers").

That doesn't prove that EP is unbiblical or wrong, or that we shouldn't perhaps sing more psalms than we do, but it does highlight the fact that the argument is a whole lot more complicated than "where is Scripture do we derive the notion that we can sing man-made songs?" or "Paul was merely exhorting to the continuance of a 1300 year tradition in the Church."

Granting all this for a moment it doesn't actually advance the non-EP case one bit because we don't have a record of what else they sang in worship. What we do have a record of is the completed Psalter and we know that these psalms were sung in worship and we know that they are inspired songs. So what you (the hymn side) would have to prove is that even if songs other than the 150 in the Psalter were sung in worship at some point in redemptive history, that we today have the liberty to write our own songs to be included in worship. In which case you would need to find an example of not only a song not found in the Psalter being sung in corporate worship, but one of purely human composition being sung in worship or permission given in Scripture for the composition and use of such a song. That, I think, you'll be hard pressed to do.

Whatever the phrase "psalms, hymns and spiritiual songs" means the idea that it is a cast iron defence for the introduction of songs of purely human composition into worship- of which we have no precedent in all of Scripture- is rather a stretch. There is enough in the phrase itself, the context of the verses in which the phrase is found and the overall teaching of Scripture to, if not totally defeat such an argument, at least make it so tenuous that it would be rendered irrelevant in building a theology of worship.

Therefore even if there were songs used in worship other than the 150 in the Psalter we have no reason to believe those songs were not also inspired by the Holy Ghost. And as we have no record of those songs, but we do have a record of the completed Psalter being used, it is only logical to conclude that whatever else may have been sung at one time is no longer to be used by the church. Otherwise God would have preserved those songs and directed us to use them.
 
Last edited:
@David Taylor

I really do think the best thing to do is crawl into a quiet space for some time and study the issue. Go over the passages, study them in detail, pick out a really good book, listen to a few good sermons, take some really good notes, pray earnestly about it, pour over it.

And buy a Psalter and sing a few :)

These threads take off lightning quick, and the amount of interplay between comments gets complex and confusing, and I think ultimately you'll end up more confused by the amount of detail in such a thread.

My humble opinion. But I've found it always best to do such a thing when understanding a new issue. I think you'll come out the better for it.
 
even if there were songs used in worship other than the 150 in the Psalter we have no reason to believe those songs were not also inspired by the Holy Ghost. And as we have no record of those songs, but we do have a record of the completed Psalter being used, it is only logical to conclude that whatever else may have been sung at one time is no longer to be used by the church. Otherwise God would have preserved those songs and directed us to use them.
Yes. The fact is that the Psalter we have is the Psalter God has given us. (Seems rather too obvious to need to say, but there it is.)
 
And buy a Psalter and sing a few :)

Even if you're convinced that God command us to sing songs outside of the Psalms or outside of the inspired Scriptures, I think you'll find great benefit in following the sure command of God to sing his Psalms. It seems you were unfamiliar until recently with the resources to actually sing the Psalms that our Reformation heritage has made readily accessible in a form that we can use with our modern style of singing. I've had immense benefit from singing the Psalms in my personal life and I believe congregations do as well. I wish we would have more agreement that we can and should sing the Psalms as we have so lost them in the church today, even among those who in theory agree we should use them inclusively.
 
Even if you're convinced that God command us to sing songs outside of the Psalms or outside of the inspired Scriptures, I think you'll find great benefit in following the sure command of God to sing his Psalms. It seems you were unfamiliar until recently with the resources to actually sing the Psalms that our Reformation heritage has made readily accessible in a form that we can use with our modern style of singing. I've had immense benefit from singing the Psalms in my personal life and I believe congregations do as well. I wish we would have more agreement that we can and should sing the Psalms as we have so lost them in the church today, even among those who in theory agree we should use them inclusively.

Are you sure this reply was meant for me? I'm full EP.
 
I have been thinking through the issue of EP for some time now. I always appreciate these discussions on PB. Does anyone have any good book recommendations which lay out the theological basis for EP? I would appreciate recommendations. Thank you.
 
I have been thinking through the issue of EP for some time now. I always appreciate these discussions on PB. Does anyone have any good book recommendations which lay out the theological basis for EP? I would appreciate recommendations. Thank you.
This book, while not arguing for exclusive psalmody, makes an excellent case for the value of psalmody in the church. The author does hold to EP.
 
I have been thinking through the issue of EP for some time now. I always appreciate these discussions on PB. Does anyone have any good book recommendations which lay out the theological basis for EP? I would appreciate recommendations. Thank you.

I believe there is shorter work on Psalmody and the Sabbath by John Cotton, I'm pretty sure it's available on Reformation Heritage Book's site. I see John Murray and William Young's EP report to the 1947 OPC General Assembly.
 
I Appreciate the recommendations. I'll have a look at them.

Anyone who does not hold to EP have book recommendations for the negative position?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top