Exclusive Psalmody and singing Jesus' name

[Poimen]

One common objection against exclusive psalmody is that if we only sing the psalms we will fail to sing the “name that is above every other name” (Philippians 2:9).

I believe this objection fails for a number of reasons:

1) Of the supposed hymnic fragments found in the New Testament, only one actually uses the name Jesus (Philippians 2:5-11).

2) Even this passage does not command us to sing the name of Jesus, as exclusive-psalmodist proponents point out. Rather, the command is that every tongue confess Him. Furthermore, the confession is not limited to simply saying the name Jesus but that Jesus Christ is Lord. Arguably, this is done every time we sing Psalms 16 & 110.

3) We might ask: if it is commanded (i.e. required) that we sing ‘Jesus’ name, does this have to be done every time we gather together? In every song? The latter would require the exclusion of the psalms as songs of the church even though many advocates of hymns, and more importantly the scriptures themselves, require us to sing psalms. So in what way is this to be fulfilled?

4) If we literally are called to sing the name ‘Jesus’, we would have to do so (it would seem) with the original Greek in mind. Very few Christians, if any, would speak the name ‘Jesus’ in NT Greek. This is ironic since hymnodists often accuse Psalm singers of inconsistency since they do not sing the original Hebrew of the Psalms and often sing them in rhyme and meter.

5) Even the heavenly songs of Revelation do not use the name Jesus. If the name Jesus is so important to be sung, surely one or more of these songs would record His name.

6) As Richard Bacon points out, Jesus did not include His name in the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19).(1) If we are not required to be baptized in Jesus’ name, why would we be required to sing Jesus’ name in order to honor Him?

7) Jesus name is also not found in institution of the Lord Supper. It is “my body” and eaten in “remembrance of me” but not, necessarily, in ‘Jesus’ name. In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul speaks of the “body of Christ” and the “blood of Christ” but not that of Jesus. Likewise in chapter 11, the apostle speaks of proclaiming “the Lord’s death.”Furthermore, the song that was sung after the celebration of the first Supper was a psalm and, therefore, did not contain the name Jesus (Matthew 26:30).

8) The Psalms, however, contain the titles of Jesus (Christ, Son of God etc.) and even the very words of Jesus (Psalm 22:1 for example). Psalm singers never fail to honor Jesus even if they do not literally mention or sing his name.

9) The name ‘Jesus’ refers to His saving work (saving His people from their sins – Matthew 1:21). As others have noted, the Psalms are richly filled with references to His salvation for us.(2)

10) That psalms can be properly sung unto or in Jesus’ name without having to use the name ‘Jesus’ is demonstrated in Acts 2. Peter addresses his countrymen at Pentecost with a message about Jesus of Nazareth. He references Psalms 16 & 110 as speaking of “this Jesus” (vs. 32).

---

(1) www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/crampton.htm
(2) See the second point in this article: www.cprf.co.uk/articles/whypsalmsonly.htm

 

[irresistible_grace]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Very helpful!

 

[PhilA]

Thank you

 

[jwithnell]

This is, perhaps, a straw man argument. I don't believe the use of Jesus name is seen as some kind of necessary mantra. Rather, Jesus brings redemptive history to fruition, and His work garners worship, adoration and praise from His church. We sing a new song.

 

[Zach]

This is, perhaps, a straw man argument. I don't believe the use of Jesus name is seen as some kind of necessary mantra. Rather, Jesus brings redemptive history to fruition, and His work garners worship, adoration and praise from His church. We sing a new song.

I agree. We can praise Jesus with inspired Psalms and uninspired hymns.

 

[Peairtach]

One common objection against exclusive psalmody is that if we only sing the psalms we will fail to sing the “name that is above every other name” (Philippians 2:9).

I believe this objection fails for a number of reasons:

1) Of the supposed hymnic fragments found in the New Testament, only one actually uses the name Jesus (Philippians 2:5-11).

2) Even this passage does not command us to sing the name of Jesus, as exclusive-psalmodist proponents point out. Rather, the command is that every tongue confess Him. Furthermore, the confession is not limited to simply saying the name Jesus but that Jesus Christ is Lord. Arguably, this is done every time we sing Psalms 16 & 110.

3) We might ask: if it is commanded (i.e. required) that we sing ‘Jesus’ name, does this have to be done every time we gather together? In every song? The latter would require the exclusion of the psalms as songs of the church even though many advocates of hymns, and more importantly the scriptures themselves, require us to sing psalms. So in what way is this to be fulfilled?

4) If we literally are called to sing the name ‘Jesus’, we would have to do so (it would seem) with the original Greek in mind. Very few Christians, if any, would speak the name ‘Jesus’ in NT Greek. This is ironic since hymnodists often accuse Psalm singers of inconsistency since they do not sing the original Hebrew of the Psalms and often sing them in rhyme and meter.

5) Even the heavenly songs of Revelation do not use the name Jesus. If the name Jesus is so important to be sung, surely one or more of these songs would record His name.

6) As Richard Bacon points out, Jesus did not include His name in the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19).(1) If we are not required to be baptized in Jesus’ name, why would we be required to sing Jesus’ name in order to honor Him?

7) Jesus name is also not found in institution of the Lord Supper. It is “my body” and eaten in “remembrance of me” but not, necessarily, in ‘Jesus’ name. In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul speaks of the “body of Christ” and the “blood of Christ” but not that of Jesus. Likewise in chapter 11, the apostle speaks of proclaiming “the Lord’s death.”Furthermore, the song that was sung after the celebration of the first Supper was a psalm and, therefore, did not contain the name Jesus (Matthew 26:30).

8) The Psalms, however, contain the titles of Jesus (Christ, Son of God etc.) and even the very words of Jesus (Psalm 22:1 for example). Psalm singers never fail to honor Jesus even if they do not literally mention or sing his name.

9) The name ‘Jesus’ refers to His saving work (saving His people from their sins – Matthew 1:21). As others have noted, the Psalms are richly filled with references to His salvation for us.(2)

10) That psalms can be properly sung unto or in Jesus’ name without having to use the name ‘Jesus’ is demonstrated in Acts 2. Peter addresses his countrymen at Pentecost with a message about Jesus of Nazareth. He references Psalms 16 & 110 as speaking of “this Jesus” (vs. 32).

---

(1) www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/crampton.htm
(2) See the second point in this article: www.cprf.co.uk/articles/whypsalmsonly.htm

Good points.

9) The name ‘Jesus’ refers to His saving work (saving His people from their sins – Matthew 1:21). As others have noted, the Psalms are richly filled with references to His salvation for us.(2)

The Name of Jesus, as you say, is His Person and Work, not a mantra.

The name "Jesus" means Jehovah is Salvation". See how many references there are to "Lord" and "salvation" in connection with each other in the Psalms.

E.g.

And my soul shall be joyful in the Lord: it shall rejoice in His salvation (Ps 35:9)

Salvation belongeth unto the Lord: Thy blessing is upon Thy people. Selah. (Ps 3:8)

and many other occurrences.

Many of us "EPers" don't reject the use of other Scripture songs, paraphrases and hymns altogether, but believe that there is high Scriptural warrant for the use of the Psalms, as compared to these others, and therefore believe that the Psalms only should be used in the stated services.

The Psalms are the songs that strengthened the Head on His earthly pilgrimage so the body cannot do better. They were always unlikely to refer to Him by His name "Jesus" because they were written before He arrived in the flesh, and He is the singer i.e. they were to be sung by Him in worship of his Father. If we have clear sanction to sing them compared to other songs, the fact that "Jesus" isn't mentioned is clearly not important to the Lord or for our spiritual welfare.

 

[Poimen]

This is, perhaps, a straw man argument. I don't believe the use of Jesus name is seen as some kind of necessary mantra. Rather, Jesus brings redemptive history to fruition, and His work garners worship, adoration and praise from His church. We sing a new song.

Asking for clarification: are you replying to my arguments or to those who support hymn singing with the argument I was refuting?

 

[jwithnell]

You are making a brilliant argument that does not address the central position of non-EPers.

 

[Poimen]

You are making a brilliant argument that does not address the central position of non-EPers.

Thank you for the clarification. I don't believe, however, it is fair to use the term mantra when referring to the argument I was presenting. I never used the term nor is that how those who advocate its use in song (hymnody) have used it. Some, however, insist on singing Jesus' name in worship and consequently would undermine the EP position.

Perhaps I should clarify and state that I did not post the op with the intention of proving EP or disproving hymnody. I was merely responding to a common argument which I have often come across in my study of the issue. Common enough for Gary Crampton to use (as per the Richard Bacon article I cited), Joey Pipa in his defense of hymnody and numerous other references, including a colleague of mine. It is also common enough to warrant a defense of the EP position against such arguments by others: Creideamh: On (not?) singing the name of Jesus I am certain many people here who sing EP would also recognize the argument's 'universal' character.

 

[TylerRay]

Good points, but there is one question that is often missed when people discuss this--is the name "Jesus," or "Yeshuah," in the Psalms? The answer is yes.

Psalm 78:2
"Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation."

I am no Hebraist, but I have heard it taught (and as I've looked into it it seems reasonable) that this could be read "Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in Yeshuah."

Perhaps someone more learned in Hebrew could help out here?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Thank you for these points Pastor Kok, very helpful.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Old Thread same subject kinda....

Here is an EP article on the subject:
Singing the Name of Jesus
The Psalm Singer "Can" Sing the Name of Jesus

by Richard Bacon

Copyright 2002 © First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett

See a PDF format of this article in The Blue Banner, v11#1


An argument is sometimes made against the position of Exclusive Psalmody (the position that one should only sing the inspired songs from the OT Psalms in worship) that since the name of Jesus is not in the OT Psalms, that we must have new hymns for the NT Church. I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the force of this “argument.” I’ve seen the argument many times and expressed in a multitude of ways, but when pressed I’ve never been able to get any of its advocates to put it into a syllogistic form for me. Recently I’ve seen the suggestion that the fact that one does not find the name of Jesus in the Psalter is evidence against using the Psalter as an exclusive praise book. In order for that fact to count as evidence however, it seems to me that a syllogism something like the following would be needed:

• We are commanded by Scripture to sing the name of Jesus.
• The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.
• Therefore the Psalter is insufficient as a songbook for the church.

However, what is generally proposed is something like:

• It would be nice in my opinion to sing the name of Jesus.
• The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.
• Therefore I want to use some additional hymns that do contain the name of Jesus.

I do not think we are commanded anywhere in the OT to sing Jesus’ name anymore than we are commanded in the NT to sing it, so I think the argument is a sort of “red herring.” Why is the name of Jesus (an Anglicization of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehoshua) given to our savior? Because, as Matthew 1:21 informs us, “he shall save his people from their sins.” For those non-Hebraists reading this, he is called Yehoshuah (Joshua) because the Hebrew word for salvation is – you guessed it, “Yoshuah.” I wonder how many hymns are written using Jesus’ actual name that his mother or father who named him would have recognized? Probably not many, if any at all. Aside: I would not be surprised to find such hymns in Messianic congregations.
The Psalter is, however, replete with references to the Savior in his person, work, titles, attributes, and yes even his name. In the Psalms Christ is referred to by his “title” of Messiah (Greek = “Christ”). Of course, because in the Psalms we often find the word translated into English (we should sing with understanding as well as with spirit – 1 Cor. 14:15) we may not immediately recognize it. Never mind – we should learn what Jesus’ name *means* and not simply recite it as a mantra – I think all of us would agree with that regardless of our view of exclusive or non-exclusive Psalmody.
So then, here is a non-exhaustive list of Psalms that we can sing whenever we want to have Jesus’ title of Christ/Messiah/Anointed on our lips (I’ve included the verse by reference):
Psalm 2:2; Psalm 18:50; Psalm 20:6; Psalm 28:8; Psalm 45:7 (verbal variant); Psalm 84:9; Psalm 89:20 (verbal variant); Psalm 89:38; Psalm 89:51; Psalm 105:15; Psalm 132:10; Psalm 132:17.
I realize that it may be possible to sing these passages and have nothing other than King David in view. That would be a terrible misunderstanding of the Psalms, though. That would be like reading about the tabernacle without Christ in view or “the seed of Abraham” without Christ in view. The New Testament does not provide us with a new songbook in large measure because it teaches us how to understandthe songbook God gave his church for the ages. In fact, I would maintain that there are some portions of the Psalms that are impossible to understand without a view to Christ (e.g. Psalm 68:18).
But wait, that list includes Jesus’ title, but not his name Jesus. Yes, that is correct. So, does singing the Psalter alone allow us to sing the name of Jesus? Yes, it does if we recall that he is named Jesus because his name is actually the Hebrew word for salvation. It would be more accurate for me to explain that it is one of the Hebrew words for salvation. The Psalter uses two cognate words for “salvation.” One is YShU`AH and the other is YSh`AH. If we note carefully, the only difference is the presence or absence of the shureq (letter “u”). The following list of Psalm verses speaks of the name YShU`AH, though you will typically find it translated by the English word “salvation.” These are the places that for all intents and purposes use the Hebrew word for the name of Jesus. For the Hebraists on the list, I should add that there will often be pronominal suffixes attached, but that does not change the fact that we are singing the English translation rather than merely the transliteration of Jesus’ name. Think of singing “king of the world” in the place of the name “Vladimir” or “Walter” and you will have a similar concept.
Psalm 3:8; 9:14; 13:5; 14:7; 20:5; 21:1, 5; 35:9; 38:22; 40:10, 16; 50:23; 51:14; 53:6; 62:1, 2, 6; 68:19; 69:29; 70:4; 71:15; 74:12; 78:22; 88:1; 89:26; 91:16; 96:2; 98:2, 3; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14, 15, 21; 119:41, 81, 123, 155, 166, 174; 140:7; 144:10; 149:4.
These verse numbers are all as found in the English Bible. Something that struck me as I was researching Psalm 89 is that this is the restatement of the Davidic covenant which clearly speaks of Christ and it also contains both his name (translated as “salvation”) and his title “Christ” fully four times.
Here is the “bottom line” of all this. As William Binnie said in his masterful work on the Psalms we must always read and sing the Psalms with one eye toward David and the other eye toward Christ.

 

[JP Wallace]

Very good, compact arguments against what in my experience is the number 2 argument against exclusive psalmody (after psalms, hymns and spiritual songs).

 

[Kaalvenist]

The argument has been used a number of times on the Puritanboard by those opposed to exclusive psalmody. As I recall, there are some threads devoted entirely to debating that question, with non-EP'ers taking the line that we MUST sing the name of Jesus.

 

[Peairtach]

This is, perhaps, a straw man argument. I don't believe the use of Jesus name is seen as some kind of necessary mantra. Rather, Jesus brings redemptive history to fruition, and His work garners worship, adoration and praise from His church. We sing a new song.

The New Covenant people sing the Psalms as new songs compared with the Old Covenant people with their more limited understanding.

 

[JoannaV]

I never really understand how people who, in a Bible study, demonstrate great understanding of Christ's presence in the Psalms, then use the argument that "but we need to sing about Christ".

 

[Zach]

I really don't know any Reformed Christians who sing hymns that would say that the singing of Psalms is not singing about Christ. I've grown to love Psalm singing and it is more apparent every time I sing from the Psalms that Christ is throughout the Psalter. Nevertheless, I love to sing uninspired hymns about Christ too! I believe that there is a legitimate scriptural warrant for so doing. I'm with Ms. Withnell that this seems to be tearing down an argument that most non-EP people do not use.

 

[Poimen]

I really don't know any Reformed Christians who sing hymns that would say that the singing of Psalms is not singing about Christ. I've grown to love Psalm singing and it is more apparent every time I sing from the Psalms that Christ is throughout the Psalter. Nevertheless, I love to sing uninspired hymns about Christ too! I believe that there is a legitimate scriptural warrant for so doing. I'm with Ms. Withnell that this seems to be tearing down an argument that most non-EP people do not use.

With respect, you haven't read the post very carefully if this is the conclusion you have drawn from the arguments. It is not that advocates of uninspired hymns say that singing the Psalms is not singing about Christ but whether or not we sing the name Jesus (as per Philippians 2:9) which they claim advocates of EP cannot do. And as I and others have noted in this thread, many advocates of hymnody use this argument, and some of them are even respected theologians and churchmen. It is a popular argument and ought not to be used because it is fallacious.

 

[Zach]

I agree that it should not be used and that it is wrong. I just have yet to see anyone use it to justify why they aren't EP. I'm sure there are people out there who do use it, but I haven't seen people in the Reformed community use it.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

If you truly understand the Psalms, then you will understand that they are ALL about Christ, so if you are singing the Psalms, then you are singing about Christ.

 

[Marrow Man]

6) As Richard Bacon points out, Jesus did not include His name in the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19).(1) If we are not required to be baptized in Jesus’ name, why would we be required to sing Jesus’ name in order to honor Him?

This is very interesting. By that same reckoning, would you say that we would be doing something similar (i.e., singing of Jesus w/o actually mentioning His name, but that of "the Son") whenever we sing Psalm 2?

 

[ProtestantBankie]

Interesting to read, but I have never had a Non-EPer actually tell me we have to sing the name of Jesus.

"Amazing Grace" mentions neither Jesus, Christ nor God. Yet the average Non-EP Christian will happily include it in their sung praise.

What is the Non-EP regarding the content of hymns? No universal position exists, you pay your money and you take your choice. And I am thankful that at least Reformed Christians who don't hold to EP take "what hymns to include" very seriously!

 

[JML]

On the opposite side, it seems to me that especially with contemporary Christian music the other two persons of the Trinity are neglected in praise. This is not as much the case with the older hymns but with the more modern Christian music.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

I really don't know any Reformed Christians who sing hymns that would say that the singing of Psalms is not singing about Christ. I've grown to love Psalm singing and it is more apparent every time I sing from the Psalms that Christ is throughout the Psalter. Nevertheless, I love to sing uninspired hymns about Christ too! I believe that there is a legitimate scriptural warrant for so doing. I'm with Ms. Withnell that this seems to be tearing down an argument that most non-EP people do not use.

But, Zach, they in fact do. The pastor noted several particulars and I have known more than a few. You offer no help in saying that this argument isn't founded in regular experience. In fact, Mrs. Withnell called it a "straw man," which completely dismisses the argument as not founded in reality. You soften it some, but you could just have not experienced it. Do some asking around/searching and I assure you, you'll find it out there as a "slam dunk" argument used against EP.

 

[Zach]

I really don't know any Reformed Christians who sing hymns that would say that the singing of Psalms is not singing about Christ. I've grown to love Psalm singing and it is more apparent every time I sing from the Psalms that Christ is throughout the Psalter. Nevertheless, I love to sing uninspired hymns about Christ too! I believe that there is a legitimate scriptural warrant for so doing. I'm with Ms. Withnell that this seems to be tearing down an argument that most non-EP people do not use.

But, Zach, they in fact do. The pastor noted several particulars and I have known more than a few. You offer no help in saying that this argument isn't founded in regular experience. In fact, Mrs. Withnell called it a "straw man," which completely dismisses the argument as not founded in reality. You soften it some, but you could just have not experienced it. Do some asking around/searching and I assure you, you'll find it out there as a "slam dunk" argument used against EP.

If that is really the case, they should change their argument. I think there are other good reasons not to be EP. But alas, that's for another thread and not one I am interested in engaging on right now.

 

[Poimen]

6) As Richard Bacon points out, Jesus did not include His name in the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19).(1) If we are not required to be baptized in Jesus’ name, why would we be required to sing Jesus’ name in order to honor Him?

This is very interesting. By that same reckoning, would you say that we would be doing something similar (i.e., singing of Jesus w/o actually mentioning His name, but that of "the Son") whenever we sing Psalm 2?

Yes. I believe this is clear from Acts 4:24-28.

 

[Poimen]

I am not a moderator but I am the author of the original post and I think that this thread has turned away from its intent: discussing the singing of the name of Jesus as it relates to the issue of exclusive psalmody. In my humble opinion, other issues relevant to EP should be dealt with in other threads.