Exclusive Psalmody and the Name of Jesus

[panta dokimazete]

I made an earlier post that could seem, well...incendiary. I hope this comes across as more winsome.

I have a penchant for bluntness that may come across as harsh and unyielding at times. I do not mean to seem angry, condescending, or spiteful in my attempts to point out what I am convinced of as error.

Exclusive Psalmody (EP) has always seemed like a "scrupulous overreaction" by those who want to keep worship "pure". That is, in an attempt to reduce the introduction of error in sung worship, and worship in general, they have inadvertently fallen into promoting a false doctrine.

Now, I won't try and go through every objection to EP or the variety of voluminous EP substantiation, but please be sure, I have looked at all the aspects to land on this particular (and what I believe strongest) rebuttal of the EP position.

The exclusive use of the Psalms in sung worship implicitly denies the church the opportunity to sing to Jesus using His proper name as the object of worship.

I know that the EP position is that yeshua/ישוע is used many times in the Psalms. That is 100% accurate. Here's the deal though; it is used to speak OF salvation, not who IS salvation. It is theological/linguistic gymnastics to support a false conclusion. To properly sing of Jesus as Lord and Savior, you'd have to sing using the proper name of Jesus (Joshua, Yeshua, Ἰησοῦς, ישוע) to refer to the object of worship, which the Psalms do not do.

The NT authors frequently use the name of Jesus as an object of power, authority and reverence. It is sinful for us to also not do this in every component of worship.

Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that EP doctrine is false and its adherents and teachers are in error.

 

[Romans922]

https://www.semperreformanda.com/psalmody/exclusive-psalmody-and-singing-Jesus-name-by-daniel-kok/

@Poimen who is on PB wrote this in answer to your question.

I would also encourage you to consider when you are not singing Psalms, that you are sometimes (depending on the hymn) merely singing about Jesus. But when you sing the Psalms in worship you are singing with Jesus (Heb. 2:12) in each one.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I may be singing with Jesus in the Psalms and I do not diminish the glory in that, but Scripture directs us to worship Him, by name, directly, as the NT authors did, which the Psalm do not do.

 

[Romans922]

Read the article friend.

 

[panta dokimazete]

If there is some particular point in Pastor Kok's post you'd like to point out that addresses my OP, please feel free to point it out here for discussion/debate.

 

[Romans922]

Exclusive Psalmody and Singing Jesus’ Name



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[1] 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 other exclusive-psalmodists 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) 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?[2] 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 ever speak the name Ἰησοῦς(Iēsous) from the 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 (as found in chapters 4,5,7,11&15) 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) In no instance do Jesus’ closest disciples ever speak of Him with that name. Never once is Jesus Himself called by that name as an address to Him by others except by the demons and the notable exception of the blind men at Jericho and the lepers in Samaria who called Him “Jesus, Master.” Typically when He is addressed by others He is simply called “Lord” “Master” or “Teacher.”
7) As Richard Bacon points out, Jesus did not include His name in the baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19).[3]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?

8) Jesus name is also not found in institution of the Lord Supper. It is “my body” and eaten in “remembrance of me” but not, strictly, 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).

9) The Psalms, however, contain the titles of Jesus (Anointed, Son 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.
10) That Psalm singers do call upon the name of Jesus is evident from the names given to Him at His incarnation. In Isaiah 9:6 we read that “his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” For “Wonderful Counselor” see Psalm 16:7; for “Mighty God” see Psalms 24:8 & 45:3; for “Everlasting Father” see Psalm 45:6 & 145:13 and for “Prince of Peace” see Psalm 72:7.
12) 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.[4]

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

[1] I have used the word ‘supposed’ quite deliberately: “t has been alleged for years that we have fragments of such ‘new songs’ in Philippians 2, First Timothy 3 and elsewhere. Frankly, it is always disappointing to find advocates of hymnody appealing to the alleged presence of Apostolic hymn ‘fragments’ in the New Testament. In the face of an utter lack of evidence for their existence, the attempt to find them should simply be given up. They are less likely to be found than Atlantis or the Abominable Snowman! If these ‘fragments’ are anything more than exalted prose they could just as easily be fragments of early creeds. However, it is important to remember that the whole exercise is one in sheer scholastic speculation – the kind of speculation indulged in by academics who have given up the study of what is revealed in exchange for the pursuit of novelty and spurious originality – not to mention academic degrees! The stubborn fact remains that hymnody is an enduring art form and the utter absence of hymns from the first 200 years (and more) of post-Apostolic church history is a huge problem for those who believe that they were sung by the Apostles and their successors. Indeed, their absence is as much of a problem for the advocates of hymnody as the absence of musical instruments in the first 800 years of church history is for the advocates of instrumental music. This is particularly the case if these ‘hymns’ were so important as to be partly incorporated into the New Testament letters. If they really did exist and if they were known and memorised by the Apostles and were incorporated into their letters, their disappearance from the record of history becomes simply and utterly inexplicable.” Rev. Kenneth Stewart “Which Songs Should We Sing in Worship?”

[2] This would exclude the singing of “Amazing Grace” which does not use Jesus name.

[3]http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/crampton.htm

[4]See the second point in this article: http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/whypsalmsonly

Another common objection to exclusive psalmody is that since scripture speaks of singing a new song we are permitted (if not required) to write new songs in every generation. This argument dates back to the 17th century and has been used frequently ever since.[1]

There are 9 new song references in the scriptures 6 of which are found in the Psalms alone: Psalms 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9 & 149:1; Isaiah 42:10; Revelation 5:9 & 14:3.

1) In every reference the command or the description is that of a “new song,” (singular) not new songs (plural). This would appear to be significant in that new songs would refer to an ongoing collection of songs to be written whereas new song would refer to a particular song with its own particular elements and requirements.

2) This is supported by the command that accompanies these descriptions. The new song is to be sung, not composed. The new song must then be provided by God Himself: that is an inspired source other than the singer or singers who are called to praise God.[2]

3) This is demonstrated in the Psalms, where the phrase “new song” is primarily placed at the beginning (not the end) of the Psalm suggesting that it is, in fact, the content of the new song.

4) In Psalm 144:9 (where this is not the case) David says “I will sing a new song” (emphasis mine). Of course this does not necessarily rule out others from joining in, but the context indicates that the previous statement is a personal one: “the one who gives salvation to kings, who delivers David his servant” (emphasis mine). In any case there is no command here to compose a new song. David by the inspiration of the Spirit is the composer; we are the choir.

5) We see this clearly in Psalm 40:3 which reads “He has put a new song in my mouth.” In this verse David, who was the “sweet Psalmist of Israel,” acknowledges that the new song has been given to him by God.. This could not more clearly refer to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

6) In Isaiah 42:10, the prophet borrows the idea of a new song from the Psalms and applies it to a new people, namely to the Gentiles (“from the ends of the earth” cf. vs. 6 where Israel will be a light to the Gentiles). This could either mean that, with the inclusion of the Gentiles new songs would have to be written to celebrate the creation of a “new man” (Ephesians 2:15), or the ‘old’ songs would take on new meaning by being sung by the Gentile converts. It would seem the latter is the case since in Psalm 96 the Psalmist speaks of singing to the Lord a new song in vs. 1 and then calls upon the nations in vs. 7ff. to join him in his praise of God).

7) In fact the singing of Psalms (as a canonical book) is more suitable to the new covenant church than it ever was to the old. The Psalms prolepticaly anticipate the day when Japheth will dwell in the tents of Shem.[3] So the language of Israel’s faith as applied to the Gentiles becomes a ‘new song’ i.e. new in meaning without being newly written. In fact it is impossible that a ‘new song’ could only refer to a new situation (i.e. the necessity of songs to be written as the Gentiles were enfolded into Israel) since Israel was commanded to sing a new song before the inclusion of the Gentiles.

8) This understanding of new song meaning an old song sung with new meaning is reinforced by Luke 24:44-45: “How must the words of Psalm 2, or 22, or 45, or 110, or 118 have sounded like new songs to those who had been accustomed to singing them in the shadows of unrevealed realities! The effect of the light of the Gospel upon the remnant of Israel redeemed by His grace was to cause them to sing “as it were, a New Song” unto the Lord – not “new” in substance or content, but “new” in richness of meaning and fullness of glory to the God and Savior of men! Seen in this light, the song of the redeemed, which was “as it were, a new song,” and which could only be learned by them, shows us the wonderful way in which the Psalms come alive with meaning in the full light of Christ’s redemption to those whose eyes are opened to see their testimony concerning Jesus.” Douglas Comin, Worship from Genesis to Revelation

9) In Revelation (5:9 & 14:3) a “new song” is sung in the heavenly realm where the saints are ‘contributing’ to the prophetic whole of the book. It is not a new song in terms of being written by someone for a particular occasion (as with an uninspired hymn). Rightly then G.I. Williamson has noted: “To learn a new song, taught by the Lord, is very different from writing a new song of our own” (The Singing of Psalms in Worship). Furthermore the song in Revelation 14:3 cannot even be learned except by the redeemed of God. That the church is a mixed multitude here below reinforces that this song cannot be an example of new compositions in the militant church for we are not all redeemed in the here and now.

10) The new Jerusalem descends from above; it is heavenly in origin and God’s creation (Revelation 21:2). Likewise the new song does not originate with man but with God (see Michael Bushell, Songs of Zion, page 96).

11) Furthermore there are many examples of new ‘things’ in scripture, none of which require that something entirely new or fresh be made or recognized but only that which was old be renewed or restored to its former glory.

There is a “new commandment” John 13:34; a “new covenant” 2 Corinthians 3:6-7; Hebrews 8:8; we are a “new creation” 2 Corinthians 5:17 and a “new man” Ephesians 2:15 and there is a “new heavens and earth” 2 Peter 3:13. In each of these instances we do not have something entirely new but the old or previously existing commandment, covenant, character and creation renewed, revived and reclaimed. For example, R.L. Dabney argues from John 13:34 that Christ’s new commandment “was only ‘the old command renewed,’ only a re-enactment with an additional motive: Christ’s love for us” (Systematic Theology, page 357).

[1] “It was Benjamin Keach, and not Isaac Watts as is commonly thought, who was the first Puritan to write hymns of human composition. The first hymns of Watts were published in 1694, while those of Keach had appeared thirty years earlier. Commenting on the phrase ‘a new song’ found in the Psalms and in Rev. 14:3, Keach writes, ‘A new song,’ signifies a new song which praises God for new benefits received from him… This shows other spiritual songs may be sung besides David’s psalms in gospel days.’” [quoting Benjamin Keach “The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship” page 129] John Price, Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, pages 118-119.
[2] This is consistent with the composition of the song in scripture which is frequently (if not always) inspired of God. As Michael Bushell argues, “they [commands to sing a new song] do not constitute a warrant for us to produce uninspired worship song any more than they did for the Old Testament saints.” The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody

[3] For more on this point see “Ashamed of the Tents of Shem?” by J.G. Vos SpindleWorks, Sharing Reformed Christian Resources Around The World

 

[panta dokimazete]

Read the article friend.

I did, partner - I was unconvinced. Anything you'd like to point out that rebuts my OP?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Since the whole article was posted, I'll address a couple of points, if not all.

This one caught my eye:

3) 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?[2] 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?

This is a very poor attempt at ad absurdum. We don't say Jesus' name explicitly in every prayer or sermon, but it is not implicitly prohibited as EP does with sung worship.

 

[VictorBravo]

This is a very poor attempt at ad absurdum. We don't say Jesus' name explicitly in every prayer or sermon, but it is not implicitly prohibited as EP does with sung worship.

I'm not EP, but I thought the point was an effective ad absurdum.

The argument I hear from you is:

To not be in error, we must use Jesus' name when we worship.
The psalms don't use Jesus' name.
Therefore, singing psalms is in error.

If one effectively questions the first premise, the argument falls.

If we try to accept the first premise, but also grant that the first premise has exceptions (based on what?), the argument means little.

 

[Jake]

I wrote this response to your original post before I saw it got locked. I know you framed it differently, but I'll post it here:

I reject the name of Jesus when I sing Psalm 118:22?

Some argue we sing the name of Jesus in the Psalms when he sing his titles (Annointed/Messiah, Cornerstone, etc.) or when we sing the meaning of his name (Jesus = Joshua = God of our salvation, a name of God which occurs all throughout the Psalter such as in Psalm 65:5).

"Any doctrine that excludes and prohibits the use of the explicit name of Jesus in its practice is an abomination and a doctrine of Satan."

Where do you get this doctrine from this verse? A worship service all about Jesus, reading from the whole of Scripture, preaching from it, praying from it, but only singing songs about Jesus that do not use explicitly use his name is denying salvation found in Jesus?

Even the New Testament songs or potential songs (I say potential as there are prayers or other poetic language some suppose to be songs but are not explictly identified as such in the text) do not use the name Jesus, unless you identify Philippians 2 as one. I can't think of any other example. Revelation 5:9 is very messianic in theme for example, but does not use the name Jesus. It is very clearly messianic though and about Jesus, just as Psalm 72, 110, 2, etc. are.

 

[lynnie]

Going back 40+ years I was in a charismatic church and a prof from Westminster Seminary was asked to speak ( the pastor had gone to WTS). The prof was EP. That was the early charismatic days when worship was almost entirely scripture choruses. (It's digressed into happy clappy bands and modern lyrics)

Afterwards the pastor commented that he had really enjoyed the singing with all the scripture. For the longest time (before I came across this board) I thought EP meant singing scripture, since psalms were songs and in Revelation they sang the song of Moses and the song of the lamb. I didn't know the song of Moses and the Lamb in Revelation didn't qualify, and I never understood that, but to be fair I never bothered to study it. ( We also sang various NT passages; great for memorizing!)

I try to keep out of this subject since I am not studied on it, but I do respect both sides the way I respect credo-paedo. There are wise, studied men on both positions. What REALLY bothered me here though, was when years ago I said something very positive about the author Iain Murray, who is my favorite Christian author, or at least in my very top faves. The thread had zero to do with EP. But somebody jumped on me and said I was wrong to have respect for Iain Murray because he was not EP and had written an article on why he didn't hold to EP. I forget who but I don't think it was a mod or I might have left the board over that.

I would hope the EPs here, and the non EPs, can at least respect each other while they argue. As far as I know they do. I am curious though, why an EP can't sing a song from Revelation, which would be a psalm, no? Anyway OP, I hope you can get along with people you think are in error. It isn't easy when you have an adamant position on something. At least it isn't Dispensationalists lol, that is what really gets to me in my acquaintances.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The central problem with your argument, brother, is that your concept of the "name of Jesus" is both silly and reductionist. In previous years, you did yourself no favours by continually playing this harp of one string. From what we have seen today, you are making the same mistake again. There are people here who take a hardline on the TR/AV issue with which I disagree. As much as I think that they are in error and that their zeal on the issue is not according to knowledge, it is not keeping me awake at night. I would far rather concentrate on those who are really attacking scripture, rather than those who are too overzealous on one (relatively) minor subject.

 

[Jake]

Going back 40+ years I was in a charismatic church and a prof from Westminster Seminary was asked to speak ( the pastor had gone to WTS). The prof was EP. That was the early charismatic days when worship was almost entirely scripture choruses. (It's digressed into happy clappy bands and modern lyrics)

Afterwards the pastor commented that he had really enjoyed the singing with all the scripture. For the longest time (before I came across this board) I thought EP meant singing scripture, since psalms were songs and in Revelation they sang the song of Moses and the song of the lamb. I didn't know the song of Moses and the Lamb in Revelation didn't qualify, and I never understood that, but to be fair I never bothered to study it. ( We also sang various NT passages; great for memorizing!)

I try to keep out of this subject since I am not studied on it, but I do respect both sides the way I respect credo-paedo. There are wise, studied men on both positions. What REALLY bothered me here though, was when years ago I said something very positive about the author Iain Murray, who is my favorite Christian author, or at least in my very top faves. The thread had zero to do with EP. But somebody jumped on me and said I was wrong to have respect for Iain Murray because he was not EP and had written an article on why he didn't hold to EP. I forget who but I don't think it was a mod or I might have left the board over that.

I would hope the EPs here, and the non EPs, can at least respect each other while they argue. As far as I know they do. I am curious though, why an EP can't sing a song from Revelation, which would be a psalm, no? Anyway OP, I hope you can get along with people you think are in error. It isn't easy when you have an adamant position on something. At least it isn't Dispensationalists lol, that is what really gets to me in my acquaintances.

I believe John Murray, parts of the old Free Church of Scotland, and R. Scott Clark are among those who hold to some form of "Scripture songs only" which of course is still predominant psalmody. I wouldn't be surprised if John Murray influenced others at WTS to have a similar position.

I've actually heard R. Scott Clark argue that his position solves issues like the one in the OP, although I can only think of one possible Scripture song that has the name of "Jesus" explicitly.

 

[Taylor]

I can only think of one possible Scripture song that has the name of "Jesus" explicitly.

Philippians 2?

 

[Phil D.]

"Scripture songs only"

In context, is this generally understood to be "parts of scripture that are believed to be an actual song" or "singing any scripture"?

 

[greenbaggins]

As a non-EP'er, I have never thought the argument from the lack of Jesus' name was terribly convincing. Not, at least, if one is a thoroughgoing Vossian, which I am. The Psalms are about Jesus and are sung by Jesus as the ultimate Psalm singer. According to Luke 24, the entire OT is about Jesus. To my mind, the argument commits the word-concept fallacy, that if you don't have the name of Jesus worshiped, you don't have Him at all. This I don't buy.

Instead, it is the word-concept fallacy that I also think is the best argument against the EP position. A hymn can be fully biblical and even "psalmical" without being ipsissima verba. To me, that is where the nub of the issue lies. EP'ers cannot prove from Scripture that a faithful summary of biblical teaching in a good hymn is to be so divorced from the ipsissima verba that it isn't allowed. Just as in the Second Helvetic Confession, where the preaching of the Word is the Word (assuming that it is faithful to the biblical text), so also a biblically faithful hymn, like "Amazing Grace" is not to be divorced from the Bible itself. We can distinguish ipsissima verba from summaries, but we cannot separate faithful summaries from the Bible. This is why a position like mine can also use the inconsistency argument against EP. They don't sing the actual words of the Psalter, even though they claim this is what is necessary. The second you put an English translation into rhyme and meter, you are leaving the ipsissima verba. Then, it is only a question of degree between that and a hymn. Hymns have to be biblical in content. And there is no Scriptural argument for allowing summary in prayer, preaching, creeds, but not in the singing.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well, I am impressed how the first point you disagree with

EP'ers cannot prove from Scripture that a faithful summary of biblical teaching in a good hymn is to be so divorced from the ipsissima verba that it isn't allowed.

This sounds like a normative principle here. Maybe I don't understand what this means Lane.

 

[greenbaggins]

Well, I am impressed how the first point you disagree with

This sounds like a normative principle here. Maybe I don't understand what this means Lane.

So, it would go like this: summary of Scripture, even on the EP position, is allowed in the sermon, in prayer, in the creeds. Summary is therefore a principle allowed in worship. By what principle is it therefore excluded from singing, and why would ipsissima verba be the default, anyway? Why would ipsissima verba be considered "better" or "more faithful" in one area than the other? This isn't a question of normative versus regulative. It is a question of consistency among the various elements of worship, and what principle could be invoked to exclude summary in singing when it is allowable in preaching, prayer, and creeds. In other words, if the RPW is going to be invoked for challenging whether summaries are allowed in singing, then it has to be invoked for challenging the legitimacy of summaries in the other areas.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It is a question of consistency among the various elements of worship, and what principle could be invoked to exclude summary in singing when it is allowable in preaching, prayer, and creeds. In other words, if the RPW is going to be invoked for challenging whether summaries are allowed in singing, then it has to be invoked for challenging the legitimacy of summaries in the other areas.

Two things here Lane. Your argument has to mean that all of the elements of worship stand on the same level ground by definition. I hear you saying something like a spoken summary of Scripture is on the same level as reading the Scripture and that there boundaries are just different. That is what I hear you saying. Second it still sounds like you are closer to the normative principle than the regulative.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderating. Pausing. Lane's argument he introduced he thinks is better is a different one than the OP. It needs to be split to a new thread.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am not trying to be combative Lane. Just trying to interpret what I hear you saying. Also trying to have some fun with you.

LOL. The Staff needs to be reeled in. smh Aren't we a lot? Life is good. LOL LOL LOL

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderating. We'll fix this and resume both this and the thread to be split and created on Monday.