Dr. Sam Waldron – Exclusive Psalmody
Audio Teaching:
Here Dr. Waldron outlines six reasons why he does NOT believe the Bible teaches that we are to use the Psalms exclusively in our Church’s worship.
Dr. Sam Waldron – A Consideration of Exclusive Psalmody (original source let there be singing. The act of creation is described as a time of singing. It was when “the morning stars sang together” (Job 38:7). Since that time God in His providence has said, Let the earth bring forth all kinds of singing and music. He has said, Let there be love songs, laments for the dead, ballads for the brave, and let there be hymns of praise to ME! He has also ordained that just as there should be a great variety of songs, there should be a great variety of music. Out of His creative providence have sprung all sorts of musical instruments and all sorts of musical geniuses. In the world we enjoy everything from brass bands to Bach and much more. Singing and music are wonderful gifts of God made for us to enjoy. Indeed, there is a great deal of Christian liberty with regard to this matter. Some may push this matter of their liberty way beyond what is good for them or glorifying to God or edifying to their brethren. Yet still without question there is great Christian liberty to enjoy these good gifts of God. Christians may enjoy sacred concerts, the singing of biblical psalms, the talents of great musicians, Southern gospel quartets, soloists, duets, trios. All these are good gifts to be enjoyed. Christians with discretion may also enjoy all sorts of secular music. Of course, care must be taken not to fill our minds with music that defiles us. But there is a place for all these sings in the rich life that God has given to His people.
But in my preaching for Grace Reformed Baptist Church in the series, How Then Should We Worship?, I am not dealing with the liberty Christians have to enjoy God’s good gifts in their own lives as they see fit. I am not speaking of what kinds of music they may bring into their own homes or concert halls. My concern is different. We are asking what God has appointed about this matter for His own house. There are many things that have a place in God’s world that do not have a place in God’s house. We have a liberty to order our own houses that we do not have in the house of God. The very essence of the regulative principle of the church is that God exercises a special rule over His own house that is different from His rules for life in general. This is the reason Paul said to Timothy I write so that you may know how one ought conduct Himself in the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15). In the world we have Christian liberty within the limits of His laws. In the church we have God dominating His own worship.
In this series, then, when I came to the required part of worship which the 1689 Baptist Confession describes as teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, my intention was not to say much of anything about the music to be enjoyed outside of the church. We may do as we will in the world within the limits of God’s laws, but in His house God condemns will-worship or self-made religion (Col. 2:23). The question I set for myself was simply this: What has God said about the singing of His praise in His worship?
Now many important subsidiary questions arise in conjunction with this, but the one I want take up in this question has to do with the renewed push in some Reformed circles for exclusive psalmody. In taking up this question I am assuming the answers to two previous questions. The first of these had to do with the precedent for congregational singing in the formal worship of God. I believe there is such precedent on the basis of passages like Matthew 26:30; 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26; Ephesians 5:18-20, Colossians 3:16-17; and Revelation 5:9-10. The second question has to do with the purpose of congregational singing. Here, and this may be a little surprising, the New Testament makes clear that the purpose of such singing is not just the praising God, but also ministering to men! This is clearly emphasized in at least three of the five passages just cited (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:18-20; and Colossians 3:16-17).
But assuming these things, I came to the practice of congregational singing in my preaching on this subject and confronted the question addressed in the title to this series. In this and following blog posts I will address four questions related to this subject:
What is exclusive psalmody?
Why should we take the time to deal with it?
How must the question be answered?
What are the major arguments against it?
What is exclusive psalmody?
I have used the phrase exclusive psalmody. Let me explain the phrase. There are those who believe that in the worship of God we should only sing the biblical psalms. There are two versions of this view. The stricter version of it says that only 150 psalms in the Book of Psalms may be sung. The less strict view allows that other portions of the Word of God may be sung, but still often and perhaps even usually concludes that to be on the safe side we should still sing only the psalms found in the biblical book called Psalms.
The last thing I want to do is caricature or misrepresent this position. It has been held by great and good men. It has been held by these men because of their strict regard for the regulative principle of worship. I honor them for this.
One of these men—and a man I greatly respect—is John Murray. With a little tongue in my cheek, I have sometimes described him as my “patron saint.” There are few or no men to whom I owe a greater debt theologically than Professor Murray. Here is his summary of the position. This is in Worship in the Presence of God, edited by Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman (Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media and Press, 2006), 192.
There is no warrant in Scripture for the use of uninspired human compositions in the singing of God’s praise in the public worship.
There is explicit authority for the use of inspired songs.
The songs of divine worship must therefore be limited to the songs of Scripture, for they alone are inspired.
The Book of Psalms does provide us with the kind of compositions for which we have the authority of Scripture.
We are therefore certain of divine sanction and approval in the singing of the Psalms.
We are not certain that other inspired songs were intended to be sung in the worship of God, even though the use of other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle on which Scripture authorization is explicit, namely, the use of inspired songs.
In view of uncertainty with respect to the use of other inspired songs, we should confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms.
Several comments on this remarkable summary of Murray are appropriate.
First, Murray here manifests a move that is, I think, fairly typical for exclusive psalmodists. On the one hand, they admit that singing “other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle on which Scripture authorization is explicit.” Nevertheless, they prefer to sing only the book of Psalms because of the alleged uncertainty with respect to whether these other inspired songs are to be used. This ends up being very similar to Brian Schwertley who gives this definition of exclusive psalmody: “Some churches sing ‘hymns’ of merely human composition; some churches sing uninspired hymns and inspired songs from the biblical Psalter, while some churches sing only from the 150 Psalms of the Bible. Using the book of Psalms alone as the manual of praise in the church is referred to as ‘exclusive Psalmody.’” (This is quoted from the online publication Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense by Brian Schwertley.) Thus, even though occasionally the singing of other parts of Scripture is theoretically entertained, practically speaking only the singing of the Book of Psalms is practiced.
Second, Murray illustrates something of what might be called from one perspective the “rigidity” or from another perspective the “carefulness” of the exclusive psalmody position in this statement. He says, “We are not certain that other inspired songs were intended to be sung in the worship of God.” This is, whatever else you call it, astonishing. Murray is not certain that even some inspired songs are acceptable worship!
Third, Murray and Schwertley make clear that the issue is, then, not whether we should sometimes sing the psalms of Scripture. I believe we should sing the from the Book of Psalms. I will not argue against that. I believe, rather, that there are wise and good reasons to do that and include, as we do at our own church, biblical psalms in our singing as a church. They are full of comfort, very instructive, and present a view of Christian experience that is very much more biblical and realistic than much contemporary hymnody. The issue is not inclusive psalmody. The issue is exclusive psalmody. The issue is whether we should sing only biblical psalms.
Why should we take the time to deal with it?
Both in preaching on this subject in our church and in considering whether to blog about this subject, I have raised a question for myself which you may also have. Why should I trouble the minds of God’s people with this issue? There are thousands of theological and exegetical issues which do not and should not certainly make the cut for pulpit or perhaps not for a blog series. Here are my reasons for dealing with this issue. First, some of those with whom we would agree most strongly about the regulative principle and in other theological respects regard most highly believe that it directly leads to exclusive psalmody. John Murray is my case in point here. Second, one major practical objection to the regulative principle on the part of some people is that it involves exclusive psalmody, a doctrine which many find old-fashioned and rigid. Whether or not they are right about exclusive psalmody being old-fashioned and rigid, I think it is important to show that the regulative principle does not lead to this view in order to remove this unnecessary prejudice against the regulative principle.
How Must the Question of Exclusive Psalmody be Answered?
How must the question be answered?
What do I mean by this question? I mean, On what basis must the question be answered? What rule should govern us when we try to answer the question of exclusive psalmody? What in the context of this series on the question, How then should we worship? should be our basis for answering this question? It must, of course, be the regulative principle itself. That principle requires that we have warrant in the Word of God for every element of our worship.
But there is a difficult question here. How exactly does the regulative principle apply to this issue? Is the application of the regulative principle to this issue that the exclusive psalmodist must provide clear, scriptural warrant for exclusive psalmody? Or is the application that the non-exclusive psalmodist must provide warrant for singing uninspired compositions?
As I said, this is a difficult issue. It is also, however, an important issue because it relates to the crucial issue (for this and all other arguments) of the burden of proof. Upon whom falls the burden of proof? Does the burden of proof fall on the advocate of exclusive psalmody? Then the question will be, Do we have warrant in Scripture for the doctrine of exclusive psalmody? Or does the burden of proof fall on the one who rejects exclusive psalmody? Then the question would be, Do we have warrant in Scripture for singing something other than the inspired psalms found in the Bible?
Obviously, the one who holds exclusive psalmody will usually argue that the burden of proof rests on the one who wants to sing something other than the biblical psalms. He will say that it is clear that we should sing the biblical psalms and that we have clear warrant for that. He will say that it is safe to sing inspired, biblical psalms, but that it is not safe to sing other uninspired hymns unless we have clear warrant for that in the Bible.
Now I am not sure that the exclusive psalmodist is totally correct in placing the burden of proof on us his opponents. It surely would be an odd thing if exclusive psalmody as a doctrine could not be justified on the basis of the regulative principle. To put this in other words, it would certainly be strange if the doctrine of exclusive psalmody could not be proven on the basis of sola scriptura. Does not every doctrine of the church—including exclusive psalmody—need to be proven on this basis of sola scriptura? That is certainly the case. To quote the 1689 Baptist Confession chapter 1, paragraph 6a:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Every doctrine of the church must be based on Scripture or its good and necessary consequences. This is the meaning of the phrase, “either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.” It seems to me, therefore, that it is most difficult for the exclusive psalmodist to make the burden of proof rest on his opponent and to evade the necessity of showing that exclusive psalmody may be proved on the basis of Scripture alone.
But whether or not he can do that, it is certainly true that his cause is lost if the burden of proof rests on the exclusive psalmodist. It is clear that he cannot prove from Scripture that we must only sing inspired, biblical psalms. If the burden of proof rests on the exclusive psalmodist, then, (Let me repeat it!) his cause is lost. And, I think, he knows his cause is lost. Pastor Jeff Smith of Coconut Creek, Florida (in his unpublished paper entitled “Arguments Against Exclusive Psalmody”) remarks:
… the Scriptures never say anywhere that the O.T. book of Psalms was given to be the definitive hymnbook of the church for all time. Indeed the Scriptures are given to be our sole rule of faith and life but the Scriptures never say that the Psalter is to be our only source of Christian praise.
Let me illustrate this from Scripture. In order to prove exclusive psalmody from sola scriptura the advocate of this view must show that passages like 1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19-20; and Colossians 3:16-17 only refer to the Book of Psalms. The fact is they do not make this claim. Their argument is rather that these passages clearly include the Book of Psalms, but not that this is only, totally, and certainly all to which they refer. Rather, they say that it is uncertain whether other songs are in view. Thus, to be on the safe side we must only sing the Book of Psalms or at most inspired songs.
Similarly, they suggest that the word, spiritual, may refer to the idea of inspiration. Nevertheless, it cannot be proven that this term means inspired in this context. In fact, as I will show later, another interpretation commends itself much more strongly.
All of this is just to say, then, that exclusive psalmody cannot be proved from sola scriptura. Thus, it may very well be proper to argue that we do not have warrant in the regulative principle for exclusive psalmody.
But for the sake of this argument, in my future blogs, I am willing to assume the burden of proof. I am willing to ask and answer the question, Do we have warrant in Scripture for singing something other than the inspired psalms found in the Bible? My answer is a resounding YES!
My First Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody
What are the major arguments against it?
First, the exclusive psalmodists themselves do not actually sing inspired psalms.
The writings of exclusive psalmodists are littered with the claim that they only sing inspired psalms. Nevertheless, I have to begin my critique of their position by saying that they do not actually do this. That may seem like an unbelievable or audacious thing to say. The fact is, however, that we do not believe in the inspiration of any English translation of the Bible. We certainly do not believe in the inspiration of any English version of the Psalms as they have been arranged for singing.
The issue here is not merely that many words have been added and phrases re-arranged in all the English metrical arrangements of the Psalms and that this raises great questions about the claim of singing inspired psalms. That is, as far as I am concerned, a true and valid critique of the claim to sing inspired psalms. As Gary Crampton writes (in the Trinity Review):
Fourth, another question that must be posed to the exclusive Psalmodists is this: “What constitutes a metrical Psalm?” How faithful must the Psalms sung be to the Scriptures? Some of the metrical psalms are at best rough paraphrases of the Hebrew text. Exclusive Psalmodists would not tolerate such looseness in their Bibles. Singing these psalms is far from singing “inspired Scripture.” Does the exclusive Psalmodist violate the regulative principle when he does not sing the Psalms in the exact language of the Hebrew?
Bob Morey (in An Examination of Exclusive Psalmody) notes: “Is it not a fact that the Psalter so rearranges the words of Scripture, adds words, and subtracts words from Scripture that there is clear evidence that the Psalter is actually a product of human composition?” Morey shows that the answer to this question is certainly yes.
But this problem is only the tip of the iceberg. The deeper issue is that verbal plenary inspiration is only true of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they are written. Evangelicals today only affirm that the original autographs of the Bible are inspired, infallible, and inerrant. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy asserts in its section on transmission and translation:
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the original autographs. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).
That is right and true according to our confession of faith. Chapter 1, paragraph 8, reads:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
This means that all their talk of singing only inspired psalms is based on a fundamental confusion. The English translations of the Bible and the metrical Psalms are not inspired. Does this mean that we cannot trust our English translations of the Scriptures? Of course not! Does it mean that we do not have the Word of God in English? Again, of course not! We have the Word of God in faithful English translations. But those English translations are not themselves inspired.
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
Now the exclusive psalmodist may argue that we still can and should sing the Word of God. I completely agree and have no argument with him on this score. But, as I said, the writings of exclusive psalmodists are littered with assertion that we must sing the inspired psalms. Listen to Brian Schwertley in his Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense: “The singing of divinely inspired songs in worship is not only an Old Testament worship ordinance, but also a new covenant era ordinance. …. we must reject their attempt to circumvent God’s requirement of the singing of inspired songs in public worship.” Unless we are willing to learn Hebrew, we cannot sing the inspired psalms. We can only sing faithful English translations of them, but this is not the same as singing inspired psalms.
It seems to me that there is an important consequence of understanding and admitting that no one actually sings inspired psalms. It is to suggest that the right thing to say on this matter is that our singing must be carefully scriptural and not that we must sing inspired psalms. There are, however, many hymns that are carefully scriptural that are not verbatim English metrical psalms or even verbatim Scripture.
My Second Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody
We have come to the point in this blog in which we are considering arguments against exclusive psalmody. Here is my second argument.
Second, we are commanded to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24), that is, we must worship in the light of gospel fulfillment and not Old Testament shadows.
John 4:24 reads, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Some explanation of the use I am making of this text is necessary.
John 4:24 is arguably the classic text in all the New Testament on the necessity of worshiping God—not according to the fleshly types and shadows of the Old Testament—but worshiping God in accordance with the fulfillment of these types and shadows in the New Covenant. It is crucial, therefore, that we understand the teaching of this text to the effect that we must worship God according to the light of the gospel and not according to the shadows of the Old Covenant.
A hendiadys is found in John 4:24 in the phrase “in spirit and truth.” Hendiadys is a sophisticated sounding word, but it actually has a very simple meaning and derivation. A hendiadys is a grammatical construction in which one concept is conveyed through two words. That is what hendiadys means. Hen=one. Dia=through. Dys=two. In this hendiadys in John 4:24 spirit and truth are introduced by a single article and thus combine to convey one concept.
John’s writings are often marked by a deceptive simplicity which disguises a richness of meaning. Here spirit-truth worship has at least three shades of meaning. This is confirmed by the fact that the context of John 4:24 emphasizes each of these different shades of meaning. Though it is the third of these shades which is most important to my thesis, we must not neglect the first two shades of meaning.
Worship in spirit and truth is worship conducted in light of and in submission to divine revelation. It is, therefore, the opposite of ignorant worship. There is an emphasis on this in the context. John 4:22 says, “You Samaritans worship what you do not know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews.” Remember the emphasis out of the prophet Isaiah quoted by our Lord in Matthew 15:8-9: “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”
Worship in spirit and truth is worship that corresponds to God’s nature as spirit. It is, therefore, the opposite of dead worship. Why do I say that? Again the context guides us. Verse 24 makes clear that worship in spirit and truth is worship that is controlled by or corresponds to God’s nature as spirit.
Important as these two facets of this phrase are, they do not exhaust or even constitute the main point of the text. Worship in spirit and truth is worship in terms of the gospel realities brought by the coming of the Messiah. It is, therefore, the opposite of the shadow worship of the Old Testament. The context of John 4:24 is filled with an emphasis on the coming of the new age of fulfillment in which the shadows of the temporary Old Testament order pass away (vv. 21, 23, and 25).
21 Jesus told her, “Believe Me, woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.
23 But an hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Yes, the Father wants such people to worship Him.
25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will explain everything to us.”
Truth in the Bible is not only the opposite of falsehood; it is also the opposite of shadow. John 1:17 is clear: “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” On this point listen to the words of John Calvin:
And here again it must be observed, that truth is not compared with falsehood, but with the outward addition of the figures of the Law; so that—to use a common expression—it is the pure and simple substance of spiritual worship. (Calvin’s Commentaries. See his comments on John 4:23.)
This facet of the meaning of John 4:24 has several important applications, but among them is the plain teaching that exclusive psalmody is in many people’s minds is associated with the regulative principle. But this views looks strangely out of step with what Jesus says in John 4:24.
Let me explain what I mean. Of course, I am not saying that we should not sing the psalms of David. I believe we should. But they are to be understood and sung in light of the principle of John 4:24. They are to be sung and understood in terms of their true meaning which finds their fulfillment in the worship in spirit and truth of the New Covenant. So, yes, we must preach, pray, and sing the 150 biblical psalms.
But Jesus’ words clearly indicate that even the psalms were part of the shadow worship of the Old Testament. It would be strange, indeed, in light of Jesus’ teaching to take the position that we may only sing the Psalms of the Old Testament, but that we cannot sing the words and truths in which they find their fulfillment in the New Testament. The church must be allowed to worship in spirit and truth and must not be restricted in its singing to the preliminary, typical, and shadowy revelation of the Old Testament in its worship. Think of what the exclusive psalmody position is really saying and how jarring it is. Jesus tells us to worship in the spirit and truth of New covenant revelation, but exclusive psalmody tells us that we can only sing the psalms of the Old Testament in that worship.
The conclusion must be that the book of Psalms is an inadequate hymnbook for the church of Jesus Christ. The exclusive psalmodist will certainly say that the psalms must be sung in light of New Testament revelation. That’s good. Yet even if it is sung in light of New Testament revelation, this still assumes that the Christian interpretations and understandings of the psalms are worthy to be sung. This further and also means, since there is no New Testament equivalent to the Psalms, that Christians are called to compose hymns that are faithful to the word of Christ.
But even admitting that the Psalms are to be sung Christianly does not satisfy John 4:24. No one before the coming of Christ specifically understood or believed the doctrine of the Trinity. It was implicit in the Old Testament, but it was not explicit. No one in the Old Testament taught the doctrine of justification with the clarity of the Apostle Paul. It was implicit in the Old Testament, but it was not explicit. No one in the Old Testament specifically identified Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. It was implicit in the Old Testament, but it was not explicit.
So what is my point? It is not sufficient to sing words that only make the identity of the Messiah, the doctrine of justification, and the doctrine of the Trinity implicit. The Christian heart cries out to say these things with the clarity of the New Testament revelation.
My Third Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody
With this post I come to a third argument against exclusive psalmody which is closely related to my second. Having seen from John 4:24 that we are required to worship God in the light of the gospel and not in the shadows of the law, that third argument is this:
Third, we are commanded in Scripture to sing new songs in keeping with the progressive revelation of God’s redemption.
There are a number of calls in the Bible to sing new songs to God. In the past I have been hesitant to muster these calls as an argument against exclusive psalmody, but having considered for many years I now believe that they constitute such an argument. Perhaps their significance can be stated most succinctly and pointedly from Revelation 5:9-10:
And they sang a new song: You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals; because You were slaughtered, and You redeemed people for God by Your blood from every tribe and language and people and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign on the earth.
Schwertley’s comments on the phrase, “new song,” in Scripture in Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense in my view fails to explain away the importance of this phrase for a critique of exclusive psalmody.
Schwertley argues that the new song is not an uninspired song, but an inspired song. This may be, but it still contradicts both Schwertley’s and Murray’s refusal to sing anything but the Psalms of David. They admit that the Scripture commands a new song to be sung, but they refuse to sing it even if it is inspired!
Schwertley alternatively suggests that the new song is simply an old song sung with new meaning. Perhaps this may be the case, though I doubt it, with regard to some of the Old Testament use of the phrase, “new song.” He also suggests that it could be one of the psalms in the book of Psalms, but one with which the people of God are not yet familiar. Again, perhaps this is the case. The problem is that neither of these speculations can apply to or explain the use of the phrase in Revelation 5:9-10.
Consider several clear features of Revelation 5:9-10:
1st Feature: It fulfills a frequently repeated biblical command.
In Revelation 5:9-10 the heavenly multitude are fulfilling the frequently repeated command of Scripture to sing a new song to the Lord.
Psalm 33:3 Sing to Him a new song; Play skillfully with a shout of joy.
Psalm 96:1 Sing to the LORD a new song; Sing to the LORD, all the earth.
Psalm 98:1 A Psalm. O sing to the LORD a new song, For He has done wonderful things, His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.
Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.
Isaiah 42:10 Sing to the LORD a new song, Sing His praise from the end of the earth! You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it. You islands, and those who dwell on them.
2nd Feature: It celebrates a new stage in and is carefully situated with regard to redemptive history.
In the previous context of Revelation 5:9-10 we are symbolically but clearly told the occasion of this new song. It is the ascension and enthronement of the Mediator, Christ Jesus. This was a new redemptive-historical event symbolized clearly in the Lamb approaching the throne and taking the book. There is to be a new song to celebrate this new event and new stage in redemptive history.
The words and theme of this new song—it must be noticed—are carefully situated with regard to redemptive. Not only is it a new song sung subsequent to the enthronement of the Mediator, but a new song reflecting a period prior to the time when the saints will reign on the earth. (The best Greek text of Revelation 5:10 has the future tense in contrast to the inferior text reflected in the KJV.)
3rd Feature: This new song involves singing new words and has a new text.
In the text itself of Revelation 5:9-10 we are told the words of this song. It is not an old psalm sung with a new meaning. It is not a psalm from the biblical book of Psalms with which the people of God are unfamiliar. It is a song with new words conveying new thoughts and concepts. The Greek is clear. “They sang a new song saying …”
Conclusions:
Now consider, then, the extremism of both the position held by Murray and Schwertley. Though they give lip-service to the possibility of new inspired songs, in actual practice they refuse to sing anything, but the 150 psalms in the book of Psalms. They virtually refuse to do what the Scriptures teach us by command and example we must do. We must sing new songs embodying the glorious, redemptive events of the new stage of redemptive history that has been reached, but they will sing only the psalms in the Old Testament book of Psalms!
Here the new song is clearly a song with new words and thoughts. New revelation calls for new songs! And this calls for songs informed and permeated with the revelation given in the New Testament. It rebuts the idea that we can only sing in the language of the Old Testament.
My Fourth Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody
Fourth, exclusive psalmody is out of accord with the requirements God makes with regard to other parts of worship.
We are certainly commanded to preach scriptural sermons and pray scriptural prayers, but this does not limit us to only reading sermons found in Scripture or to praying only prayers found in Scripture. Why, then, should we think that in our singing we are limited to singing inspired Scripture or even singing verbatim Scripture?
My point is that this view is inconsistent with the other parts of worship. The exclusive psalmody view says that in the church’s worship we may only sing translations of Scripture, but consider how inconsistent and strange this is. Exclusive psalmody does not restrict the preaching to the recitation or reading of Scripture translation. It does not and we do not restrict preaching to inspired sermons or translations of biblical sermons. We do not and exclusive psalmody does not restrict praying to the recitation or reading of biblical prayers. They do not and we do not restrict corporate prayer to inspired prayers or translations of biblical prayers.
Yet exclusive psalmody does restrict the singing of praise to the singing of inspired songs or translations of biblical hymns. We simply ask why? How can it be right to preach uninspired sermons, pray uninspired prayers, and yet wrong to sing uninspired hymns? Why should we restrict our hymnody to translations of Scripture when we do not so restrict our preaching or praying.
Listen to Pastor Jeff Smith in his unpublished Essay on Exclusive Psalmody:
… if it is wrong to sing uninspired hymns in worship then it seems to me it would be wrong to pray uninspired prayers and to preach uninspired sermons. You see, the same argument for the exclusive use of the book of Psalms, or a more moderate argument for the exclusive use of songs already recorded in the scripture, if carried to its logical conclusion would mean we can only recite scripture prayers and we can only recite scripture sermons. If there is no place for extemporary songs of praise, there is no place for extemporary prayer and extemporary preaching either. Now those who hold this view don’t go that far and I say that, therefore, they’re being inconsistent…
This problem is particularly pressing because the Bible does not make a hard and fast distinction between singing and praying. Something above 20 of the 150 Psalms are called prayers. Here is one example: Psalm 17:1 reads: “A Prayer of David. Hear a just cause, O LORD, give heed to my cry; Give ear to my prayer, which is not from deceitful lips.”
The exclusive psalmodist sometimes appeals to the part of worship involving the reading of Scripture to show that there is another part of worship restricted to the very words of Scripture. Thus, they argue some parts of worship are free (like preaching and praying), but others are fettered like singing and Scripture reading). To this several responses must be made:
First, as noted above, this kind of distinction tends to defy the way in which singing slips into praying. And, as I will now say, it tends to defy the connection between Scripture reading and interpretation.
Second, the Bible teaches that part of the reading of Scripture should include the explanatory comments of the reader. What does Nehemiah 8:8 say? And they read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading. The reading of Scripture may be and where necessary should be accompanied by brief, explanatory comments. This is clear from its connection with the exhortation and the teaching in 1 Timothy 4:13. It is clear from the comments made in Nehemiah 8:8.
Third, as suggested in my first argument, the reading of Scripture in English services requires the selection of an English translation. Every English translation of the Bible—even the most literal—involves interpretive decisions by the translators. This is not wrong, however, but finds its precedent in Nehemiah 8:8. Thus, even the Scripture reading does not parallel the claim to sing inspired psalms.
My Fifth Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody
My treatment of exclusive psalmody would be incomplete if it did not deal with the key texts of Ephesians 5:19-20, Colossians 3:16-17, and their mention “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.”
Fifth, the best interpretation of Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16-17 leads to the conclusion that Paul was not thinking strictly of the Book of Psalms in this passage or even of inspired songs.
In order to illuminate the proper interpretation of these parallel passages it will be well to set forth plainly the major tenets of the interpretation of them provided by exclusive psalmodist.
First, the exclusive psalmodist affirms that the phrase, “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” refers to the book of Psalms. It is common for them to point out that each of these three words is used frequently in the Psalms. In this exegetical point they are, absolutely correct. A quick count shows that 76 of the 99 uses of psalm occur in the LXX and GNT occur in the Psalms. 13 of the 34 uses of hymn are in the Psalms. 44 of the 95 uses song occur in the Psalms. Murray argues that “when Paul wrote “psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs” he would expect the minds of his readers to think of … the Book of Psalms.” (Worship in the Presence of God, 187) Similarly, Frank Smith asserts that these words “refer specifically to the material of the Psalter.” (Worship in the Presence of God, 206). Schwertley similarly defends this position in his Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense.
Second, the exclusive psalmodists argue that the modifier, spiritual, in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 refers to these songs (and possibly also the psalms and hymns) as inspired. Spiritual means inspired in this passage for the exclusive psalmodist. Schwertley in Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense follows Murray who says: “On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns, and songs are all ‘Spiritual’ and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediately excluded.” (Worship in the Presence of God, 188).
Having set out these two pillars of the exclusive psalmodist interpretation of these passages, we may place over against them the proper interpretation.
As to the meaning of “spiritual” in this passage, we must say immediately that it is highly improbable that it has the meaning of inspired. The word, spiritual, never occurs in the LXX, but occurs 26 times in the New Testament. According to the Gingrich lexicon in Bibleworks it has the meaning “pertaining to the spirit.” In Ephesians 6:12 it is used in the phrase “the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.” In this case it means, therefore, pertaining to evil spirits. In the other 25 cases it is used of matters related to the Spirit of God and thus means having to do with the Spirit of God. It is used of spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet. 2:5), a spiritual house (1 Pet. 2:5), a spiritual gift (Rom. 1:11), the law being spiritual (Rom. 7:14), spiritual benefits (Rom. 15:27), spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:13; 9:11), spiritual people (1 Cor. 2:13), the spiritual man in contrast to the natural man (1 Cor. 2:15; 3:1), spiritual food and drink from a spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:3, 4), spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:1; 14:1), spiritually gifted people (1 Cor. 14:37), spiritual (that is, resurrection or glorified) bodies (1 Cor. 15:44, 46), a spiritual person in contrast to a Christian who has fallen into serious sin (Gal. 6:1), spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3), and spiritual understanding (Col. 1:9).
The above survey is sufficient to show how vastly varied is the use of spiritual in the New Testament. Most of its uses have nothing to do with being inspired. Only in a few cases is there even a tangential relationship to the idea of inspiration (1 Cor. 12:1; 14:1; and 14:37). Thus, while it is possible that the word, spiritual, may be associated in a few cases with the idea of inspiration, the idea that it means or may be translated inspired is simply wrong. Furthermore, in the passages under discussion there is every reason to doubt such a meaning.
The meaning of “spiritual” in Ephesians 5:19 must be connected with the reference to the call to Christians in verse 18 to go on being filled with the Spirit. Verse 19 is directly connected to verse 18 by means of instrumental participle “speaking” at the beginning of verse 19. Cooncsequently and assuredly, since being filled with the Spirit does not mean or in any way connote being inspired, this context directly implies that the meaning of spiritual in verse 19 is not inspired.
Similarly, the parallel language in Colossians 3:16 calling for Christians to allow the word of Christ to dwell in them richly is not calling them to be inspired. Thus, the call spiritual songs is not a call to sing inspired songs.
The first pillar of the exclusive psalmodist interpretation of these key passages is thus broken. It is not probable at all that spiritual here means inspired, but rather and much more probably that it means resulting from the filling of the Spirit.
The second pillar of the exclusive psalmodist position is that the phrase “psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs” refers specifically to the Old Testament Book of Psalms. Against this view a number of powerful objections can be lodged.
First, the Book of Psalms is never elsewhere in the New Testament referred by such language. Note the following four examples.
Luke 20:42 “For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND’”
Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’
Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’
Second, it must be observed that the article is missing in this passage before each of the three words supposed to refer to the Book of Psalms. While the absence is not definitive, in this case it appears to make the reference a general reference to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and does not suggest a specific reference to the Book of Psalms.
Third, the assertion that these words are specific references to the Book of Psalms is troubled by the use of the word, spiritual, to modify song. It would appear that the exclusive psalmodist position would require that each of the three words be a specific reference to the Psalter. The word, spiritual, however, is not used in the Old Testament and certainly not in the text of the Psalms. If song is a specific reference to the Psalter, why is it necessary to add the word, spiritual?
Exclusive psalmodists argue that the word, spiritual, may define all three words. This may be grammatically possible. (But not likely, spiritual is feminine agreeing with songs, but not with psalms and hymns.) Nevertheless, the problem pointed above remains. Why does the word, spiritual, (or inspired as they argue it means) need to be added if psalms and hymns already refer to the Book of Psalms?
But, in fact, there is a much more likely reason for the addition of the word, spiritual. Psalms and hymns both refer to divine songs, that is, songs of praise to God. Songs does not have this religious reference in itself. (For that reason, it is unlikely that it specifically refers to the Book of Psalms.) Because songs does not have this religious meaning in itself, it was necessary for Paul to add the word, spiritual, to make clear the kind of songs he had in mind.
Fourth, it is unlikely that the words refer specifically to the Book of Psalms because a the Bible records other worship songs by these names. Jeff Smith in his unpublished Essay on Exclusive Psalmody says:
… there are worship songs in the Bible written both before and after the book of Psalms. Read Ex. 15, Num. 21:17; Deut. 32; Judges 5, and you’ll find worship songs that were never incorporated into the book of Psalms. And in the N. T. you’ll find the same thing, for example, in the book of the Revelation. Not only that, in 1 Cor. 14 we seem to have reference to songs that were given under the immediate influence of the Spirit and are not recorded in the Bible at all. Granted this was in the context of the exercise of revelatory gifts that I believe have ceased to function in the church since the completion of Scripture. However, it still appears to be an example songs sung in the church other than from the book of Psalms.
Fifth, if Paul wanted to refer songs other than those contained in the Psalter these are the only words he could have used. Pastor Jeff Smith is again helpful here:
… the three words Paul uses in our text are the only three words for songs of any kind in Biblical Greek. In other words, if Paul wanted to refer to a variety of songs and not just to the O.T. Psalter, these are the terms he would have to use. While, on the other hand, certainly if he wanted to emphasize an exclusive use of the O.T. Psalms he could have simply said, “speaking among yourselves from the Psalms”. He could have referred to the Psalms as an exclusive reference to the canonical psalms. That construction is often used in the N.T. with reference to the book of Psalms. But he doesn’t do that.
Conclusion:
Let me sum up in this my final post in my series on the subject of exclusive psalmody. First, let me rep[eat my love and respect for the brethren who hold exclusive psalmody. They are among my most beloved brothers. Second, let me nevertheless my deep concern that their views not become prevalent among those who hold the important Reformed doctrine of the regulative principle. Exclusive psalmody runs so contrary to basic instincts of the Christian heart and life that I fear that its prevalence would bring (as it has brought) disrepute and suspicion on the regulative principle itself. Third, let me review my arguments against exclusive psalmody.
First, the exclusive psalmodists themselves do not actually sing inspired psalms.
Second, we are commanded to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24), that is, we must worship in the light of gospel fulfillment and not Old Testament shadows.
Third, we are commanded in Scripture to sing new songs in keeping with the progressive revelation of God’s redemption.
Fourth, exclusive psalmody is out of accord with the requirements God makes with regard to other parts of worship.
Fifth, the best interpretation of Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16-17 leads to the conclusion that Paul was not thinking strictly of the Book of Psalms in this passage or even of inspired songs.