Objections to Psalmody: Cultic Practices of the Temple

Objection:
But the Psalms mention:

• Instruments
• Animal Sacrifice
• Ascent to the Temple
• Inscense

Answer: 
There are many ceremonial aspects of worship mentioned in the Psalms besides musical instruments (animal sacrifices, incense, etc.). The same book of the New Testament (Colossians) which teaches that the ceremonial law is now abolished (chapter 2), also teaches that we are to sing Psalms (3:16). Those ceremonial aspects of worship mentioned in the Psalms give us a picture of worship that points to Christ (for example, incense is a type of prayer as is taught in Ps. 141:2 and Rev. 5:8) so it is not inconsistent with Christian worship to sing about modes of worship that were approved by God in the past, but abolished today. Ceremonial worship was abolished, but it is not wrong to read about or sing about it, when we are commanded to do so. And indeed the Psalms are for ever, while ceremonial worship is not.

In the End it comes down to this, No temple, no sacrifice; no sacrifice, no instrument.

New Testament Worship is modeled after the simplicity of the Synagogue and reflects realities of a dispensation of greater grace and less need for ceremony.

Episode 11 - Family Worship Part 2

Listen Now! | Subscribe via iTunes
Here is Part 2 of our series on Family Worship.

Top Resources in this episode are:

The Reformation Heritage Study Bible for its excellent Family Worship helps on every chapter of Scripture.

Starr Meade's Training Hearts, Teaching Minds devotional study of the Smaller Catechism.

Children's Catechism - a simplified Smaller Catechism for the youngest children to learn

Psalms of David in Metre

Bridges' Manual for the Young on Proverbs 1-9.

Objections to Psalmody: Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs

In Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 we see the phrase "Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs" used when the people of God are being commanded by the Apostle to worship the Lord. Many who see this cannot understand why it is not a warrant for singing uninspired songs rather than Psalms. In twelve Psalm titles alone we find both “psalm” and “song”; and, in two others we find “psalm” and “hymn.” The Psalms themselves are a mixture of Holy Spirit-inspired (spiritual) songs and hymns.

There are numerous examples of triadic expressions in scripture. It was apparently a common device used by Jewish speakers and writers. So laws can be ‘commandments, statutes and laws’ (Gen.26:5), miracles can be ‘Miracles, wonders and signs’ (Acts 2:22), and prayers can be ‘Prayers, supplications and intercessions’ (1Tim.2:1); Anger, wrath, and indignation (Ps. 78:49); Exodus 34:7—“iniquity and transgression and sin”; Deuteronomy 5:31 and 6:1— “commandments and statutes and judgments”; Matthew 22:37—“with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (cf. Mk. 12:30; Lk. 10:27) to name a few examples.

---

Bushell writes, “Psalmos…occurs some 87 times in the Septuagint, some 78 of which are in the Psalms themselves, and 67 times in the psalm titles. It also forms the title to the Greek version of the psalter…. Humnos…occurs some 17 times in the Septuagint, 13 of which are in the Psalms, six times in the titles. In 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah there are some 16 examples in which the Psalms are called ‘hymns’ (humnoi) or ‘songs’ (odai) and the singing of them is called ‘hymning’ (humneo, humnodeo, humnesis)…. Odee…occurs some 80 times in the Septuagint, 45 of which are in the Psalms, 36 in the Psalm titles.”25 In twelve Psalm titles we find both “psalm” and “song”; and, in two others we find “psalm” and “hymn.” “Psalm seventy-six is designated ‘psalm, hymn and song.’ And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read ‘the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (Ps. 72:20). In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said ‘psalms,’ than when he said ‘hymns’ and ‘songs,’ for all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself.” To ignore how Paul’s audience would have understood these terms and how these terms are defined by the Bible; and then instead to import non-biblical modern meanings into these terms is exegetical malpractice. (Schwertley)

---

Rev. James Kerr: "The notion that finds in these terms—‘Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs’—a warrant for an uninspired Hymnology in the matter of the Church’s praise, has been exploded hundreds of times. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament Scriptures, with which the Ephesians and Colossians were familiar when the Apostle wrote these words, there were various titles prefixed to the Psalms. The titles of 107 were psalmos (Psalm) or ode (Song), or both psalmos and ode. Taking the title Alleluia as equivalent to humnos (as the best critics do), 26 come under the description of humnoi (Hymns). When the Apostle used these titles—psalmoi kai humnoi kai odai—those to whom he wrote knew at once that he referred to the Inspired Collection, which may be designated Book of Hymns, or Book of Songs, as well as Book of Psalms (Sepher Tehillim). Spiritual (pneumatikais) means guided, or inspired, by the Spirit. Instead of prefixing spiritual to Songs, as if it were to be limited only to the Songs, the translation should rather run—‘In Psalms, and Hymns, and Songs, inspired by the Spirit,’ understanding ‘inspired by the Spirit’ to refer, in harmony with the idiom of the original, to all three. That these terms are used of the Psalms, and of the Psalms alone, is the opinion of … Beza, Owen, Ridgley, Gill, Bloomfield, Horne, MacKnight, Edwards, etc. Josephus alludes to the Psalms under the name of ‘Songs and Hymns.’ In the Apostolic Canons they are called ‘the Hymns of David.’ They are spoken of in the Talmud as ‘Songs or Praises and Hymns.’ Augustine vindicated the use of the Psalms in worship against ‘one Hilary, who took every opportunity of loading with malicious censures the custom that Hymns from the Book of Psalms should be sung at the altar.’ And in the fifth century Cassian (c.360-435) writes, ‘The elders have not changed the ancient custom of singing Psalms. The Hymns which were sung at the close of the night vigils, namely, the 50th, 62nd, 89th, and 148th Psalms are the same Hymns which are sung at this day."

---

More Triadic Expressions in Scripture:
Iniquity and transgression and sin (Ex. 34:7)
Statutes and judgements and laws (Lev. 26:46)
Commandments and statutes and judgments (Deut 5:31; 6:1)
Anger, wrath, and indignation (Ps. 78:49)
Supplications, prayers, intercessions (1 Tim. 2:1)
Signs and wonders and mighty deeds (2 Cor. 12:12)
Miracles, wonders and signs (Acts 2:22)
Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)

---

SEE ALSO: http://heidelblog.net/2015/05/considering-context-leads-to-singing-psalms-in-new-testament-praise-and-worship/

Objections to Psalmody: But what about other songs outside the Psalter in the Scriptures?

Why do we limit ourselves to the inspired Psalms, excluding, for example, the inspired canticles found in the Scriptures outside the Psalter? The answer is that there is no clear indication in the Scriptures that such songs were intended by God for perpetual use in His Church. In the absence of such an indication, it would seem prudent to refrain from singing them in worship. For similar reasons we would also suggest that the practice of singing prose portions of Scripture in worship is wrong. The Holy Scriptures should not be subjected to uses which are foreign to their original purpose and design. The Hebrew title of the Psalter, which is simply “praises” (Tehilim), identifies the book as a series of songs to be sung in praise of God. (Songs of Zion, Michael Bushell, 4th edition, p.24,28)

The Holy Spirit is the one who organized the book of Psalms. He did not include every inspired song in the Bible within the Psalter. The fact that God did not place every inspired song within God’s hymnbook probably indicates that some inspired songs were only used on a specific occasion or for a limited period of time. Keddie writes, “It is contended that other inspired utterances such as the songs of Moses (Ex. 15:1-19; Dt. 32:1-43) and Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1-10) in the Old Testament, and of Mary (Luke 1:46-55) and Simeon (Luke 2:29-32) in the New Testament, were exceptional effusions of praise, of an inspired nature, in connection with particular (and even absolutely unique, as with the Magnificat) ‘acts of God’ and not necessarily for perpetual use in the Church’s song…the whole book of Psalms…is to be considered as the final[ised] hymnbook of the Church. It satisfies the demands of divine provision, and is the only collection of songs of praise as such which can lay claim to primary and verbal inspiration.”

(Adapted from Bryan Schwertley's Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense)

---

Related Objection: Why not versify any other portion of Scripture and sing it?

THE SCRIPTURAL LAW OF WORSHIP BY PASTOR WILLIAM H. VINCENT, D.D; ALLEGHENY, PA. THE PSALMS IN WORSHIP EDITED BY JOHN MCNAUGHTER HE WRITES, But some may say: Can we not versify and sing other portions of the Word, as the gospels, and thus sing the gospel? To this it may be said: (1) God's provision is to preach the gospel to the world, not to sing to it; (2) The Gospels are not lyrical, and were never intended for the praise service of the house of God; (3) There is but one book which God has labeled the book of praise either in the Old or New Testament Church, and that book is the appointed and authorized Book of Psalms. The crucial point which we emphasize in this discussion is: What has the divine appointment? By that standard every book of praise must stand or fall. That which has not the divine appointment has no standing in God's house. The book of Psalms not only has the seal of inspiration, but it has also the clear and unmistakable appointment of God. Hence it is the book of praise for the church of God in every age and in every land. As it has songs which relate not only to the past and present if the church, but to the church in the millennial age, and since the spirit of inspiration is withdrawn from the church, the Book of Psalms is designed to continue as the manual of praise in the church until the end of time.

Objections to Psalmody: What about Imprecatory Psalms?

It is not gracious words that praise God; it is grace in the heart produced by sung-meditation that praises God. This is a specialty of the Psalms. (p.111)

Curses in the Psalms are not provided for us to sing with relish, but even these hard lines are there for our faith and worship. (p.115)

The expectation of judgment is an inseparable feature of Christian hope. (p.117)

Imprecation is not strictly an Old Testament feature. It is found all through the Scriptures, even on the lips of the apostles, of Christ himself, and in the assemblies in heaven. But in all those examples, the judgments announced are articulations of God’s judgment, not personal vendetta. (p.117) [Jesus] is teaching (Mark 11:24-5, Matt 23:37-39) us that we must have a heart of grace, even when we do announce God’s judgment. (p.118)

[The Psalter] is designed for the church’s use across all ages and cultures, and in all kinds of circumstances. And there are times when the persecution and cruelty against God’s people reaches such a fervor that we need Christ-led hymns of justice like this to guide us in what to do with all the deep pain and turmoil we experience. (p.121)

Imprecatory Psalms remind us that Jesus is a good king, but not a ‘tame’ king. (p.124)

The curses announced in Psalm 137 are a sung articulation of the judgments which the Lord himself had pronounced. The word of the Lord came to Isaiah during the exile, saying. “The oracle concerning Babylon...I myself have commanded my consecrated ones, and have summoned my mighty men to execute my anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes.” (Isa. 13:1-16) (p.127)

(Singing the Songs of Jesus, Michael Lefebvre)

SEE ALSO: http://biblestudydata.com/moodle/mod/page/view.php?id=148

Objections to Psalmody: But the Psalms tell us to Sing a New Song

Each of these exhortations to sing a new song is an introduction to the Psalm itself which follows. Psalms 33, 40, 96, 98, and 149 are each the ‘new song’ we are being called upon to sing by its opening verses. They are ‘new songs’ in the biblical sense of the expression, referring to a song that lifts ‘new’ praises that have eclipsed ‘old’ troubles. It is that kind of song that celebrates the end of strife and the beginning of celebration. (Singing the Songs of Jesus, Michael Lefebvre, p138)

Objections to Psalmody: Psalm Singers Can’t Sing the Name of Jesus

The Short Answer:

Psalms are “Songs of the Lord.” Psalm 137:4

“For David himself...in the book of Psalms… calls Him ‘Lord’” (Luke 20:42,44). Notice...David had only one Lord, and that was the LORD God. So the “Lord” in this passage is not only the Son of David, but also his God! In other words, Jesus is claiming, on the basis on Psalm 110:1, that He is both the LORD of the Psalms, the covenant LORD of Moses and Abraham, the great “I Am” of Exodus 3:14 and the long-expected human son of David. Christ is saying that David in Psalm 110 called him by name, the same name that the disciples all used when addressing Him, namely “Lord” (Kurios). the LORD of the Psalms is the Lord of the New Testament. David knew Him by both names. Christ is telling us that when we address the “LORD” and the “Lord” in the Psalms, we are addressing Him by name. (Songs of Zion, Michael Bushell, 4th edition, p.61)

The Long Answer: 

(Adapted from Bryan Schwertley's Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense)

One of the most popular arguments against exclusive psalmody is that “if we only sing the Psalms then we deny the church the opportunity to praise our Savior using His name as the divine‐human mediator (Jesus).” Although many people consider this to be the strongest argument against exclusive psalmody, it in reality is nothing more than an appeal to sentimentality with no scriptural foundation. There are a number of reasons such an argument is fallacious.

First, nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to sing the name “Jesus”. If God preferred the name Jesus over other biblical designations for our Lord (e.g., Immanuel, Yahweh, Lord, Savior, Jehovah Tzidkenu [cf. Jer. 23:5-6], the Prince of Peace, Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Son of Man, etc.), then He would have revealed His will concerning this matter to us in the Bible.

Second, it is not the word “Jesus” that we are to serve, exalt, worship and glorify, but what or whom the name points to or represents. There is nothing intrinsically sacred, mystical or holy regarding the word “Jesus.” We respect the word and do not use it in an irreverent manner because of the Person behind the name. Bible scholars recognize that even the biblical expression in the name refers to a recognition or acknowledgment of the person who is named.

When Paul says, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil.2:10), he refers to a recognition of the power, authority and majesty of Jesus. Matthew Henry writes, “At the name of Jesus; not at the sound of the word, but the authority of Jesus; all should pay a solemn homage.

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord—every nation and language should publicly own the universal empire of the exalted Redeemer, and that all power in heaven and earth is given to him, Matthew 28:18.”35 John Calvin concurs,

"...Paul speaks of Christ’s whole dignity, to restrict his meaning to two syllables, as if any one were to examine attentively the letters of the word Alexander, in order to find in them the greatness of the name that Alexander acquired for himself. Their subtlety, therefore, is not solid,

and the contrivance is foreign to Paul’s intention. But worse than ridiculous is the conduct of the Sorbonnic sophists, who infer from the passage before us that we ought to bow the knee whenever the name of Jesus is pronounced, as though it were a magic word which had all virtue included in the sound of it. Paul, on the other hand, speaks of the honour that is to be rendered to the Son of God—not to mere syllables."

John Gill makes this important observation, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" Which is to be understood, not of the outward act of bowing the knee upon hearing the name, and the syllables of the mere name Jesus pronounced; for in the bare name there can be nothing which can command such a peculiar respect; it was a name common with the Jews: Joshua is so called in Heb. iv. 8 and the name of Elymas the sorcerer was Bar-Jesus; that is, the son of Jesus, Acts xiii. 6. Now, how monstrously ridiculous and stupid would it be, for a man, upon hearing these passages, and upon the pronouncing of this word, to bow the knee? Moreover, the words ought not to be rendered at, but in the name of Jesus; that is, in and by reason of the power, authority, and dignity of Jesus, as exalted at God’s right hand, every creature is to be subject to him."

Since the Psalms eloquently and thoroughly recognize the power, authority and majesty of Christ as well as define His character and ministry, they exalt His glorious name because they exalt His person. To ignore this point and demand the use of the word “Jesus” in singing praise is superstitious and irrational.

 Third, the idea that synonyms for the word “Jesus” are biblically inadequate for praise is disproved by the fact that God Himself did not consider a providential preservation of His own covenant name to be important. God’s covenant name (YHWH) is the triune God’s most frequent designation in Scripture occurring 5,321 times. This name was personally given to Moses when he asked God to reveal His name to the children of Israel (Exodus 5:13). God responds by revealing His covenant name—the Hebrew tetragrammaton (i.e., four consonants) YHWH translated as “Lord” (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text), “Jehovah” (ASV), or “Yahweh” (Jerusalem Bible). When God spoke this name to Moses, Moses heard the proper pronunciation (i.e., he knew what the proper vowels were) and relayed the correct pronunciation to the covenant people. Over time, however, the proper pronunciation of the word was lost forever because the Jews out of fear of violating the third commandment never pronounced God’s covenant name. Instead when they came to YHWH they would say “Adonai” or “Lord,” another name for God. As a result all the modern transliterations of YHWH (e.g., Jehovah, Yahweh) are at best educated guesses. Therefore, various cults that regard Protestant Bibles as corrupt because they use the word LORD instead of Jehovah or Yahweh are ignorant of history.

The whole point of this discussion regarding God’s covenant name is that God did not consider a providential preservation of His own covenant name to be important. When we sing the Psalms or read our Bibles (no matter what the translation) we are not reading or singing God’s covenant name. We are, however, reading or singing a synonym which seems to be just fine as far as God is concerned.

Fourth, Jesus Christ himself regarded biblical synonyms as perfectly acceptable for public worship. Note the baptismal formula from our Lord’s own lips: “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The only people that this author is aware of that require saying the word “Jesus” during baptism are anti-Trinitarian “Jesus only” Pentecostals. Christ teaches us that we do not need to say the word “Jesus” for a biblical baptism. A reference to the second person of the trinity is sufficient. Therefore, following our Lord’s own reasoning, the Psalter’s abundant references to the person and work of Christ are perfectly acceptable as New Testament praise.

Fifth, the New Testament authors writing under divine inspiration substituted the Greek word kurios (Lord) for the Hebrew word signifying God’s covenant name (Yahweh or Jehovah) when quoting Old Testament passages (e.g., Matthew 3:3; Isaiah 40:3; Acts 2:20 21; Joel 2:31,32; Mark 1:3; Isaiah 40:3; Acts 2:25; Psalm 16:8; Acts 2:34; Psalm 68:18, etc.). In doing so they were usually following the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) commonly used by Greek speaking Jews of their own day. If there were something special or unique about the word Jehovah itself rather than the truth or meaning behind the word, then such a substitution would have been unbiblical. If we know that the word Lord in the Psalter refers to Jesus Christ, then to sing that word is every bit as honoring as pronouncing the word “Jesus” itself.

Sixth, those who appeal to the idea that we must sing Jesus’ name are inconsistent. The divine-human mediator was never called Jesus. His name was Yehoshua, not Jesus. We know of no uninspired hymns which speak of Yehoshua (with the exception of the Messianic Jewish movement). One may object by saying, “Yes, but Jesus is a transliteration of the Greek word Iesous which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Yehoshua. Therefore the English word Jesus represents Yehoshua.” That point is true. However, it does not prove that the word Jesus “is more important to have on one’s lips than other names by which God makes Himself known.”

When psalm singers praise the Redeemer by singing the inspired songs of Scripture they are worshiping Jesus Christ in the way that He has commanded. This is what pleases God. There is no evidence that God prefers the name of Jesus over other designations. The Jesus name argument is an assumption without evidence.

Seventh, the name Jesus or Yehoshua means “Jehovah is salvation.” The name was given by an angel to Mary to indicate the mission of the child. “You shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The purpose of the name is to teach us about Christ’s role as the redeemer of God’s elect. Do the Psalms teach us about Christ’s role as the Savior? Yes, they do so abundantly (e.g., Psalms 2:7-12; 8:5; 16:9-11; 22; 24:17-10; 35:11; 40:7-9; 41:9; 45:6ff.; 47:5; 50:3-4; 68:18; 69; 72; 110; etc.). Given the fact that the Psalter gives us a clear picture of Christ and His redemptive work, the idea that we must sing Jesus’ name to worship Him properly is simply not true. Once again it must be emphasized that it is what the name represents or points to that is what is important. Once one understands the doctrinal riches contained in the Psalter he will understand that the Jesus name argument is really just an excuse to depart from the all sufficient manual of praise that God has given us—the Psalms.

SEE ALSO: http://www.semperreformanda.com/psalmody/exclusive-psalmody-and-singing-jesus-name-by-daniel-kok/