Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 17

17. An Exclusive Psalmist can never sing the name of 'Jesus'

John Newton penned the words of that exquisite hymn, How sweet the Name of Jesus sounds.* The name 'Jesus' means 'Saviour' in Greek. The Hebrew equivalent is the name 'Joshua' or 'Jehoshua', cf. Numbers 13:16 & 1 Chronicles 7:27. These two names are interchanged in Hebrews 4:8: For if Jesus [ie Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. The name of 'Jesus' appears well over 900 times in the New Testament.

There is something very special about the Saviour's name. This name was given to Him by His Father. The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph to instruct him that this was the name by which he was to call the offspring of the Virgin, Matthew 1:20,21: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 16

16. A number of the Psalms could not have been sung in public worship as they contained instructions forbidden in public worship. 

The Lord laid down strict instructions as to what musical instruments were to be employed in public worship in the Temple. These instructions relate to four musical instruments, namely: the trumpet, harp, psaltery and cymbals.

The use of the trumpet was present from the very beginning of the Mosaic economy. The silver trumpets were to be blown at set times, cf. Numbers 10:2-.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 15

15. Singing Psalms which make mention of musical instruments

It would be very insteresting to know whether exclusive Psalmist sing all the 150 psalms of the Psalter? This question is asked in the light of the numerous places in the Psalter where mention is made of singing accompanied by musical instrument, either in the title, which is part of the inspired record or in the Psalm itself.

The metrical version of the Psalms omits the inclusion of the inspired titles of the Psalms and yet makes the claim that the metrical version is a faithful translation of the original. How can the metrical version be described as a faithful translation when it omits the inspired titles of many of the Psalms? In many cases where an inspired title is given to the Psalm it forms verse 1. There is actually one verse more in the Hebrew Bible than in the Authorised Version or the metrical version. At least the Authorised Version includes the title separately, whereas the metrical version omits it altogether!

Would this omisison have anything to do with the fact that in a number of these inspired titles there are specific commands given to sing the Psalm with the accompaniment of musical instruments?

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 14

14. The metrical translation of the Psalms is not an accurate translation. 

The 150 Psalms of Scripture are Hebrew poetry. There are written in prose and not in metre. For the Psalms to be sung in congregational worship today they have to be changed to metrical rhythm. In doing so there are many changes that take place. 

Numerous additional words are added to suit the particular metre to which the Psalm is set. A very obvious example of this can easily be referenced. The longest of all the Psalms in the Bible is Psalm 119.  If you paste the words of the English translation from the Authorised Version into a word processing document and do a simple word count, it will tell you that there are 2,621 words in the English translation of this particular Psalm. Do the same with the Scottish metrical version of Psalm 119 and the word count is 3,090. The Scottish metrical version of Psalm 119 has an additional 469 extra words! Amazingly, almost twenty percent of the metrical version is made up of additional words as compared with the Authorised Version!

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 13

13. Scottish Presbyterianism has not always believed in Exclusive Psalmody. 

The impression is often given that adhering to exclusive psalmody is being true to our Scottish Presbyterian roots. To adopt any other position is therefore portrayed as a denial of this rich heritage that we enjoy. 

This is the furtherest from the truth and a gross misrepresentation of the practices and beliefs of Scottish Presbyterianism over the centuries. 

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 12

12. The Westminster Divines did not believe in Exclusive Psalmody. 

From around the time of the compiling of the Westminster Confession of Faith [1643-46] there is abundant evidence to be gleaned that the term 'psalm' in the chapter 21 section 5 is not referring exclusively to the Psalter. This section of the Confession reads:
The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.

The men who compiled these worthy documents of the Westminster Standards could not be shoehorned into the exclusive psalmist camp.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 11

11. The Puritans did not all believe in Exclusive Psalmody

The impression is often given by those who promote exclusive psalmody that every Reformed stalwart of the past was an exclusive psalmist. This could not be further from the truth. Many of the great and good men of the past who were reformed in doctrine did not hold to the exclusive singing of the Psalter. 

Some prominent examples:

1. Matthew Henry. In his commentary on Ephesians 5:19 the renowned and much loved expositor had this to:
By psalms may be meant David's psalms, or such composures as were fitly sung with musical instruments. By hymns may be meant such others as were confined to matter of praise, as those of Zacharias, Simeon, &c.

On Colossians 3:16 his commentary reads: 

Singing of psalms is a gospel ordinance - the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture, and suited to special occasions, instead of their lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 10

10. The Reformers at Geneva did not believe or practice Exclusive Psalmody

No one can deny that John Calvin was an ardent lover of the Psalms and believed that they should have the prominent place in the worship and praise of God. However, it is something entirely different to say that John Calvin was an exclusive Psalmist. This fact that he wasn't is proved in a number of ways:

1. John Calvin in his commentaries did not believe that the term 'Psalms, Hymns and spiritual songs' referred to the Psalter and gave support to exclusive Psalmody. In his commentary on Ephesians 5:19 he says:
What may be the exact difference between psalms and hymns, or between hymns and songs, it is not easy to determine, though a few remarks on this subject shall be offered on a future occasion.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 9

9. The early New Testament Church did not believe in Exclusive Psalmody 

Exclusive psalmody cannot claim that this was the view of the early New Testament church. A number of different sources can be quoted:

1. There are some interesting comments made by Tertullian in chapter 39 of his Apology [Apology = a defence of Christianity]. Tertullian lived ca. 160-220 AD. He was born in Carthage, North Africa and is believed to have been converted in middle age. He was also believed to have been the son of a Roman army officer, who was stationed in North Africa. He did good work in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. He also wrote a long defence of Christianity. 

Tertullian makes reference to the fact that the early New Testament Church did not sing Psalms exclusively. In the section where he writes about the observance of the Love Feasts in his day his apology reads:

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 8

8. If 'inspired praise' is required then an equally valid argument could be made for 'inspired praying' and 'inspired preaching' in public worship.

Exclusive psalmists tell us that inspired praise is absolutely necessary because of the importance of praise in the worship of the Lord. But surely this begs a series of questions: why only limit this argument to praise? Why should this same argument not apply to praying and preaching as well? Why should you have a lower, lesser standard for these two elements of Biblical worship? Why is there such a narrow interpretation of the commands of texts such as Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16 but a much broader interpretation of commands respecting prayer and preaching?  

Praying and preaching are just as important as praise. In fact, it is the Reformed position that preaching is the primary act of worship. The exclusive psalmist argument requires 'inspired' praise for some elements but not for other elements and certainly not for what is deemed the primary element of worship. You would be forgiven for missing the logic of this line of argument!

Does praying and preaching not require the same accuracy as is argued for by exclusive psalmists with regard to our praise? There is no logic in only restricting our singing to what has been given in the Scriptures. If a preacher is permitted to employ his own words and even quote a hymn in prayer or in preaching how is this different to the employment of hymns in singing?

Furthermore, many of the 150 Psalms are actually prayers and may never have been sung in praise in the Temple at all. This is the opinion of that eminent Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young: 

We are mistaken when we regard the entire Psalter as designed for the usage of the Temple. That some Psalms were so used cannot be denied, but it is interesting to note that liturgical directions are lacking for many of the Psalms, An Introduction to the Old Testament.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 7

7. The Exclusive Psalmist's position requires them to reject ever singing the 'very best song' in public worship. 

The 'song of songs' is the wonderful title given to the book of Song of Solomon, ch 1:1. There are a number of ways of expressing the superlative in Hebrew. One of those ways is to speak of the: song of songs or King of kings or Lord of lords or holy of holies. When this type of expression is employed in the Scriptures then it is indicating the highest quality or degree of something, that is, the superlative. 

However, an exclusive Psalmist, in public worship at least, can never use this very best of songs to praise the Lord and extol Jesus Christ. By limiting their public praise to the Psalter they can never sing a paraphrase or a hymn based upon this superlative song of songs. 

Ralph Erskine penned a delightful paraphrase of this song. The first five stanzas read:

1. This Song of Solomon the wise

As penman fam'd belongs; 

And justly for its sacred rise,

Is nam'd the Song of Songs. 

2. With kisses of thy mouth divine,

O let me favour'd be;

For better than the richest wine

Thy love appears to me. 

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 6

6. Exclusive Psalmody leads to different levels of worship

According to exclusive psalmists Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 restricts what praise is to be sung in corporate worship to that contained in the Psalter, but many of them do not apply these same restrictions to the area of family or personal worship.

This inconsistency, in this matter of acceptable praise, arises with many exclusive Psalmists having no problem singing uninspired hymns or songs outside of public corporate worship when at home or in other circumstances. This inconsistency is compounded by the fact that these items of uninspired praise are often accompanied with music. No musical accompaniment is permitted in public corporate worship but seemingly allowable in family worship or personal devotions.

Dr. John Kennedy of Dingwall, a fervent believer in exclusive psalmody in his day, acknowledged, maybe unwittingly, that this inconsistent distinction does indeed exist in the practice of exclusive psalmists. When speaking in a debate on this very issue in the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland in 1872, he said:
Some desire them [hymns] because of an experience of enjoyment in using them, in private or in social Christian conference, to express their feeling of sorrow, hope, or gladness. Let these continue so to use them; I will yield to none in my desire to have them as a vehicle of any strong spiritual feeling that stirs my heart; but to use them in the worship of God in the sanctuary is quite another thing.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 5

Here is a fifth reason why the arguments for exclusive psalmody do not stand up:

5. Progressive Revelation argues against Exclusive Psalmody. 

Here is what the renowned A. A. Hodge had to say about Progressive Revelation in his Outlines of Theology: 

The progressive character of divine revelation is recognised in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible. One of the strongest arguments for the divine origin of the Scriptures is the organic relation of its several parts. They comprise more than sixty books written by different men in different ages, and yet they form one whole; not by mere external historical relations, nor in virtue of the general identity of the subjects of which they treat. but by their internal organic development. 

All that is in a full-grown tree was potentially in the seed. All that we find unfolded in the fulness of the gospel lies in a rudimental form in the earliest books of the Bible. What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fulness. This is true of the doctrines of redemption; of the person and work of the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; of the nature and office of the Holy Spirit; and of a future state beyond the grave. And this is specially true of the doctrine of the Trinity…

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 4

Here is a fourth reason why the arguments for exclusive psalmody do not stand up:

4. There are possible remnants of hymns/canticles/doxologies quoted in the New Testament. 

Some writers/commentators have raised this possibility over the years.

There are most certainly examples of quotations in the New Testament which are taken from outside the Old Testament Scriptures. For example on three occasions Paul quotes heathen poets. Two are very obviously quotations from heathen poets as Paul clearly states this to be the case. The third is maybe not so obvious:
1.  Acts 17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
2. 1 Corinthians 15:33: Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. The respected John Gill said of this text: This is a sentence [speaking about the words that are underlined] taken out of Menander, an Heathen poet, showing how dangerous is the conversation of evil men, and what an influence bad principles communicated and imbibed, have on the lives and practices of men.
3.  Titus 1:12: One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 3

Here is a third reason why the arguments for exclusive psalmody do not stand up:

3. The angels and glorified saints did not sing the psalms. 

It is surely to be expected that these angelic and glorified creatures will sing perfect praise in their worship of God. Yet when we read of their praise of God in the Scriptures we do not find them singing from the book of Psalms. 

The angels did not sing from the Psalter when they came to the shepherds on the hills of Judæa to announce the incarnation of the Son of God, Luke 2:13,14: And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

These words are nowhere to be found in the Psalter. If the Psalter is the compendium of perfect praise you would surely expect the holy angels, on such a heavenly mission as this, to sing from the Psalter. Did the holy angels set a bad example to the Shepherds? Is it just permissible for the angels to sing words not found in the Psalter but redeemed souls on earth are not?

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 2

Here is a second reason why the arguments for exclusive psalmody do not stand up:

2. Old Testament and New Testament saints 

did not live by this exclusive psalmist rule. 

If there is a Scriptural requirement to sing inspired praise you would expect to find examples of this among the saints of God in the Scriptures and none to the contrary. However, the opposite is the case. Instead of the saints of God singing inspired praise from the Psalter we find them composing their own items of praise, using different portions of the Old Testament, and following no set form from the Psalter. Saints from both Old and New Testament dispensations are found to have composed their own items of praise. 

As is very obvious to observe the 150 Psalms of the Psalter existed long before the canon of Scripture was closed. If the 150 Psalms of the Psalter are to be the hymnbook of the Church then why does Habakkuk, Elisabeth, Mary, Zacharias & Simeon, to name some Scriptural examples, all compose their own items of praise, and in a number of cases long after the completion of the book of Psalms? 

Over a dozen reasons why the argument for Exclusive Psalmody doesn't stand up, Part 1

The point of dispute is not the singing of Psalms. It is the singing of Psalms exclusively. To say that the book of Psalms gives us many wonderful examples of how God is to be praised is one thing but to say that only the Psalter is to be used and nothing else in worship is something else entirely. 

Does the Bible teach that we have only one book of inspired praise and that is the book of Psalms and therefore nothing of mere human composition is ever to be sung? I do not believe that it does. I don't believe that the Scriptures nor Church History agrees with the exclusive Psalmist position.

Here are a over a dozen reasons for believing so.

1. The terms 'Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs' in Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16 do not refer to the 150 Psalms of the Book of Psalms. 

It is the premise of exclusive psalmists that these terms refer to the divisions of the Psalter in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament.