by Sam Waldron | Feb 23, 2015 | Worship
There is a great struggle going on in Christian churches in our land between churches that practice traditional worship and those who have contemporary services. Some churches in our community and elsewhere even have contemporary services for the contemporary and traditional worship for the traditional. You have seen the signs for several worship services in the same church. The traditionalists prize order, reverence, and solemnity, and their worship is thought to be dead, lifeless, and formal by the contemporary. The contemporary prize joy, freedom, participation, and expression and their worship is seen as wild, irreverent, and even profane by the traditionalists.
I fear that if the truth were told both kinds of so-called worship have much more to do with human likes and human itches and human comfort than they do with what the Bible teaches about biblical worship. Perhaps both groups are better at criticizing the other than they are at practicing biblical worship themselves.
In relation to this debate I propose to consider the saying of the amen during the corporate worship of the church. My thesis is that the saying of the amen by the congregation during worship qualifies as a required part of worship. I admit that this viewpoint seems novel. I concede that I cannot claim explicit, confessional warrant for the viewpoint. (The Confession is not against it either.) I also admit that saying the amen is not so prominent or important a part of worship as the Lord’s Supper or the proclamation of the Word. Nevertheless, I believe the biblical evidence shows that it qualifies as a required part of worship. There is biblical precedent for the saying of the amen during formal worship.
As we consider the biblical teaching on this subject, I want you to consider with me the purpose of the amen, the proof for the amen (being a part of the corporate worship of the church), and the practicality of the amen.
I. The Purpose of the Amen
What does it mean?
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: “The derivative ‘men’ “verily” is carried over into the New Testament in the word amen which is our English word “amen.” Jesus used the word frequently (Mt 5:18, 26 etc.) to stress the certainty of a matter. The Hebrew and Greek forms come at the end of prayers and hymns of praise (Psa 41:13 [H 14]; Psa 106:48; 2Tim 4:18; Rev 22:20 etc.). This indicates that the term so used in our prayers ought to express certainty and assurance in the Lord to whom we pray.… ‘men’. Verily, truly, amen. (Generally, the same in ASV, RSV.) The word expresses a certain affirmation in response to what has been said. It is used after the pronouncement of solemn curses (Num 5:22; Deut 27:15ff; Neh 5:13; Jer 11:5) and after prayers and hymns of praise (1Chr 16:36; Neh 8:6; Psa 41:13 [H 14], etc.). Twice the term is used to describe the Lord (Isa 65:16), and once simply to approve the words of a man (1Kings 1:36). Finally, Jeremiah uses the term once sarcastically in response to the false prophets (Jer 28:6).”
When was it said?
After Curses—Number 5:22; Deuteronomy 27:15-26; Nehemiah 5:13; Jeremiah 11:15. Nehemiah 5:13 is exemplary: “I also shook out the front of my garment and said, ‘Thus may God shake out every man from his house and from his possessions who does not fulfill this promise; even thus may he be shaken out and emptied.’ And all the assembly said, ‘Amen!’ And they praised the LORD. Then the people did according to this promise.”
After Praises—Psalm 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48; 1 Corinthians 16:14. Psalm 41:13 affirms: “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, From everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen.”
After Proclamations—Jeremiah 28:6; Revelations 1:7; Revelation 22:20. Revelation 1:7 records: “BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.”
After Benedictions—1 Corinthians 16:24; Galatians 6:18. Galatians 6:18 says: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.”
After Doxologies—Romans 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Galatians 1:5; Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Peter 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; Jude 1:25; Revelations 1:6 (15 times in the NT doxologies conclude with amen.) Romans 16:27 reads: “to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.”
This list of times when the amen was used in the Bible explains why we say it when we do in our services. We say amen in response to the Word when it is read or preached. We say it in response to the prayers when God is petitioned and thanked and blessed. We say it after the singing of the praise of God. We should say amen in response to the benediction. We say amen and we ought to say amen at these times. It is biblical.
Why was it said?
This word expresses hearty agreement with what has just been said. This agreement may take various forms and the amen may have several, slightly different meanings depending on the nature of what has just been said. To divine truth it responds, It is so. To divine promises it responds, Let it be so. To divine predictions it responds, It will be so. In a word the amen embodies the response of the heart of faith to the Word of God.
II. The Proof for the Amen
One is fighting both human tradition and the dulling effects of sin when he calls people to say the amen in worship. Here, then, I want to prove to you that it must by divine warrant have its place in our corporate worship. I have three arguments.
The Saying of the Amen was Part of the Corporate Worship of the Old Testament. Now I know that even in stating this argument, I raise questions. Is not our worship to be regulated by the ordinances of the New Testament, you may ask? It is true that there is a change in the outward forms of corporate worship in the New Covenant, but it is not true that the Old Testament has nothing to teach us about how to worship God. Should we ignore the first four of the Ten Commandments in understanding how we ought to worship God? Of course not! The ceremonies and types and shadows of the Old Covenant have been done away, but does this mean that the teaching of the Old Testament is irrelevant to us? Absolutely not! Much in the Old Testament is relevant. The question is simply this. Is saying the amen a part of the ceremonial shadows of the Old Testament? We can see how the levitical priesthood is. We can see how the blood sacrifices are typical and shadowy. But how is the saying of the amen is typical, ceremonial, and shadowy? I don’t think it is. Consider the following supporting passages: Deuteronomy 27:15-26; 1 Chronicles 16:36; Nehemiah 8:6; and Psalm 106:48.
The Saying of the Amen is Part of the Corporate Worship of Heaven. The worship of the church should be and is very much the anticipation of the worship of heaven and the new age. But we know plainly that the amen is heard in the worship of heaven. See Revelation 5:14; 7:12, and 19:4.
The Saying of the Amen was Part of the Corporate Worship of the Apostolic Church. 1 Corinthians 14:16 is the key passage here: “Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the ‘Amen’ at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?” This verse comes in a passage that has for its very theme the giving of general rules for the conduct of the worship of the church. Verses 1-26 lay out the rule of edification and conclude with the exhortation: Let all things be done for edification. Verses 27-40 lay out the rule of order and conclude with the exhortation: But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner. Verse 16 assumes that the saying of the amen in response to the worship of God’s people when they blessed and thanked God was a normal and even mandatory part of their worship. Paul uses the fact that people were supposed to say amen as the very premise of his argument against people speaking in tongues without translating in public worship. Saying the amen was such a normal and natural and necessary part of the corporate worship of the apostolic church that Paul could assume it as the very premise of his argument in this chapter. The saying of the amen was and is clearly to be part of the worship of the New Testament church. Some traditionalists feel very uncomfortable when anyone breaks the dead silence of their traditional worship. They are apt to say that someone saying the amen is unedifying or disorderly. You can see what Paul would have thought of that idea. In the very chapter where he is emphasizing the importance of the rules of edification and order in corporate worship, he assumes that there will be and ought to be vocal amens punctuating the praise of God.
III. The Practicality of the Amen
What are the practical implications of all this? First, it is the corporate duty of the people of God to respond with vocal amens to all appropriate public expressions of praise petition and proclamation in the worship of God. Second, this whole matter instructs us concerning the nature of true biblical worship: (1) True worship in the church should be an expression of corporate unity. (2) True public worship should manifest sacred involvement. (3) True worship involves an emotional response to the truth. (4) True worship demands a heart of faith and holy confidence. Third, the saying of the amen or the inability to say it appropriately from the heart is an indication of our spiritual condition before God. Richard Sibbes remarked: “Amen is a short word, but marvelously pregnant, full of sense and full of spirit. It is a word that seals all the truths of God, a word that seals all the truths of God’s promises and seals every particular promise of God. It is never likely to arise in the soul unless there is first an almighty power from heaven to seize on the powers of the soul to subdue them and make it say amen. There is such an inward rising of the heart and innate rebellion against the blessed truth of God that unless God by His strong arm bring the heart down, it never will nor can say amen.”
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Feb 16, 2015 | Biblical Worship
It is a caricature, but not a big one, to say that traditional worship is thought of as sitting on one’s hands, mumbling the hymn, and mainly being silent before God. Contemporary worship, on the other hand, is thought of as a frenzy of clapping, hand-raising, and hallelujahs halfway to the dancing, rolling-in-the-aisles, and being slain in the spirit of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement. Thus, there is an unending battle between “the Lord is in His Holy Temple let all the earth keep silent before Him crowd” and “Clap your hands, all you peoples; shout to God crowd.” Neither side in this battle—in my modest opinion—usually takes the time to ask if their preconceptions about worship are really rooted in Scripture. Both assume that Scripture is—of course!—on their side.
What I propose to do over the next few weeks is to ask the Scripture about issues related to this debate (perhaps “yelling-match” would be a better word) and see if the Bible’s actual teaching on saying the amen, clapping, and hand-raising may shed light on what the atmosphere of worship should be. Does scriptural worship look and sound more like traditional or contemporary worship? I will propose that there is clear duty in saying the amen, a circumstantial possibility in clapping, and an occasional propriety in hand-raising.
But before I get into all that, I want to underscore the assumptions with which I approach this subject. Those assumptions are found in the most mature confessional expressions of the Reformation: the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Baptist Confession. On this matter they speak with one voice, and I believe they speak biblically. Substantially, these documents encourage us to think of worship in terms of a distinction between the required parts of worship and the circumstances of worship.
Speaking of the required parts of worship in chapter 22:1, the Second London affirms:
“The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”
The fact that this refers to the required parts of worship is made clear in the several mentions of the parts of worship that succeed this statement in chapter 22 and especially in 22:5:
“The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ought to be used in an holy and religious manner.”
The clear teaching of the Confession is, then, that the formal worship of God and all its parts must find explicit precedent in the Scriptures. This is, however, qualified in an important way in chapter 1, paragraph 6b, which provides an important and very relevant qualification of sola scriptura as applied to the church and its worship:
“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.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
I believe the confessional distinction between the parts and circumstances of worship is both biblical and crucial. Hence, I cannot avoid this question about saying the amen, clapping, and hand-raising. Are they required parts of worship? Or are they circumstances of worship? Asking this question is most enlightening with regard to these things and the modern debate on worship. We’ll begin our examination next week.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 30, 2014 | 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.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 28, 2014 | 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.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 23, 2014 | 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.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
