Focusing the Discussion
In the examination of the issue of what songs of praise we are authorised to sing in worship, the purpose of this paper is twofold. The primary purpose is to argue that the application of the regulative principle should lead us to sing hymns[1] in worship. The secondary and incidental purpose will be to argue that the position whereby only words from the Old Testament Psalter are authorised for divine worship is without proper scriptural warrant.
It should be understood that for the purposes of this paper, we will assume rather than argue the biblical case for the regulative principle, as our concern here is not with the principle itself but with its application to the singing of praise in worship. Our understanding of the regulative principle is given in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“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 worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”[2]
This brings us to the heart of our discussion. Our argument is that the singing of hymns is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. We know there are many people who hold to this same regulative principle but disagree, believing that only the singing of the 150 psalms of the Old Testament Psalter is prescribed. This is why, in arguing the positive case, it is also necessary to scrutinise critically the contrary position.
It is important to note that the two sides in this debate are not arguing about the regulative principle, or about who is genuinely committed to the regulative principle, although the advocates of exclusive psalmody[3] often argue as if we were. It is often stated or implied that theirs is the Reformed position and that only they truly abide by the regulative principle. Exclusive psalmody advocates sometimes write as if by making the case for the regulative principle, the case for exclusive psalmody is thereby settled. But of course it is not. Both sides here are deeply committed to the regulative principle. God is only to be worshipped in ways that are positively commanded, or are commanded by good and necessary consequence, or are instituted by positive example; and anything not warranted by Scripture should be excluded from worship. The regulative principle itself cannot settle this discussion within the Reformed churches.
The fact that both sides share their understanding of so much of their doctrine and practice should mean that this discussion ought to be conducted in a loving spirit, as friends who disagree, not as enemies. It is to be very much regretted that this has not always been the case in practice, although admittedly it is difficult to see how both sides could be practically accommodated within a single fellowship. So we applaud the exclusive psalmody position for its devotion to the Reformed faith and its zeal that God’s worship should be kept pure and scriptural.
We share the view that singing the Psalter is a great and necessary part of our praise in song. Our disagreement is not about how we regard the psalms. We must stress that to be for hymns is not to be against psalms. We share their concern and regret that psalms have been largely forced out of the praise of most congregations that sing hymns. We confess the balance is very wrong in many hymn-singing churches. We should like to see a portion of the Psalms or other scriptural songs sung by the people of God at most or all services. We also believe the tone of the songs of Scripture should be used as models for Christian hymns.
We also recognise that for large parts of our history, particularly our Scottish Presbyterian history, the church has maintained the exclusive psalmody position. Many of my personal “heroes of the faith” were advocates of exclusive psalmody, so be assured their views are not dismissed lightly. Because we agree with them about so much, in some ways it is painful to have to take a different view from them. But in the end our commitment to Scripture must take precedence over loyalty to any body of men, however great. The exclusive psalmody proponents certainly have history and an impressive Reformed witness on their side. Yet it is open to discussion to what extent the exclusive psalmody position at the time of the Reformation was merely a necessary measure – to replace the unscriptural Roman Catholic hymns – which inadvertently developed into a permanent position, rather than a temporary solution.
We say this because exclusive psalmody has never been the only Reformed position – even in Calvin’s Geneva the churches were not exclusively psalm-singing. The same could be said for some of the other Reformed churches on the Continent. There have been many Reformed figures who did not accept the exclusive psalmody position.
Jonathan Edwards maintained a healthy balance between psalmody and hymnody that few Reformed people today keep, on whichever side of the argument they stand. Edwards wrote:
“I am far from thinking that the book of Psalms should be thrown by in our public worship, but that it should always be used in the Christian church until the end of the world: but I know of no obligation we are under to confine ourselves to it. I can find no command or rule of God’s Word, that does any more confine us to the words of Scripture in our singing, that it does in our praying; we speak to God in both. And I can see no words, that we find in the Bible, in speaking to Him by way of praise, in metre, and with music than when we speak to Him in prose, but way of prayer and supplication. And it is really needful that we should have some other songs besides the Psalms of David. It is unreasonable to suppose that the Christian church should forever and even in times of her greatest light, in her praises to God and the Lamb, be confined only to the words of the Old Testament, wherein all the greatest and most glorious things of the gospel, that are infinitely the greatest subjects of her praise, are spoken of under a veil, and not so much as the name of our glorious Redeemer ever mentioned, but in some dark figure, or as hid under the name of some type. And as to our making use of the words of others, and not those that are conceived by ourselves, it is no more than we do in all our public prayers; the whole worshipping assembly, excepting one only, makes use of the words that are conceived by him who speaks for the rest.”[4]
The Westminster Confession of Faith certainly seems to favour the exclusive psalmody position. Indeed it is a fact that the vast majority of the framers of the Confession were men who held to the exclusive psalmody position. But did the framers give their personal views confessional status? We realise that even if they did, this does not settle the matter, as Scripture is the only true authority for the Church. If the Scriptures contradict our Confession, it is the Confession which must give way. However, we do not believe the Westminster Confession gives the exclusive psalmody position confessional status. The Confession states:
“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.”[5]
It might seem that this means the Confession restricts us to the singing only of the Psalms. Two things can be said in response to this.
(1) The Confession does not explicitly condemn the singing of hymns, even though the Westminster Assembly could easily have done this, just as they condemned many errors of doctrine and practice.[6]
(2) The word “psalm” as used in the Confession does not necessarily refer only to the Psalms of David. If the language of the Westminster Confession is anything, it is extremely precise. And it is significant that the Confession does not refer to “singing of Psalms” or “singing of the Psalms,” but merely to “singing of psalms”. We believe that the framers of the confession, in their wisdom, are merely using the word in its more general meaning of “a song of praise” and not to the Psalms to the exclusion of all else. The primary meaning of “psalm” in English is “a sacred song sung in religious worship.” The lack of a capital letter for the word is highly significant, particularly since the Confession frequently uses capitals for words where capitals are not strictly required: Baptism, Godhead, Holy Scripture, Mediator, Original Sin, etc. But here they wrote psalms not Psalms. Therefore we regard the singing of hymns as being consistent with Westminster’s doctrine on worship, being neither explicitly condemned nor excluded by the wording of the Confession.
We believe that tradition colours the arguments on both sides to some extent, though we purposefully try to minimise its influence, trusting that exclusive psalmody advocates would do the same and seek to be open to persuasion. Many exclusive psalmody advocates hold to their position because it has always been the way in their part of the Presbyterian church family. Likewise, many hymnody advocates take their view because they have been singing hymns in church services all their lives. Preference plays a part on both sides too. It is open to debate how much of the exclusive psalmody position of the Reformers was based on personal preference rather than scriptural regulation. While Calvin certainly seems to have favoured the Psalms for worship, he did not argue for the Psalms on the basis of scriptural authority. We must point out that many proponents of exclusive psalmody who avowedly hold to their position on scriptural grounds do not apply the regulative principle consistently or confessionally in their practice in this area. An unwarranted distinction is drawn between “public” worship and “private” worship, or between “formal” worship and “informal” worship, which the Confession nowhere makes, at least not as far as the application of the regulative principle is concerned. It is well known that in many a Free Church of Scotland manse, a piano or keyboard is to be found, and there advocates of exclusive psalmody sing hymns in their private and family worship, but would not permit these in public worship. This is not the confessional understanding of the regulative principle, which the Westminster Confession applies to all worship, not just “public worship.”
The argument in favour of hymns is not an argument in defence of bad hymns, though some exclusive psalmody proponents like to dwell on poor examples of hymnody in order to give credence to their views. We admit that much of what passes for songs of praise in the church fails the standards we should be looking for. This is especially true, we regret, of a lot of contemporary Christian hymns and worship songs. Bad hymns teach propositions that are not scriptural, they use language or melody lacking any dignity, seriousness, art, or reverence as befits materials for divine worship, and they are frequently mindless vain repetitions. For hymns such as these, we have nothing but contempt. We believe that the content and style of hymns should be judged by Scripture. Our hymns should both be faithful to the sound doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and in accordance with the reverent language and style of scriptural praise.
The position that hymns are warranted by scripture is often also attacked using less than fair language. We are accused of singing “uninspired human compositions.” Often examples of the worst kind of hymns are given as examples. Such language creates a false dichotomy between hymns and metrical psalms. This is really unfair because the plain fact is that unless the psalm-singing congregation is singing in the original Hebrew, exclusive psalmody advocates too are singing “uninspired human compositions” that just happen to be paraphrased translations of inspired original texts. Only by holding to a kind of “derivative inspiration” akin to that held by some fanatical KJV-only proponents, can anyone who sings metrical psalms claim that they are singing “inspired” compositions.
Yet none of these avenues of discussion is the central question before us. Actually the question before us is a narrow but straightforward one. Does the regulative principle demand that we only sing the Psalms in worship or are hymns also commanded or commended by example in Scripture? An even more stark question lies behind it though. How does Scripture regulate song in worship? To answer this question we must present the following arguments in favour of singing hymns.
1. The Analogy With Prayer and Preaching
Of the ordinary elements of worship that the Westminster Confession identifies, only the reading of the Scriptures and to an extent the sacraments are regulated in the way exclusive psalmody advocates state that the singing of praises is regulated. Obviously reading the Scriptures is by logical necessity limited to the reading of the Old and New Testaments. It could not be otherwise. Creeds, confessions, or even the greatest religious or theological books cannot be substituted for reading the Bible in divine worship. Likewise the essential elements of the sacraments are explicitly laid down in Scripture. Baptism must be with water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Lord’s Supper must use bread and wine.
Yet prayer and preaching of the Word, though they are commanded as elements of worship by Scripture, are not regulated in the same way. Both lie within the scope of the regulative principle; but we are not commanded to pray only the prayers found in Scripture, nor do we preach only the sermons found in Scripture. Therefore, it does not follow necessarily that to be under the regulative principle, an element of worship must be conducted using only the very words of Scripture. Why cannot Scripture regulate song in the same way it regulates prayer or preaching, rather than in the way it regulates Scripture reading? If we can pray in uninspired words and can preach in uninspired words, there is no obvious reason why we cannot praise in song using uninspired words.
For prayer and preaching, the content is regulated to the extent that it must be in line with the doctrines found in the Scriptures, but their specific content does not have to be the words of Scripture. We do not just pray the prayers of the Bible and we certainly do not just preach the sermons found in the Bible. So does the regulative principle apply to song in worship as it does to prayer and preaching or as it does to reading the Scriptures?
We believe that the singing of praise is regulated the way prayer and preaching are regulated, because the singing of praise fulfils the same roles as prayer and teaching or preaching, and because certain Scriptures support this assertion. We shall deal with the analogy between teaching or preaching and singing when we examine Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Suffice to say for the moment that the verse in Ephesians talks about “addressing one another” in song and the verse in Colossians talks about “teaching and admonishing one another” in song and indicates that our songs are a way of letting the “word of Christ dwell in you richly.” We understand this to point towards an analogy between singing praise and preaching as elements of divine worship. We shall concentrate for the moment on the even more straightforward analogy between prayer and the singing of praise.
Certainly we praise, confess our sins, thank God for his mercies and bring our requests before him in our prayers. Why should it be that if we speak these things, we may use our own words, but if we add melody and sing them, we cannot? That makes no sense whatsoever. As Edmund Clowney writes:
“Music, it may well be pointed out, is not in itself an element of worship, but a way of praying, praising, proclaiming and exhorting.”[7]
The analogy between prayer and singing is explicitly made in the Scriptures. Acts 16:25 reads:
“About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.”
Many English translations read as if the praying and singing hymns were two separate activities, but the original Greek does not necessarily imply this. There is no “and” in the Greek between “praying” and “singing.” Young’s Literal Translation renders this verse:
“And at midnight Paul and Silas praying, were singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were hearing them.”
The New English Bible has:
“About midnight Paul and Silas, at their prayers, were singing praises to God, and the other prisoners were listening.”
Darby’s Translation renders it:
“And at midnight Paul and Silas, in praying, were praising God with singing, and the prisoners listened to them.”
J. A. Alexander, in his commentary, says of this verse:
“Praying, hymned (or sang to) God, seems to express, not two distinct acts, as in the English version [the King James Version], but the single act of lyrical worship, or praying (i.e. worshipping or calling upon God) by singing or chanting.”[8]
If this verse says that Paul and Silas could pray by singing in the Philippian prison, and there is every reason to think it does, then there is a biblical link between prayer and song, which strongly suggests that singing to God in worship is regulated like prayer and not like reading the Scriptures.
Another verse which indicates the similarity between singing praise and praying is 1 Corinthians 14:15:
“What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.”
Once again it seems reasonable to conclude a parallel in Paul’s mind between the activities of prayer and praising in song.[9]
Finally, the Old Testament also draws a parallel between prayer and singing that evidences the analogy we are seeking to establish here:
“The Lord will command His lovingkindness in the daytime; And His song will be with me in the night, A prayer to the God of my life.”[10]
It is not stretching things to say that “song” and “prayer” are referring to one and the same activity here.
The analogy between prayer and singing praise would seem to be incontrovertible both on the basis of how the Scriptures actually speak about both activities, which makes sense as there are close similarities between the function that prayer and praising in song have in divine worship. The same could equally be said of songs of praise and teaching or preaching of Christ as will be shown when we discuss the crucial verses in Ephesians and Colossians. Together, the argument from analogy, that since the contents of prayers and sermons are regulated, but not exclusively drawn from the very words of Scripture, the same may be argued for the songs of praise we employ to worship God.
2. The Presence of Other Songs of Praise in the Canon of Scripture
Our second argument is unashamedly an argument against exclusive psalmody rather than a positive argument for singing hymns; but it does challenge some of the assumptions of the exclusive psalmody case against hymnody. The fact that there are other psalms or hymns present in Scripture, quite apart from the Psalter, indicates that Scripture does not ordain that singing should be restricted to the 150 Psalms. Exclusive psalmody advocates tend to state their case along the lines of “God has given us His hymn-book – the Book of Psalms – why do we need another?” Some do not even show as much forbearance as this and either explicitly or implicitly seek to cast doubt about the Reformed commitment, if not the profession of faith, of any who dare challenge their assumptions.
“That man who prefers a humanly composed song to one written by the Spirit of God, when the latter fully suits his purposes, is, to say the least, lacking in spiritual discernment. And that man who would mix together in one book the inspired songs of God with the uninspired songs of sinful men (as if the latter were in any way comparable with the former in majesty, holiness, and authority) is, whether he knows it or not, guilty of sacrilege, of bringing the things of God down to the level of sinful men. The only way to avoid this charge is to claim that the Psalms are in a very real sense outdated, so much so that even frail and sinful men may presume to improve upon them.”[11]
The weight of the rhetoric here crumbles under its own hubris when we point out that this is a rank assumption on the part of the exclusive psalmody advocates. Nowhere does Scripture state that God gave us the book of Psalms with the purpose of being a hymnal far less his one and only hymnal. Rather than provide scriptural exegesis, the exclusive psalmody advocates start with their assumption and then use the Scriptures to prove their case. The shameful denunciation of opponents in the above quotation cannot overcome the simple lack of a biblical case. The exclusive psalmody argument ignores the fact that other inspired psalms and hymns exist in Scripture. Yet the most militant exclusive psalmody advocates will have nothing to do with even these. Some examples of other scriptural songs in the Old Testament are:
· The Song of Moses and Miriam (Exodus 15)
· The Song of the Israelites (Numbers 21:17-18)
· The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 31:19-32:44)
· The Song of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5)
· The Statutes of the Lord were sung by David (Psalm 119:54)
· The Song of the Vineyard (Isaiah 5:1-7)
· The Song of the Kingdom (Isaiah 26-27)
Examples of scriptural songs in the New Testament are:
· The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55)
· The Song of Zechariah (Luke 1:67-79)
· The Angel’s Song (Luke 2:14)
· The Song of Simeon (Luke 2:28-32)
· Pauline fragments of early hymns (Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20)
· The charismatic hymns of 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26 which cannot reasonably be portrayed as Old Testament psalms.
· The Songs of Revelation (Revelation 5:9-10; 14:3; 15:3-4; 19:5-7)
It should be noted that at least in one of these cases, the scriptural song in question is expressly commanded by God to be sung:
“And the Lord said to Moses…‘Now therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people of Israel.’”[12]
For this reason, the argument to restrict any manual of praise to the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament Psalter is purely an arbitrary restriction imposed by the will of man, not by the will of God. Of course, this does not prove that hymns are permissible in divine worship, but it certainly does mean the exclusive psalmody position is not really justifiable on the plain example of the other psalms and hymns found in Scripture.
3. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16
Two New Testament verses play a critical role in this whole discussion, for people on both sides of the argument. For that reason, we shall spend more time discussing these two verses than any other in this paper. The two verses are Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. We quote both in full and in their immediate contexts:
“Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”[13]
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”[14]
The exclusive psalmody advocates insist that the “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” of these verses refer solely to the Old Testament Psalter. We can readily understand why they are so emphatic about it, implying any other opinion is not even worthy of serious discussion, because unless this assertion is true, their case completely falls to pieces. Here is a leading exclusive psalmody advocate in his own words. This seems typical of the exclusive psalmody approach to these verses:
“Both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 affirm the continued use of psalms in the New Testament. The words used are ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.’ These are different terms, previously used in scripture, undoubtedly referring to various portions of the biblical Psalter. Many modern readers employ these passages as a justification for introducing uninspired ‘hymns’ into public worship. Unfortunately, popular nomenclature is not as precise as scripture; and this argument for non-canonical hymnody has a ring of plausibility, only because several generations have been raised singing nothing but uninspired hymnody drawn largely from 17th to 20th century composers. Thus, many people attempt to read back into the text of Ephesians and Colossians a meaning for the word hymn that is far from the apostle's original intent.
“Paul's epistles offer no genuine support for non-canonical hymnody, since the scriptural use of the terminology must govern the meaning of the words used in this context. If the advocates of uninspired hymnody wish to establish their case, they must prove that Paul is using these terms in a manner contrary to their ordinary scriptural usage; or, they must show that, elsewhere, Christians have been enjoined to compose new psalms to supplement those given in the Bible.
“In other words, the burden of proof rests upon the advocates of new hymnody to demonstrate that uninspired hymns are part of the divinely-revealed pattern for worship. The opponents of non-canonical hymnody in worship need no further proof of their unlawfulness, since there does not exist a biblical warrant for their use in worship.”[15]
This argument is based entirely on assumption, speculation and presumption. Notice the way the argument begins with assumption: these verses “affirm the continued use of psalms in the New Testament.” Then there follows an amazing presumption: the terms used by Paul “undoubtedly” refer to the Old Testament Psalter. From there the argument is well on its way to establishing that which was to be proved. Next a straw man is attacked: advocates of hymnody have no level of argument above the fallacious “we sing ‘hymns’, the verse mentions ‘hymns’, so we are justified in singing our hymns.” This is followed by a restatement of the first assumption for rhetorical emphasis: “Paul's epistles offer no genuine support for non-canonical hymnody.” Having offered us no scriptural analysis, mere assumption and the demolition of an argument that no serious apologist for hymns ever made, we are then told without being given any reason why it should be so, that the burden of proof is on us! This is completely arbitrary. We certainly have no fear of discharging that burden; but this whole flawed approach is typical of how the exclusive psalmody case is constructed. It is a house of cards pretending to be a castle of biblical truth.
Despite the rhetoric that is employed, there is a proper exegetical discussion to be had to discover what Paul is referring to in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, and not merely on the basis that the hymnody argument anachronistically reads back into Scripture the modern meaning of the word “hymn.”
Yes, psalms, hymns and odes are used in the titles of many Psalms in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) Psalter. Yes, Paul may conceivably be referring solely to the Old Testament Psalter here. But it is no more than speculation to say he is. To state that the burden of proof is on those who do not agree with this presumption is unacceptable. To say he must be referring to the Psalms, is quite outrageous. In fact, in the titles of the psalms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament – which were themselves uninspired Greek additions to the original Hebrew text – the word psalm is used 67 times, hymn occurs 13 times, and song is found 36 times. In one psalm all three titles are used. But that also means that these titles are not found in over 30 of the Psalms. Are these therefore excluded by Paul from what the New Testament Church should sing, arguing on exclusive psalmody's own lines? Likewise the same three titles are used for Old Testament passages in the Septuagint outside the Book of Psalms. Why are these not included, on the basis of exclusive psalmody assumptions? The same words (psalms, hymns, and songs) are used in the Septuagint text of Isaiah. It makes no more sense to say Paul is referring solely to the Songs of Isaiah than it makes sense to say he is solely referring to the Psalter. So at the very least exclusive psalmody advocates are inconsistent in the application of their own premise!
We would also make the following six points that very much militate against the exclusive psalmody understanding of Paul in the key verses:
(a) The phrase “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” is never used as a title for the Old Testament Psalter anywhere and that includes the Septuagint.
(b) The fact that the three words are found in the Septuagint Psalter is hardly surprising since all vocal music at that time fell into one of the three categories that Paul uses.
(c) The way Paul uses the words in the verses gives no indication that he is using those words as titles referring to specific compositions already in existence (scriptural or otherwise). Paul’s use of the words gives every impression that he is using them to define types of compositions, it being incidental whether they are scriptural or not, or even whether they are already in existence or not. If a person says they like listening to “operas, string quartets and symphonies” the natural meaning of those words is that are they like those forms of musical composition. We do not jump to the conclusion that they are really saying they like the music of Mozart. In effect, that is what the exclusive psalmody advocates are asking the Church to accept in their interpretation of these verses: that by mentioning three forms that appear in the Old Testament Psalter, Paul was not referring to the forms of composition, but to specific inspired compositions bearing those titles in an uninspired translation. It is not unreasonable to doubt or question this assertion.
(d) In 1 Corinthians 14:26 Paul uses the word “psalm” to refer to what certainly was not an Old Testament psalm, which is why many Bible versions use the word “hymn” instead of “psalm” in this verse to avoid confusion.[16] The verse reads:
“What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.”
Here is an extensive list of phenomena produced under the charismatic influence of the Holy Spirit in New Testament believers: lessons, revelations or prophecies, tongues and interpretations. It is simply inconceivable that to begin this list, Paul is not referring to new hymns composed for singing in the New Testament Church under the influence of the Holy Spirit (we do not mean in the same way as the Holy Spirit moved men to write the Holy Scriptures), but instead is merely referring to the Old Testament Psalms. Secondly, it seems extremely unlikely that in a Gentile congregation gathering together for worship each one there would have an Old Testament psalm to sing.
(e) If Paul had wanted to refer with incontrovertible clarity to the Old Testament Book of Psalms in these verses in Ephesians and Colossians, he could easily have done so, simply using the words “the Book of Psalms” as Paul’s fellow gospel worker, Luke, does in his inspired writings:
“For David himself says in the Book of Psalms…”[17]
“For it is written in the Book of Psalms…”[18]
Why would Paul possibly choose the much more ambiguous terminology of “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,” especially if all he really meant was “some of the Psalms, other Psalms and most of the other Psalms?” It seems difficult for the exclusive psalmody advocates to explain adequately why Paul did not state to his readers the Septuagint title of the book of Psalms (either Psalterion – the Psalter or Psalmoi – the Psalms)[19] if their interpretation of the verses is correct.
(f) It is also unlikely that Paul uses the word “spiritual” in the verses to mean “inspired by the Holy Spirit” and hence “scriptural.” Much more likely is that the word is being used in the same sense as Paul employs it in Colossians 1:9:
“And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.”
Here and in Colossians 3:16, Paul surely uses “spiritual” to categorise the type of wisdom and song involved, because the nouns on their own, without their sacred adjectival colouring, are also used in the secular world. We can have wisdom and understanding in business, in creativity, in relationships, in government and war, but Paul clarifies in Colossians 1:9 that he wants the Church to be filled with wisdom in the things of God, in spiritual wisdom. Likewise in Colossians 3:16, the word translated “songs” is literally the Greek word for “odes”. Odes could be many different types of song, both sacred and secular. Paul uses spiritual to signify that he means only songs that are concerned with the things of God, not to signify that he means only songs inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It is therefore completely unacceptable and unwarranted to say, as the exclusive psalmody advocates state, that Paul must be referring to, and only to, the Old Testament psalms in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19.
So what about a reasonable alternative interpretation of the verses? If the exclusive psalmody advocates have got it wrong, what then are the “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” of these verses?
It has already been suggested that Paul seems to be referring to types of songs of praise rather than a definitive list of specific songs of praise. Though we do not believe that a rigid delineation of three mutually exclusive categories is in the Apostle’s mind here, the etymology and usage of the Greek words that Paul uses in Ephesians and Colossians may be of some guidance to us, indicating that the three terms are not interchangeable synonyms either.
Psalms most likely refers to songs sung to instrumental accompaniment.
Hymns would seem to refer specifically to a song of praise addressed to a deity.
Spiritual Songs would then refer to other songs for worship not covered by the other two categories, perhaps focusing on those songs that teach biblical truths.
Lest we be accused of abandoning the Reformed understanding of these verses, we would like to quote from an undoubtedly Reformed commentator who had an understanding of these verses which would appear to be very close to that which we have outlined.
“In place of their obscene, or at least barely modest and decent, songs, it becomes you to make use of hymns and songs that sound forth God’s praise.” Farther, under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way — that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of: a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode [song] contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles. For this has a connection with his argument.”[20]
It is apparent that Calvin drew the obvious conclusion that Paul was referring in these verses to types of song and not a specific body of songs, as our opponents maintain.
The distinguished New Testament scholar, William Hendriksen, in his commentary on Colossians 3:16 has the following insights into the kinds of songs of praise that Paul had in mind.
“As to the meaning of the terms psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs…a little investigation quickly shows that it may not be easy to distinguish sharply between these three. It is possible that there is here some overlapping of meanings. Thus, in connection with psalms it is natural to think of the Old Testament Psalter, and, in support of this view, to appeal to Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:33. So far there is no difficulty. However, expositors are by no means agreed that this can be the meaning of the word psalm in 1 Corinthians 14:26 [we have explained why psalm is unlikely to mean one of the psalms from the Old Testament Psalter in this verse.]…
“As to hymns, in the New Testament the word hymn is found only in [Colossians 3:16] …and in Ephesians 5:19. Augustine, in more than one place, states that a hymn has three essentials: it must be sung; it must be praise; it must be to God. According to the this definition it would be possible for an Old Testament psalm, sung in praise to God, to be also a hymn…Is it not altogether probable that some, if not all, of these hymns were psalms? Cf. also Hebrews 2:12. But if Augustine’s definition is correct there are also hymns that do not belong to the Old Testament Psalter; such hymns as the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) and the Benedictus (Luke 1:68-79). Fragments of other New Testament hymns seem to be embedded in the letters of Paul (Ephesians 5:14; Colossians 1:15-20; 1 Timothy 3:16, and perhaps others).
“The word song or ode (in the sense of poem intended to be sung) occurs not only in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 but also in Revelation 5:9; 14:3, where “the new song” is indicated, and in Revelation 15:3, where the reference is to “the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb.” These are not Old Testament Psalms. Moreover, a song or ode is not necessarily a sacred song. In the present case the fact that it is, indeed, sacred is shown by the addition of the adjective spiritual.
“All in all, then, it would seem that when here in Col. 3:16 the apostle uses these three terms, apparently distinguishing them to at least some extent, the term psalms has reference, at least mainly, to the Old Testament Psalter; hymns mainly to New Testament songs of praise to God or to Christ; and spiritual songs mainly to other sacred songs dwelling on themes other than direct praise to God.” [21]
We find Hendriksen’s insights convincing. It would make perfect sense that in his letters to predominantly, if not solely, Gentile congregations at Ephesus and Colossae, Paul would use the words in their ordinary meanings as his letter’s recipients would understand them.
Psalms would surely mean the Old Testament Psalter to them, as it is the title of that book in the Septuagint Old Testament these Gentile congregations would probably be familiar with as their Scriptures, though Paul was not necessarily excluding other psalm-like parts of the Old Testament, such as the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy.
Hymns would be the natural way for the early church to classify those songs of praise addressed to God or addressed personally to Christ. We know from sources outside the New Testament that the early Christians did address their songs of praises to Christ. The Roman historian Pliny in a letter to the Emperor Trajan in A.D. 112 describes Christians gathering at daybreak:
“To recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ as to a god.”[22]
As Christ is our God incarnate, our heroic Saviour, and the mighty Conqueror of sin death, it would be entirely natural for Paul to call such songs hymns referring, in the main, to other songs of praise in Scripture, particularly those which the Church had already produced, often addressed to Christ personally. Some fragments of these we believe are recorded for us as quotations within Paul’s letters.
Spiritual songs would then most likely be referring, in the main, to songs for worship which are not directly songs of praise. They might include songs of confession and thanksgiving, songs of encouragement, songs containing doctrinal and practical instruction and so on. As we have already noted, Paul uses the adjective “spiritual” to distinguish the songs he has in mind from ordinary everyday songs of the time, as the same word was used for these as Paul uses in these verses.
This leads on to our discussion of two key functions Paul commands us to employ songs in worship to carry out: functions that could not adequately be carried out solely by singing the Old Testament Psalter. Those functions are thanksgiving and teaching:
“But be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.”
“Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
It would be strange indeed if we are to give thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ without being able to mention the precious name of Jesus in our songs. Likewise, it would seem to be difficult to be able to sing our thanksgivings to God for all the wonderful things he has done for us in the works of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit from the incarnation at Bethlehem, through to the end of the age, without being able to even mention any of these because they are either not mentioned at all or appear only in shadowy outline within the Old Testament Psalter.
Perhaps even harder to fathom, is how we can use song in worship to let the word of Christ, the gospel[23], richly dwell in us, or to teach and admonish one another in doctrine or practice, without being able to produce Christian hymns that express the very words of Christ, or teach the doctrines of the blessed gospel of sovereign grace or the Christian lifestyle which is one of its fruits. Singing the Psalms can only take us so far, but they do not contain as much of the word of Christ as a single verse from the Gospels, nor do they contain the gospel message in full-grown maturity, as it is to be found in Romans or Ephesians.
We submit that we cannot fully obey the apostolic command to teach and admonish each other unless we are also called to compose and use hymns that contain the whole word of Christ.
Again, the parallel between song in worship and teaching or preaching in worship is revealed. If song is a means of teaching, a proposition that Colossians 3:16 plainly states, then it is reasonable to assume that it would be regulated as other means of teaching are regulated by the Scriptures. Preaching and teaching are certainly part of worship.[24] Sermons must be faithful to Scripture, but they are not mere recitals of the words of Scripture. We believe the same applies to our songs of praise. It is almost impossible to conceive of Paul arguing that we are to teach and preach in our words, but as soon as melody is added and we sing our teachings, we are restricted only to the Old Testament psalms.
That our understanding is correct, that Paul is here commanding the New Testament Church to use not only the Psalms, nor even just all the songs of praise found in Scripture, but also songs yet to be composed, to teach the Church, is further supported by these considerations.
(a) The verse makes little sense if Paul is only referring to singing the Psalms. Why would he say we must “teach and admonish one another with all wisdom in singing the Book of Psalms” if that is what he meant? Consider that interpretation. How is all wisdom necessary if such be the case? Paul would thereby be saying that all wisdom is required to select which Old Testament psalms should be sung at each particular meeting of the congregation. Much more plausible than that is to suppose that Paul is saying we require all wisdom so we can compose, select or sing the right kinds of hymns with sound doctrine in them. This is Edmund Clowney’s view:
“Paul’s expression shows that he is thinking of the wisdom that composes psalms, and therefore not the Psalms of David.”[25]
(b) There is a direct parallel between Paul’s words in Colossians 1:28 on preaching and his words in Colossians 3:16 on song in worship. Colossians 1:28 reads:
“Him we proclaim, warning [or ‘admonishing’[26]] everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ.”
Both verses use the “admonishing…teaching…with all wisdom” formula. This again suggests that song may be regulated in a similar way to preaching, rather than like reading the Scriptures.
(c) If one of the roles of singing in worship is essentially to meditate on the word of God – “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you” – then it cannot be that we are to restrict our hymnody only to the canonical texts themselves. Meditation on the Word implies creating our own thoughts and words related to but separate from the Word.
For all these reasons we conclude that the key New Testament verses, Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, far from teaching that only the Old Testament Psalms are authorised for use in worship, actually demand that new songs for worship be composed and sung in the churches, alongside the existing Psalms and other scriptural songs admittedly, in order to praise God for all his works, in order to thank God in the name of Jesus Christ, and in order to teach and admonish each other with the word of Christ.
4. James 5:13
James 5:13 is another verse that is sometimes used to teach that we are only to sing the Psalms in worship, however, this is far from clear once the verse is properly analysed. In the New King James Version it reads:
“Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms.”
The Authorised Version also has “psalms” but this is a somewhat misleading translation.
The word translated psalms here is actually not the noun psalmos, in fact it is not a noun at all. Actually, it is the verb psallos that James uses in this verse. Psallos generally means “to sing” or “to praise.” Hence:
· “Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.” (NIV)
· “Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises.” (NASB)
· “Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise.” (NRSV)
· “Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.” (ESV)
No one disputes that the singing of the Psalms is included within the apostles’ command. James may even be mainly referring to the Psalms here, but the verse does not explicitly say so. There is no real indication, therefore, that James is referring to the psalms to the exclusion of any other songs of praise. We agree with the Puritan Thomas Manton’s comments on this verse: psalms are in view here. James is certainly not talking about singing a song when we are happy, he is definitely referring to songs of praise. However, we have read Manton claimed as an exclusive psalmody advocate, but this is far from being the case. Manton uses the word psalm in the more general sense of song of praise, including the Old Testament psalms no doubt, but not necessarily confined solely to them.
“In the original there is but one word, yallštw, let him sing; but because the apostle is pressing them to religious use of every condition, and because this is usual conception of the word yallštw in the church, it is well rendered ‘let him sing psalms.’ Certainly, when the apostle biddeth them sing, he doth not mean songs but psalms; not songs to gratify the flesh, but psalms to refresh the spirit.”[27]
The reason we can be sure that Manton is using the word psalm in its broad rather than narrow sense here, is because when later he uses the verse to support the proposition that the Old Testament Psalter should be sung in the Church, he speaks of scriptural psalms, presumably to differentiate these from other kinds of psalms. It is also to be noted that the great Puritan Manton explicitly denies the exclusive psalmody position while writing on this very verse.
“Others question whether we may sing scripture psalms, the psalms of David, which to me seemeth to look like the cavil of a profane spirit. But to clear this also. I confess we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the Church. Tertullian, in his Apology, showeth that in the primitive times they used this liberty, either to sing scripture psalms or such as were of private composure.”[28]
Manton clearly favours the scriptural psalms, but he does not restrict the psalms that may be sung in worship only to them. He makes an excellent case for singing the Psalms in our worship; but it is surely to misrepresent Manton’s more balanced view if he is press-ganged into the exclusive psalmody cause.
We suggest that James 5:13 can be used as proof-text for including singing praises in our worship. The text of those praises cannot, however, be limited to the Old Testament Psalter by appeal to this verse. On the contrary, as Manton alludes to, we may sing the praises commanded by this verse in scriptural psalms, but also in songs of praise “of private composure.”
5. The Progression of Redemptive History
We have made our views very clear in the past that we consider there to be close relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Indeed, we hold that they are but different administrations of the one, eternal Covenant of Grace; but at the same time it must be recognised that there is a progression in the course of redemptive history. As the Westminster Confession states:
“V. This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
“VI. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament.”[29]
Much of the Epistle to the Hebrews is devoted to making the point that the New is better than the Old, because the shadows and types of the Old have been eclipsed by the reality of Christ in the New.
“For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.’ But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.”[30]
Every major epoch of redemptive history is marked by an outpouring of new songs, to praise God’s greatness and celebrate God’s works. The exclusive psalmody position would deny this singular blessing in the New Covenant, which is the greatest and fullest outpouring of God’s love and God’s grace, in the person and work of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Scriptures plainly teach that new acts of God should lead to new songs on the lips of his people. Ironically perhaps, these plain scriptural commands are found prevalently in the Book of Psalms.
“Sing to him a new song; play skilfully on the strings, with loud shouts.”[31]
“Oh sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth! Sing to the Lord, bless his name; tell of his salvation from day to day.”[32]
“Oh sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvellous things! His right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.”[33]
“I will sing a new song to you, O God; upon a ten-stringed harp I will play to you.”[34]
“Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly!”[35]
The Psalms themselves demand new songs from God’s people to praise him from the heart for the blessings he has showered on them. The picture painted by the Scriptures is not that of a once-and-for-all divine hymnal handed down to the people of God, the Psalms themselves seem to explicitly deny this; but of an ever new and living, creative response to new and wonderful works of the living God. Many of the Old Testament songs are themselves specific responses to a new thing the Lord had done.
One particular example of new songs being called for in the Old Testament concerns King Hezekiah. It is instructive because the songs Hezekiah mentions are neither in the Psalms, nor indeed are they all even in the Scriptures:
“The Lord will surely save me; so we will play my songs on stringed instruments all the days of our life at the house of the Lord.”[36]
Hezekiah refers to songs in the plural that will be sung in worship in the house of the Lord. Only one of these songs is inspired and it appears here in Isaiah 38, not in the Psalter. Nowhere is it hinted that Hezekiah was doing anything contrary to God’s precepts by composing and singing these uninspired songs he must also have wrote. This verse is therefore implicit authority for singing our own praises in the worship of God. Hezekiah’s example is obviously commended to us here, or it would surely be commented upon negatively either here or at some other place in the Scriptures. As far as the demands of the regulative principle is concerned, this must be counted as an example from which we might draw scriptural warrant for singing uninspired songs in worship.
Another portion of Scripture which features new songs is the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. There are two verses that contain this expression in the apocalypse:
“And they sang a new song, saying, Worthy are you to take the scroll, and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”[37]
“And they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.”[38]
The Book of Revelation was written to encourage and strengthen Christians in all ages, including its first recipients, the early Christians suffering persecution and martyrdom. There are strong indications that the new songs of Revelation, at least in part, echo the kinds of songs of praise used in the persecuted churches to whom John was writing. It would certainly be strange indeed if the saints who first read Revelation read about songs to the Lamb, never having sung anything like that themselves before; stranger yet it would be if they never went on to sing songs like they read in Revelation in their worship. After reading about the purest worship of heaven, which surely must be perfectly regulated, is it conceivable they would neither recognise their songs of worship in Revelation nor copy the songs of Revelation in their worship, but would, having glimpsed heaven, then turn back and sing only from the Old Testament Psalter? We think this is not a tenable proposition. As Hughes Oliphant Old says:
“The hymns of the book of Revelation surely reflect the praises of the earliest Christians…they are a Christian reworking of the seraphic hymn of Isaiah, the Song of Moses, and the Psalms”[39]
The words of the new songs of Revelation praising and glorifying the Lamb leads us to consider another aspect of the progress of Revelation we have not properly considered so far. The blunt truth is that if we confine our songs of praise to the Old Testament Psalter, we cannot sing the precious name of Jesus in our worship. This is a very serious limitation – both theologically and emotionally – in the exclusive psalmody position.
The name of Jesus Christ is no mere label in biblical theology. The biblical position is that a person’s name is the summation of that who that person is and what that person is like. This is supremely the case with the name of Jesus.
“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”[40]
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel (which means, God with us).”[41]
“God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”[42]
“And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”[43]
“Christ is all” Paul wrote.[44] He is God with us, the Saviour, our Great High Priest, the King of kings. Can Christ be everything to us and his name not appear on our lips in our songs of praise? This would hardly seem to be in keeping with the praise and glory that the New Testament writers lavish upon him, and to which the whole Old Testament looks forward.
Exclusive psalmody advocates respond that the Psalms are full of Christ and so their praise is not impoverished by restricting their songs of praise to the Old Testament Psalter. There is a lot of truth in this. Not for nothing has the book of Psalms been called the Bible in miniature. We agree of course that Christ is in the Psalms on every page; Christ himself testifies to the truth of this.[45] But that does not change the plain fact that the Psalms do not mention the name of Jesus Christ and nor do they contain the wonderful details of his life and work as the only-begotten Son of the Father, the Word made flesh. We disagree with much of the thrust of John Frame’s book Worship in Spirit and Truth, but he is surely correct when he writes:
“The Psalms do testify of Christ, as the New Testament shows in its use of the Psalter. But the Psalms present Christ in the ‘shadows’ (Col 2:17), in terms of the incomplete revelation of the Old Testament period (Heb 1:1-3). Indeed, to limit one’s praise to the Psalms is to praise God without the name of Jesus on one’s lips. But the completeness of redemption in Christ requires a whole new language of praise: about Jesus the God-man, his once-for-all finished atonement, his resurrection for our justification, and our union with him by faith as the new people of God. Doubtless there are anticipations of these doctrines in the Psalter, but Christian worship demands more than the language of anticipation. It demands the language of fulfilment and completeness, for that is what is distinctive about New Testament faith. It is precisely the accomplishment of God’s mighty works that evokes praise in Scripture.”[46]
There is a tension between continuity and change for the Old Testament and the New Testament. A tension between Passover and the Lord’s Supper, between circumcision and baptism, between the terminal fulfilment of the ceremonial law and the continuing norms of the moral law, between national ethnic Israel and the new covenant people from all nations who make up the Christian Church. It would not be surprising if in worship there is both a continuity – in praising God through song – and a change – through hymns of the New Testament Church.
We assert that the exclusive psalmody position takes no genuine account of any of these considerations.
Conclusions
We agree with the exclusive psalmody advocates to the extent that the Old Testament Psalter is both warranted and highly recommended for use in Christian worship. We deplore the fact that the Psalms have all but disappeared from many churches and we hope that there will be a continued renaissance of interest in the Psalms as songs of praise. We are encouraged that many modern, accurate and attractive settings of the Psalms have been produced[47] and we commend them to the churches. We recognise that the exclusive psalmody advocates are largely behind this renaissance, and we give thanks for them.
However, we believe that those who argue that only the Psalms should be sung in worship have erred in this matter, allowing their zeal for purity of worship to cloud their judgment as to the full teaching of the Scriptures. Their view fails to adequately take account of all the biblical data, and can be justified only by making a priori assumptions, by drawing purely arbitrary distinctions between some scriptural songs and others, and by elevating speculative interpretations of some key texts to the level of certainties. For these reasons we submit that exclusive psalmody should be rejected as an unwarranted restriction upon the Church and a flawed outworking of the regulative principle.
Because there is a scriptural analogy between the roles of prayer and teaching in worship and song in worship, we believe we are warranted in singing our prayers and teachings. Because Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 obviously refer to types of song not specific songs and because we are commanded to teach each other the word of Christ, through these types of song, we believe we are required to produce and sing hymns that are true to the whole of the Scriptures, containing all the gospel teachings of Christ and the Apostles to meet these needs. And because the progress of redemptive history and scripture itself demands that we sing new songs to reflect what the Lord God has done in Christ Jesus, whose name we delight to sing, we believe that the singing of hymns is authorised by Scripture and is in accordance with the Reformed regulative principle of worship.
NOTES
[1] In this paper the word “hymn” is used with this definition from The New Oxford Dictionary of English: “a formal song sung during Christian worship, typically by the whole congregation.” The word is used to include texts composed for singing in Christian worship that are not merely paraphrases of portions of Scripture.
[2] Westminster Confession of Faith, ch.XXI.1
[3] “Exclusive psalmody” is the main alternative to the position argued in this paper. As the name suggests that position is that we are only warranted, under the regulative principle, to sing the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament Psalter in worship.
[4] From 'Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Review of Religion in New England' (Works, Vol. 1, Banner of Truth Edition)
[5] Westminster Confession of Faith, ch.XXI.5
[6] For example the Confession explicitly condemns, in the section on Religious worship, praying for the dead, using languages that the congregation cannot understand, and tying worship to particular places.
[7] E. P. Clowney: The Church. Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 1995, p.133
[8] J. A. Alexander: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh 1963, Vol. II, p. 121
[9] James 5:13 also contains a similar parallel.
[10] Psalm 42:8 (NASB). See also Psalm 77:6.
[11] Michael Bushell: The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody. Crown and Covenant Press, Pittsburgh, Pa 1993, p. 11
[12] Deuteronomy 31:16, 19
[13] Ephesians 5:17-20
[14] Colossians 3:16
[15] Kevin Reed: Biblical Worship. (http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibW_ch0.htm)
[16] RSV, ESV, NRSV, NIV, Amplified, GNB
[17] Luke 20:42
[18] Acts 1:20
[19] F. D. Kidner: “The Book of Psalms” in J. D. Douglas (ed.): New Bible Dictionary 2nd Edition. Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 1982
[20] John Calvin: Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians. Books for the Ages Software, Albany, Oregon 1998, p. 78
[21] William Hendriksen: New Testament Commentary on Colossians & Philemon. The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh 1988, p. 162
[22] Quoted in John Stott: The Message of Ephesians. Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 1989, p. 206
[23] Cf. Romans 10:17
[24] 1 Tim 4:11-12; 6:2; 2 Tim 4:2
[25] Clowney, p. 136
[26] Cf. Col 1:28 (NASB)
[27] Thomas Manton: An Exposition of the Epistle of James. The Banner of Truth Trust, London 1968, p. 439
[28] Manton, p. 442
[29] Westminster Confession of Faith, ch.VII.5-6
[30] Hebrews 8:3-7
[31] Psalm 33:3
[32] Psalm 96:1-2
[33] Psalm 98:1
[34] Psalm 144:9
[35] Psalm 149:1. Cf. Isa. 42:10
[36] Isaiah 38:20 (NASB)
[37] Revelation 5:9
[38] Revelation 14:3
[39] Hughes Oliphant Old: Worship That is Reformed According to Scripture. John Knox Press, Atlanta 1984, p. 46
[40] Matthew 1:21
[41] Matthew 1:23
[42] Philippians 2:9-11
[43] Colossians 3:17
[44] Colossians 3:11
[45] Luke 24:27; John 5:39
[46] John M. Frame: Worship in Spirit and Truth. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ 1996, pp. 125-26.
[47] For example the Sing Psalms psalter produced by the Free Church of Scotland.
