CBTS Logo

My Fifth Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

by | 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.

My Fourth Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

by | 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.

My Third Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

by | 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.

Book Review: John B. Wallace, Starting at the Finish Line

by | Jul 22, 2014 | Apologetics

John B. Wallace, Starting at the Finish Line: The Gospel of Grace for Mormons (Pomona House Publishing, LLC, 2014). Reviewed by John Divito

As a former Mormon, I was excited to hear about Starting at the Finish Line: The Gospel of Grace for Mormons. John B. Wallace, a fellow former Mormon saved by Christ’s grace, wrote this book for Mormons to read as they consider the teaching and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the formal name of the Mormon Church). He desires to clearly share the biblical gospel with those who believe that they belong to the “one true church” which alone has the “restored gospel.”

To accomplish this goal, Wallace begins by establishing the truthfulness, accuracy, and sufficiency of the Bible as God’s revelation to humanity. The LDS Church undermines confidence in the Bible as God’s Word by declaring: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly….” (), claiming that it has been corrupted. So we need additional scripture to correctly understand God’s revelation. Wallace seeks to refute this belief by providing evidence confirming the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible.

Accepting the Bible as God’s complete revelation to us, he turns to studying it so that we can hear with fresh ears the gospel of grace. Wallace begins with an explanation of the Law of God, showing us our condemnation under the law for our disobedience and sin. It is only once we recognize that there is no hope in ourselves that the cross of Christ makes sense. Next, he looks to Jesus and His redeeming work of substitution for us. Wallace writes:

This very concept of God’s completed work of redemption through the cross of Jesus is the single most important truth discussed in this entire book. Every single word I’ve written up to this point has been a preparation for this very moment, and everything I’ll write going forward only further explains this glorious, eternal, life-saving truth: Christ on the cross, dying for our sins, is our salvation. This is the good news of the gospel. Our debt to a holy God is paid in full. All praise and all glory to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, the Redeemer of our souls (82).

From here, Wallace summarizes our response to this gospel message. According to the Bible, we must believe, repent, receive, abide, and endure. Then the author considers the relationship between grace and works, contrasting the biblical gospel with the LDS view which requires works in order for God’s grace to be sufficient. His book concludes by explaining the Christian life as one where our good works are the result of gratitude for all that Christ has accomplished and secured for us. Thus, Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit to walk faithfully, bringing our Savior glory.

Let me begin by stating my appreciation for Wallace’s valuable presentation of the gospel of grace. With his background in Mormonism, he has a good understanding of LDS teaching which leads to an effective communication of biblical truths. I also welcome Wallace’s loving, conversational tone. In reading his book, I almost feel as if we are casually sitting at a table together discussing what the Bible teaches about salvation.

Additionally, Wallace interweaves his own testimony of coming out of Mormonism and into biblical Christianity, which makes what he is teaching personal and relevant. The reader gets an inside look at the author’s own struggles as he wrestles through comprehending and believing the gospel of grace. Wallace’s many stories, illustrations, and analogies further help us to understand biblical teaching on the gospel.

At the same time, I would like to see improvements made in certain areas. First, I am surprised that Wallace barely touched on the Mormon testimony. With many LDS falling back on their testimony when confronted with challenges to their faith, I expected to read more than “This isn’t a burning in the bosom. This is a wildfire that will burn totally out of control within you. I know because I’ve experienced both the burning and the wild fire” (7). Frankly, I am not even sure what this means, and it seems somewhat problematic at face value.

Second, I observed a lack of precision in Wallace’s theological teaching throughout his book. Now I recognize that he is not a trained theologian—Wallace is a practicing dentist. But this should not excuse him from a careful presentation of biblical truths (see James 3:1). To give the most severe example, he writes: “Naturally, this leads us to the biblical definition of the triune nature of God, commonly referred to as the Trinity. God is one and yet manifests Himself as three distinct beings” (62). This definition would not be acceptable to anyone with a basic familiarity of the biblical and historical teaching on the Trinity. To be fair, reading carefully through this section leads me to believe that Wallace upholds the doctrine of the Trinity. But his presentation is unclear and could even be misleading. Examples of such imprecision could be multiplied, but they would take us beyond a brief review of this book.

Third, Wallace and I come from very different theological perspectives.  I picked up elements of dispensational, Arminian, Keswick, and presumably charismatic theology. This leads to a presentation of evidences that I sometimes found unhelpful and arguable. I would also differ with Wallace in areas of his gospel presentation. Please don’t misunderstand me here, we believe and proclaim the same gospel of grace. But I see some of his biblical teaching to be questionable and even problematic without critical interaction.

Nevertheless, I still see Wallace’s book as a helpful tool to share the gospel with Mormons. Ideally, Christians should read this book together with their LDS friends, discussing what is written in light of the Bible as God’s revealed Word. I know that the author would love to hear of many reading his book in one hand with an open Bible in the other. May we all come to believe and treasure God’s wonderful gospel of grace in Jesus Christ!

My Second Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

by | Jul 21, 2014 | Exclusive Psalmody

We have come to the point in this blog in which we are considering arguments against exclusive psalmody.  Here is my second argument.

Second, we are commanded to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24), that is, we must worship in the light of gospel fulfillment and not Old Testament shadows.

John 4:24  reads, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”  Some explanation of the use I am making of this text is necessary.

John 4:24 is arguably the classic text in all the New Testament on the necessity of worshiping God—not according to the fleshly types and shadows of the Old Testament—but worshiping God in accordance with the fulfillment of these types and shadows in the New Covenant.  It is crucial, therefore, that we understand the teaching of this text to the effect that we must worship God according to the light of the gospel and not according to the shadows of the Old Covenant.

A hendiadys is found in John 4:24 in the phrase “in spirit and truth.”  Hendiadys is a sophisticated sounding word, but it actually has a very simple meaning and derivation.  A hendiadys is a grammatical construction in which one concept is conveyed through two words.  That is what hendiadys means.  Hen=one.  Dia=through. Dys=two.  In this hendiadys in John 4:24 spirit and truth are introduced by a single article and thus combine to convey one concept.

John’s writings are often marked by a deceptive simplicity which disguises a richness of meaning.  Here spirit-truth worship has at least three shades of meaning.  This is confirmed by the fact that the context of John 4:24 emphasizes each of these different shades of meaning.  Though it is the third of these shades which is most important to my thesis, we must not neglect the first two shades of meaning.

Worship in spirit and truth is worship conducted in light of and in submission to divine revelation.  It is, therefore, the opposite of ignorant worship.  There is an emphasis on this in the context.  John 4:22 says, “You Samaritans worship what you do not know. We worship what we do know, because salvation is from the Jews.” Remember the emphasis out of the prophet Isaiah quoted by our Lord in Matthew 15:8-9:  “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”

Worship in spirit and truth is worship that corresponds to God’s nature as spirit. It is, therefore, the opposite of dead worship. Why do I say that?  Again the context guides us.  Verse 24 makes clear that worship in spirit and truth is worship that is controlled by or corresponds to God’s nature as spirit.

Important as these two facets of this phrase are, they do not exhaust or even constitute the main point of the text.  Worship in spirit and truth is worship in terms of the gospel realities brought by the coming of the Messiah.  It is, therefore, the opposite of the shadow worship of the Old Testament.  The context of John 4:24 is filled with an emphasis on the coming of the new age of fulfillment in which the shadows of the temporary Old Testament order pass away (vv. 21, 23, and 25).

21 Jesus told her, “Believe Me, woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

23 But an hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Yes, the Father wants such people to worship Him.

25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will explain everything to us.”

Truth in the Bible is not only the opposite of falsehood; it is also the opposite of shadow.  John 1:17 is clear:  “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.”  On this point listen to the words of John Calvin:

And here again it must be observed, that truth is not compared with falsehood, but with the outward addition of the figures of the Law; so that—to use a common expression—it is the pure and simple substance of spiritual worship.  (Calvin’s Commentaries.  See his comments on John 4:23.)

This facet of the meaning of John 4:24 has several important applications, but among them is the plain teaching that exclusive psalmody is in many people’s minds is associated with the regulative principle.  But this views looks strangely out of step with what Jesus says in John 4:24.

Let me explain what I mean.  Of course, I am not saying that we should not sing the psalms of David.  I believe we should.  But they are to be understood and sung in light of the principle of John 4:24.  They are to be sung and understood in terms of their true meaning which finds their fulfillment in the worship in spirit and truth of the New Covenant.  So, yes, we must preach, pray, and sing the 150 biblical psalms.

But Jesus’ words clearly indicate that even the psalms were part of the shadow worship of the Old Testament.  It would be strange, indeed, in light of Jesus’ teaching to take the position that we may only sing the Psalms of the Old Testament, but that we cannot sing the words and truths in which they find their fulfillment in the New Testament.  The church must be allowed to worship in spirit and truth and must not be restricted in its singing to the preliminary, typical, and shadowy revelation of the Old Testament in its worship.  Think of what the exclusive psalmody position is really saying and how jarring it is.  Jesus tells us to worship in the spirit and truth of New covenant revelation, but exclusive psalmody tells us that we can only sing the psalms of the Old Testament in that worship.

The conclusion must be that the book of Psalms is an inadequate hymnbook for the church of Jesus Christ.  The exclusive psalmodist will certainly say that the psalms must be sung in light of New Testament revelation.  That’s good.  Yet even if it is sung in light of New Testament revelation, this still assumes that the Christian interpretations and understandings of the psalms are worthy to be sung.  This further and also means, since there is no New Testament equivalent to the Psalms, that Christians are called to compose hymns that are faithful to the word of Christ.

But even admitting that the Psalms are to be sung Christianly does not satisfy John 4:24.  No one before the coming of Christ specifically understood or believed the doctrine of the Trinity.  It was implicit in the Old Testament, but it was not explicit.  No one in the Old Testament taught the doctrine of justification with the clarity of the Apostle Paul. It was implicit in the Old Testament, but it was not explicit.  No one in the Old Testament specifically identified Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ.  It was implicit in the Old Testament, but it was not explicit.

So what is my point?  It is not sufficient to sing words that only make the identity of the Messiah, the doctrine of justification, and the doctrine of the Trinity implicit.  The Christian heart cries out to say these things with the clarity of the New Testament revelation.

Pin It on Pinterest