Is the name of Jesus important in worship?

panta dokimazete · #1 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 02:26 AM

I ask the question - is it important to integrate the name of Jesus into public worship?

Coram Deo · #2 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 02:32 AM

Worship itself is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ....

But not in every element does the name Jesus reside...
But every element does hold Jesus Christ in his total being without needing to use his name.. His other names can be used instead.. Like Lord, Son, Messiah, His Attributes, His Other Titles, His OWN Words like Psalms 22...

panta dokimazete · #3 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 02:41 AM

Trevor - is it my question that is not clear?

I am trying to establish whether folks believe that the literal name of Jesus is important to integrate into worship. Is is scriptural? Is it essential? Can one element disregard utilizing the literal name of Jesus normatively?

I don't mean in some legalistic way - just as a matter of principle.

Exagorazo · #4 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 03:59 AM

Of course it is. That isn't the EP argument, but I'm not EP so I'll let them speak for themselves.

Me Died Blue · #5 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

oh, I get it....this is a round-about argument against EP because none of the psalms contain the name of Jesus.... clever.

I noticed that as well...but actually, in order to apply one way or the other to EP, the question would have to be asked with specific regard to the element of song in worship. Depending on what was meant by "worship," it could have little to no relevance to the EP debate, since song is of course only one element of corporate worship.

panta dokimazete · #6 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me Died Blue

I noticed that as well...but actually, in order to apply one way or the other to EP, the question would have to be asked with specific regard to the element of song in worship. Depending on what was meant by "worship," it could have little to no relevance to the EP debate, since song is of course only one element of corporate worship.

Concur - but my proposition is that the principle of EP is flawed because it proposes the public worship element of song, unlike any of the other elements, never, ever, in any circumstance or frequency proclaim or acknowledge the explicit name of the revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.

Coram Deo · #7 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 08:59 AM

Oh Man......

I guess I am in trouble again since I end my prayers with "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Amen" instead of "in Jesus"

Same goes for our churches that use the samething "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." for Baptism

Of course "SON" is about Jesus, just like Lord and Messiah, and his other revealed attributes in the Psalms. In Fact Psalm 2 calls him the "SON" also....

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Concur - but my proposition is that the principle of EP is flawed because it proposes the public worship element of song, unlike any of the other elements, never, ever, in any circumstance or frequency proclaim or acknowledge the explicit name of the revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.

NaphtaliPress · #8 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:03 AM

Here is an EP article on the subject:
Singing the Name of Jesus
The Psalm Singer "Can" Sing the Name of Jesus

by Richard Bacon

Copyright 2002 © First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett

See a PDF format of this article in The Blue Banner, v11#1

An argument is sometimes made against the position of Exclusive Psalmody (the position that one should only sing the inspired songs from the OT Psalms in worship) that since the name of Jesus is not in the OT Psalms, that we must have new hymns for the NT Church. I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the force of this “argument.” I’ve seen the argument many times and expressed in a multitude of ways, but when pressed I’ve never been able to get any of its advocates to put it into a syllogistic form for me. Recently I’ve seen the suggestion that the fact that one does not find the name of Jesus in the Psalter is evidence against using the Psalter as an exclusive praise book. In order for that fact to count as evidence however, it seems to me that a syllogism something like the following would be needed:

We are commanded by Scripture to sing the name of Jesus.

The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.

Therefore the Psalter is insufficient as a songbook for the church.

However, what is generally proposed is something like:

It would be nice in my opinion to sing the name of Jesus.

The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.

Therefore I want to use some additional hymns that do contain the name of Jesus.

I do not think we are commanded anywhere in the OT to sing Jesus’ name anymore than we are commanded in the NT to sing it, so I think the argument is a sort of “red herring.” Why is the name of Jesus (an Anglicization of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehoshua) given to our savior? Because, as Matthew 1:21 informs us, “he shall save his people from their sins.” For those non-Hebraists reading this, he is called Yehoshuah (Joshua) because the Hebrew word for salvation is – you guessed it, “Yoshuah.” I wonder how many hymns are written using Jesus’ actual name that his mother or father who named him would have recognized? Probably not many, if any at all. Aside: I would not be surprised to find such hymns in Messianic congregations.
The Psalter is, however, replete with references to the Savior in his person, work, titles, attributes, and yes even his name. In the Psalms Christ is referred to by his “title” of Messiah (Greek = “Christ”). Of course, because in the Psalms we often find the word translated into English (we should sing with understanding as well as with spirit – 1 Cor. 14:15) we may not immediately recognize it. Never mind – we should learn what Jesus’ name *means* and not simply recite it as a mantra – I think all of us would agree with that regardless of our view of exclusive or non-exclusive Psalmody.
So then, here is a non-exhaustive list of Psalms that we can sing whenever we want to have Jesus’ title of Christ/Messiah/Anointed on our lips (I’ve included the verse by reference):
Psalm 2:2; Psalm 18:50; Psalm 20:6; Psalm 28:8; Psalm 45:7 (verbal variant); Psalm 84:9; Psalm 89:20 (verbal variant); Psalm 89:38; Psalm 89:51; Psalm 105:15; Psalm 132:10; Psalm 132:17.
I realize that it may be possible to sing these passages and have nothing other than King David in view. That would be a terrible misunderstanding of the Psalms, though. That would be like reading about the tabernacle without Christ in view or “the seed of Abraham” without Christ in view. The New Testament does not provide us with a new songbook in large measure because it teaches us how to understand the songbook God gave his church for the ages. In fact, I would maintain that there are some portions of the Psalms that are impossible to understand without a view to Christ (e.g. Psalm 68:18).
But wait, that list includes Jesus’ title, but not his name Jesus. Yes, that is correct. So, does singing the Psalter alone allow us to sing the name of Jesus? Yes, it does if we recall that he is named Jesus because his name is actually the Hebrew word for salvation. It would be more accurate for me to explain that it is one of the Hebrew words for salvation. The Psalter uses two cognate words for “salvation.” One is YShU`AH and the other is YSh`AH. If we note carefully, the only difference is the presence or absence of the shureq (letter “u”). The following list of Psalm verses speaks of the name YShU`AH, though you will typically find it translated by the English word “salvation.” These are the places that for all intents and purposes use the Hebrew word for the name of Jesus. For the Hebraists on the list, I should add that there will often be pronominal suffixes attached, but that does not change the fact that we are singing the English translation rather than merely the transliteration of Jesus’ name. Think of singing “king of the world” in the place of the name “Vladimir” or “Walter” and you will have a similar concept.
Psalm 3:8; 9:14; 13:5; 14:7; 20:5; 21:1, 5; 35:9; 38:22; 40:10, 16; 50:23; 51:14; 53:6; 62:1, 2, 6; 68:19; 69:29; 70:4; 71:15; 74:12; 78:22; 88:1; 89:26; 91:16; 96:2; 98:2, 3; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14, 15, 21; 119:41, 81, 123, 155, 166, 174; 140:7; 144:10; 149:4.
These verse numbers are all as found in the English Bible. Something that struck me as I was researching Psalm 89 is that this is the restatement of the Davidic covenant which clearly speaks of Christ and it also contains both his name (translated as “salvation”) and his title “Christ” fully four times.
Here is the “bottom line” of all this. As William Binnie said in his masterful work on the Psalms we must always read and sing the Psalms with one eye toward David and the other eye toward Christ.

mangum · #9 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:05 AM

When you say "Worship" do you mean just singing? Or the entire service?

Civbert · #10 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:05 AM

Switch my vote to no. "Jesus" does not need to be named explicitly in every worship song. And we always worship "in the name of Jesus". We can sing praises to God the Father, we can worship with Psalms alone, as long as we make it clear that we worship "in Jesus name" (by the authority as Jesus Christ our mediator and priest), and we worship and according to the Word, then we worship rightly. I see no mandate to have the word "Jesus" in every hymn.

panta dokimazete · #11 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

Oh Man......

I guess I am in trouble again since I end my prayers with "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Amen" instead of "in Jesus"

Same goes for our churches that use the samething "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." for Baptism

Of course "SON" is about Jesus, just like Lord and Messiah, and his other revealed attributes in the Psalms. In Fact Psalm 2 calls him the "SON" also....

Michael - I hope you had good rest.

Do you agree that the explicit name of the revealed savior and Lord, Jesus, should be acknowledged and integrated into NT worship?

panta dokimazete · #12 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Here is an EP article on the subject:
Singing the Name of Jesus
The Psalm Singer "Can" Sing the Name of Jesus

by Richard Bacon

Copyright 2002 © First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett

See a PDF format of this article in The Blue Banner, v11#1

An argument is sometimes made against the position of Exclusive Psalmody (the position that one should only sing the inspired songs from the OT Psalms in worship) that since the name of Jesus is not in the OT Psalms, that we must have new hymns for the NT Church. I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the force of this “argument.” I’ve seen the argument many times and expressed in a multitude of ways, but when pressed I’ve never been able to get any of its advocates to put it into a syllogistic form for me. Recently I’ve seen the suggestion that the fact that one does not find the name of Jesus in the Psalter is evidence against using the Psalter as an exclusive praise book. In order for that fact to count as evidence however, it seems to me that a syllogism something like the following would be needed:

We are commanded by Scripture to sing the name of Jesus.

The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.

Therefore the Psalter is insufficient as a songbook for the church.

However, what is generally proposed is something like:

It would be nice in my opinion to sing the name of Jesus.

The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.

Therefore I want to use some additional hymns that do contain the name of Jesus.

His proposition is flawed, thus his conclusions are flawed.

P1 OT worship elements (including the Psalms) were incomplete in that christos was not explicitly revealed.

P2 Jesus is the explicitly revealed name of our Lord and Savior, so we are now able to worship our revealed savior and Lord in greater completeness.

C1 As the NT church, we should incorporate the revealed name of Jesus into every element of worship to truly worship in spirit and truth revealed.

NaphtaliPress · #13 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:22 AM

Nu uh.

jsup · #14 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:30 AM

To say that the Old Testament is incomplete because the name of Jesus hadn't been explicity revealed is faulty. The Old Testament writers were inspired by God to write exactly what He told them. To say that you shouldn't use the Psalms because they don't bear the name of Jesus excludes the names of the Father and Spirit. That's like saying don't study Revelation because it's incomplete. Yes, Jesus is the name above all names, but God hasn't made the OT obsolete because the Messiah hadn't arrived then. Are we not sing praises to Him with "psalms" and spiritual songs?

panta dokimazete · #15 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsup

To say that the Old Testament is incomplete because the name of Jesus hadn't been explicity revealed is faulty. The Old Testament writers were inspired by God to write exactly what He told them. To say that you shouldn't use the Psalms because they don't bear the name of Jesus excludes the names of the Father and Spirit. That's like saying don't study Revelation because it's incomplete. Yes, Jesus is the name above all names, but God hasn't made the OT obsolete because the Messiah hadn't arrived then. Are we not sing praises to Him with "psalms" and spiritual songs?

Again - the point is missed.

No one is proposing that the Psalms be ignored or that the OT is obsolete.

The proposition is that requiring the singing the Psalms exclusively implicitly forbids the NT church to incorporate the explicitly revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus, into the public expression of worship in song. Unlike any other public worship element.

jsup · #16 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 10:00 AM

Yet, you missed my point. Like Thunaer said, the name of Jesus doesn't reside in every element of worship, nor does it have to. If a church wants to sing exclusively psalms, God isn't forbidding them. Our Lord is still being worshipped.

There might have been some missing words in the your last paragraph so I'm not quite sure where the proposition is coming from. Also, I'm not sure where the forbidding is coming from. Please elaborate.

North Jersey Baptist · #17 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 10:10 AM

I voted "other." Maybe I just have a hang-up on the term "public worship." I prefer "corporate worship." I believe the name of Jesus should be central to our worship. Prayer is part of worship and we do pray in the name of Jesus Christ.

As far as the the tie to EP, pretty clever JD.

I still don't understand the whole EP debate. I've read many of the articles and links posted on the subject and at best I find a strong case for EP, but not an exclusive mandate. I am thankful that the EP side has awakened my interest in the psalms. They should be an integral part of our worship in song. I'm just not sold on the exclusivity position. Some have become so particular on the EP issue that it becomes the make or break litmus test of the church they will attend. For example: I'm a Baptist and would prefer to be part of a local body that is Baptistic. If I was looking for a Baptist church and found one that had solid preaching, proper implementation of the sacraments/ordinances of the church, exhibited the love of Christ and was EP, I would have no problem aligning myself with that body. On the other hand if I were an EP Baptist and the only EP church I could find in my area was Presbyterian, I would not attend that church simply because it is EP. I consider the other components of worship to have equal weight and would choose the church that is more in line with the majority of those components.

Civbert · #18 (**permalink**) 06-21-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

The proposition is that requiring the singing the Psalms exclusively implicitly forbids the NT church to incorporate the explicitly revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus, into the public expression of worship in song. Unlike any other public worship element.

Which doesn't matter is the worship service explicitly calls on the name of Jesus Christ as the sole authority for worship. If by prayer or liturgy, (the athority of) the name of Jesus is clearly proclaimed, then the singing of psalms is true worship. The only way psalm singing could come short of true worship would be if the whole worship service did not proclaim Christ as Lord.

And also, it's not simply Jesus, but Jesus Christ. And we can also say "the Son of God" or the Messiah. The point is to identify the person who was crucified for our sins and rose again. Not just Jesus, but Jesus and him crucified. Jesus the Christ.

As long as it is clear by who's authority we worship God with, then it doesn't matter if the word "Jesus" is used in our singing. There's no mandate for the word "Jesus" to be used in our worship songs.

When we use the phrase "the name of Jesus" we are speaking about His Lordship. We are not saying "Jesus" the word has power, but the one named "Jesus" is our Lord.