Is the name of Jesus important in worship?

Is it important to integrate the name of Jesus into public worship?


  • Total voters
    39
Status
Not open for further replies.

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
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

Panting Donkey Machete
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.
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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

Panting Donkey Machete
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

Puritan Board Junior
Oh Man...... :blah:

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....

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

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Civbert

Puritan Board Junior
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

Panting Donkey Machete
Oh Man...... :blah:

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

Panting Donkey Machete
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.
 

jsup

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Panting Donkey Machete
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.
 
Last edited:

jsup

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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. :wink:

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.
 
Last edited:

Civbert

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.
Anthony - good points. It's really not about EP in this instance. It's all about the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and His rightful place in our worship.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Again - the point is missed.

No one is proposing that the Psalms be ignored or that the OT is obsolete.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

Even if you don't think the Psalms are completely obsolete it doesn't seem like you think they're the best. Shouldn't we always want to bring God the best we can offer in worship? If so, and assuming that you consider NT-era hymns of human composition to be better than the Psalms, wouldn't we want to always forgo the use of Psalms for what were better?
 

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
Witness Saint Paul, notice how often he incorporates the name of Our Lord into his Spirit guided Epistles. I think we are to learn from this.:2cents:
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
OK... here goes a newbie jumping in on a discussion... :)

This whole argument against EP has always puzzled me. Why is it insisted that the want of the particular name "Jesus" in the Psalms somehow renders them less Christ-centered or Christ-honoring?

Paul exhorts us to "Let the WORD of Christ dwell in you richly" - not "Let the name of Jesus dwell in your richly." The Psalms are so full of the glory and beauty of Jesus, it is impossible to sing them in the spirit without explicitely praising the Redeemer of whom they testify. The requirement that worship songs, in order to be truly honoring to His finished work, must incorporate the same "Jesus" doesn't make any sense to me. Who else are the Psalms about? Is He not glorified in them through their revelation of His many other names, acts and attributes? And don't the Psalter's references to the Lord as our "Savior" even anticipate the New Covenant name of Jesus (which we now sing in full appreciation of who He is)?

I sing songs in praise of Jesus - specifically - every time a open my Psalter.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Welcome, and what a great jumping in you did... :handshake:

I agree, and it is getting rather ridicules saying that Christ in NOT in the Psalm...

For all you Non-Eppers out there.. Here is alittle list for you all.....

Christ in the Psalms

Jesus Christ, the King (portrayed in Matthew)
Chapter 2 – Christ rejected as King of the nations
Chapter 18 – Christ is Protector and Deliverer
Chapter 20 – Christ provides salvation
Chapter 21 – Christ is given glory by God
Chapter 24 – Christ is King of Glory
Chapter 47 – Christ rules in His kingdom
Chapter 110 – Christ is King-Priest
Chapter 132 – Christ is enthroned

Jesus Christ, the Servant (portrayed in Mark)
Chapter 17 – Christ is Intercessor
Chapter 17 22 – Christ is dying Savior
Chapter 17 23 – Christ is Shepherd
Chapter 17 40 – Christ is obedient unto death
Chapter 17 41 – Christ is betrayed by a close friend
Chapter 17 69 – Chris is hated without cause
Chapter 17 109 – Christ loves those who reject Him

Jesus Christ, the Son of Man (portrayed in Luke)
Chapter 17 8 – Christ is made a little lower than angels
Chapter 17 16 – Christ’s resurrection is promised
Chapter 17 40 – Christ’s resurrection is realized

Jesus Christ, the Son of God (portrayed in John)
Chapter 17 19 – Christ is Creator
Chapter 17 102 – Christ is eternal
Chapter 17 118 – Christ is the Chief Cornerstone



Here are some of the specific prophecies about Jesus in the Book of Psalms:
Psalm Prophecy Fulfillment

2:7 God will declare Him to be His Son Matthew 3:17
8:6 All things will be put under His feet Hebrews 2:8
16:10 He will be resurrected from the dead Mark 16:6-7
22:1 God will forsake Him in His hour of need Matthew 27:46
22:7-8 He will be scorned and mocked Luke 23:35
22:16 His hands and feet will be pierced John 20:25,27
22:18 Others will gamble for His clothes Matthew 27:35-36
34:20 Not one of His bones will be broken John 19:32-33, 36
35:11 He will be accused by false witnesses Mark 14:57
35:19 He will be hated without a cause John 15:25
40:7-8 He will come to do God’s will Hebrews 10:7
41:9 He will be betrayed by a friend Luke 22:47
45:6 His throne will be forever Hebrews 1:8
68:18 He will ascend to God’s right hand Mark 16:19
69:9 Zeal for God’s house will consume Him John 2:17
69:21 He will be given vinegar and gall to drink Matthew 27:34
109:4 He will pray for His enemies Luke 23:34
109:8 His betrayer’s office will be fulfilled by another Acts 1:20
110:1 His enemies will be made subject to Him Matthew 22:44
110:4 He will be a priest like Melchizedek Hebrews 5:6
118:22 He will be the chief cornerstone Matthew 21:42
118:26 He will come in the name of the Lord Matthew 21:9



New Testament Subjects in the Book of Psalms

Trinity Psalm 110:1

Ps 110:1 Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Cross Psalm 22

Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. It is also a Passion Psalm, telling of the death of the Christ and His Atonement.

It starts with "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me" and ends with "It is Finished"


OK... here goes a newbie jumping in on a discussion... :)

This whole argument against EP has always puzzled me. Why is it insisted that the want of the particular name "Jesus" in the Psalms somehow renders them less Christ-centered or Christ-honoring?

Paul exhorts us to "Let the WORD of Christ dwell in you richly" - not "Let the name of Jesus dwell in your richly." The Psalms are so full of the glory and beauty of Jesus, it is impossible to sing them in the spirit without explicitely praising the Redeemer of whom they testify. The requirement that worship songs, in order to be truly honoring to His finished work, must incorporate the same "Jesus" doesn't make any sense to me. Who else are the Psalms about? Is He not glorified in them through their revelation of His many other names, acts and attributes? And don't the Psalter's references to the Lord as our "Savior" even anticipate the New Covenant name of Jesus (which we now sing in full appreciation of who He is)?

I sing songs in praise of Jesus - specifically - every time a open my Psalter.
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael! :amen:

Basically, the argument comes to this - The Psalms are perfect songs of praise, because they are immediately inspired by God. They are full of Christ, who owns them as His very words and who is everywhere anticipated in them. BUT, they don't specifically mention the particular name "Jesus," by which the Redeemer was revealed in the New Covenant -

THEREFORE...

We will write new songs, not perfect, because not immediately inspired by God, but somehow BETTER than the Psalms because we have included in them the name "Jesus."

What am I missing? :candle:
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
It's Mostly dem Baptist out there..

I am one, but they sure make me want to reconsider my credo baptist stance sometimes...... :banghead:

:smug:

Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael! :amen:

Basically, the argument comes to this - The Psalms are perfect songs of praise, because they are immediately inspired by God. They are full of Christ, who owns them as His very words and who is everywhere anticipated in them. BUT, they don't specifically mention the particular name "Jesus," by which the Redeemer was revealed in the New Covenant -

THEREFORE...

We will write new songs, not perfect, because not immediately inspired by God, but somehow BETTER than the Psalms because we have included in them the name "Jesus."

What am I missing? :candle:
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael! :amen:

Basically, the argument comes to this - The Psalms are perfect songs of praise, because they are immediately inspired by God.
No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.

They are full of Christ, who owns them as His very words and who is everywhere anticipated in them. BUT, they don't specifically mention the particular name "Jesus," by which the Redeemer was revealed in the New Covenant -
Thus the source of their incompleteness.

Is the OT a complete revelation of Christ? no NT needed?

THEREFORE...

We will write new songs, not perfect, because not immediately inspired by God, but somehow BETTER than the Psalms because we have included in them the name "Jesus."

What am I missing? :candle:
You are missing the fact that our worship is more complete than the OT worshipers - we have the revealed name of messiah to include in our worship, thus, along with the Psalms we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.
OK... I see the distinction you're making... but I still disagree. You might very well say that the Psalms were incomplete during the Old Testament economy, because Christ had not yet been revealed. But that's a far cry from maintaining that they are now incomplete, given the fact that the light of Christ's completed work now illuminates them and shows us the fullness of the Redeemer in them. You can't look at the Psalms (or any part of the Old Testament) in abstraction from the New. The fact that we have the New Testament is precisely the reason that the Psalms are no longer "incomplete" for us.


You are missing the fact that our worship is more complete than the OT worshipers - we have the revealed name of messiah to include in our worship, thus, along with the Psalms we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.
I grant that our understanding of Christ, and thus our worship of Him, is more complete than our OT counterparts. But, again, that completeness of understanding only illuminates the Psalms in His light and allows us to sing them with far more clarity of understanding than they were able to do.

As for the statement, "we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus" I would respectfully request a scripture proof for such a warrant.

Thanks for the brotherly exchange... and for taking it easy on the new guy ;)
 

jsup

Puritan Board Freshman
Quick! Someone slip in the name Jesus into the OT and then we've completed God's Word for Him. Will anyone notice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top