panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I ask the question - is it important to integrate the name of Jesus into public worship?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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....
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:However, what is generally proposed is something like:
- 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.
- 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.
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?
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.
Again - the point is missed.
No one is proposing that the Psalms be ignored or that the OT is obsolete.
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.
Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael!
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?
Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael!
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?
No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.
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.
No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.