Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs provide us a repertoire of biblical theology.  They enrich our worship of God and assist us with words we couldn’t otherwise bring to express our love and adoration to God.  They express our corporate and personal beliefs, convictions, and faith.  They allow us to actually say the name of Jesus in music.

On a recent Sunday, my Presbyterian Church sang the hymn, There Is a Fountain, during and following the Lord’s Supper. Of course, the focus of the hymn is on the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.  However, we began our worship with O Worship the King—another focus on Jesus Christ and a bit later, Hallelujah! What a Savior—again, a focus on Jesus Christ.  We ended our worship with singing the Doxology—praising “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”—our triune God.  Our worship was rich, Christ-centered, and triune God-centered.
As I was driving home, I thought of what we would miss if we never sang a hymn specifically addressing the Trinity, praising the Father and Creator, praising the Son and Redeemer, and praising the Holy Spirit, our Helper and Sustainer. When the New Covenant was introduced, it appears that God ordained the hymns to reflect the revelation of this Covenant just as there were participants brought into that New Covenant.  Did the Holy Spirit cease to inspire new songs that clearly expressed the New Covenant, as had the Psalms in the Old Covenant?
“. . . speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” Ephesians 5: 19 (NASB)
I realize Ephesians 5: 19, despite clearly expressing speaking to one another in hymns and spiritual songs as well as Psalms, is not interpreted the same within Reformed denominations.  Some consider all three words referring only to the Psalms.  In addition, they consider the Psalms as alone being inspired by the Holy Spirit and appropriate for singing in congregational worship.  However, in the Greek “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are separated by a conjunction—kai, meaning and.  In the original Greek kai and has various meanings including ‘also,’ ‘even.’ ‘so then’ and ‘both.  The clearer understanding in this verse is “and.”
Hermeneutically, and to be consistent with principles of grammar, it appears to me one can most accurately interpret the verse as referring to three different modes of music or hymns.  And there is some historical background supporting the nature of hymns that were known to the Gentile world at that time, which may be why Paul chose a specific word recognized by new Gentile believers. This would relate to the nature of the New Covenant that incorporated Gentiles into God’s Covenant family.
According to Ken Puls of Founders Ministry, “Hymn was a term that would have been especially familiar to the Gentiles. In the Greek and Roman empires leading up to the time of the New Testament, hymns were sung in praise of heroes and gods. People would celebrate the military victories of great generals and exalt the false gods of mythology in hymns. But as the gospel swept across the known world, the church transformed the hymn into a song in praise to the one true God. Its transformation astounded the Romans. In 112 when Pliny, a governor in Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking for advice on how to handle the rising number of Christians in the realm, he commented that the Christians were observed singing “a hymn to Christ as to a god.” In his mind hymns were songs for heroes and champions, not for one shamefully crucified on a cross! When Paul spoke of singing hymns, he wasn’t thinking ‘traditional’ or reminding the church to include or revive some of the old songs from the past. He had something more radical in mind. Paul encouraged the church to claim the music of the culture and sing it to God’s glory. The hymn is the first example in church history of a secular form of music being captured and claimed for the sake of the gospel—its transformation so complete that today a hymn is most commonly recognized as belonging to the church.”
Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs provide us a repertoire of biblical theology.  They enrich our worship of God and assist us with words we couldn’t otherwise bring to express our love and adoration to God.  They express our corporate and personal beliefs, convictions, and faith.  They allow us to actually say the name of Jesus in music, such as “Jesus, O What a Name!” They are so important that many choose certain hymns or spiritual songs they want sung at their funeral.  For me, I have already chosen Holy, Holy, Holy as the first hymn to focus on our triune God, the second to be The Church’s One Foundation to focus on my family in and because of Christ, and ending with the spiritual, He Never Failed Me Yet to focus on God’s faithfulness to a sinner who was definitely saved only by grace.
Lastly, how could Easter be celebrated more worshipfully without Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus?  Let’s thank the Holy Spirit for inspiring the Apostle Paul to give such clear direction as to what we could and should sing!
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts:

Believers should review their lives, confess their backsliding, and humbly cast themselves upon their covenant-keeping God and his gracious promises in Christ, being sure to engage continually in fresh acts of ongoing conversion through faith and repentance. If Job and David recovered from their loss of assurance (Job 19:25–27; Psalms 42:5–8; 51:12), why shouldn’t the believer today? The loss here is only for a short time; soon we will have perfect assurance and perfect enjoyment of God forever in the eternal Celestial City.

With regard to Christian doctrines, the Puritans were not, for the most part, great innovators, but they were great appliers. Generally speaking, they were thoroughly Reformed and intentional in their theology. As with their theological forbears, the Reformers, the Puritans resolved to be thoroughly scriptural and happily stood on the shoulders of the Reformers and taught the same biblical doctrines to their generation. But they did so with a great deal more emphasis on application.
This ought not be surprising. The Reformers were occupied largely with hammering out great cardinal doctrines such as justification by faith alone, how to worship God publicly, God’s irresistible free grace versus human free will, and more — much of which is summarized in their five major solas: sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and soli Deo gloria. Thus, the Puritans, having the luxury of the Reformers’ biblical treatises before them, could afford the time to address the “how-to” questions of application: How does Bible doctrine apply to daily life? How can I live soli Deo Gloria as a godly husband, a godly wife, a godly child?
Hence, the Puritans wrote at least thirty books on how to live to God’s glory in marriage and family life. They wrote at least forty books on how to meditate. They added more volumes on how to do our daily work to God’s glory, how to live a godly life in our secular professions, and how to live zealously for the glory of God in every area of life.
How Can I Find Assurance?
The Puritans also wrote extensively on the practicalities of living by faith, practicalities that boiled down to this: How can I live so fully by faith that I may know with certainty that I have saving faith — that is to say, how can I be assured in the depths of my soul that, in union with Christ, I have been regenerated and adopted into God’s family, and will be with Christ forever in heaven? Hence, they wrote dozens of books on faith and assurance, and called their hearers to practice self-examination to “make their calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10).
The Puritans did not write extensively on assurance of faith because they wanted to be excessively introspective or “navel-gazers,” as they have been accused by some who have, for the most part, not read their books. Rather, they wanted to trace out in detail the Holy Spirit’s saving work in their own souls in order to (1) give glory to the triune God for his mighty and miraculous work of salvation in them, (2) do good to their own souls by building up their convictions about God and their own salvation, and (3) assist weak believers who needed pastoral advice and assistance to grow in their knowledge and assurance of Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord, and through this precious Mediator, to grow in their knowledge of each divine person of the Trinity.
Look with me especially at this third point as we address the question, How did the Puritan pastors use their doctrine of personal assurance of salvation to assist believers in living the Christian life? And what lessons can we learn today from their pastoral specialization in the vast field of experiential Christianity connected with the assurance of salvation?
An exhaustive article on this subject would certainly turn into a book, as there are scores of areas that could be discussed. Rather than skate over the surface, I want to address twelve of the most important pastoral ways that Puritan pastors, as physicians of souls, assisted the members of their flocks, helping them to gain robust measures of full assurance of faith. We find the most important confessional chapter ever written on the subject in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 18, “Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation.” I will provide three pastoral helps from each of these four paragraphs (hereafter: WCF 18.1–4).
WCF 18.1: Hope of Assurance
Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
Pastoral Help 1: An important distinction exists between the false hopes and carnal presumptions of the unbeliever on the one hand, and the true assurance and well-grounded hope of the believer on the other.
To make this distinction clear, Puritan pastors distinguished for their church members the difference between what they called historical and temporary faith on the one hand, and saving faith on the other. The former ultimately rests on self-confidence born merely out of intellectual convictions (historical faith) or emotional joy (temporary faith) — as, for example, in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:20–21) — while the latter humbles us before God and teaches us to rely wholly on the righteousness of Christ alone for salvation.
Pastoral Help 2: Some degree of assurance of salvation is biblical and normative in the lives of God’s people.
Pastorally, this helped Puritan pastors maintain in their people the conviction that though full, robust assurance of salvation may not be common to all believers, some degree of assurance is (even if it is only in seed form) and is always inseparable from saving faith in Christ. Every part of WCF 18.1 is connected with Jesus: believe in him; love him; walk before him. By maintaining this conviction, Puritan pastors sought to avoid the problem of a two-tier Christianity in which few in the first tier ever make it to the second. This emphasis also encouraged believers, whatever degree of assurance they may have possessed, always to strive for more, so that they might grow in the grace and knowledge of their Savior.
Pastoral Help 3: Assurance of salvation is not essential for salvation or for the being or existence of saving faith, though it is essential for the well-being of faith.
The Puritans made this distinction so that weak believers or newly saved believers would not despair if they did not yet possess full assurance of salvation, but also that they would not rest content without full assurance of salvation. This kept believers biblically balanced in recognizing that though it is possible to be saved without assurance, it is scarcely possible to be a healthy Christian without assurance.
In Puritan thinking, this also implies that believers may possess saving faith without the joy and full assurance that they possess it. This helped Puritan pastors deal with the reality that some believers seem to possess a great deal more faith and assurance than they realize, whereas other believers seem to more easily become fully conscious of possessing a full assurance of faith. In this, the Puritans followed Calvin, who said in his Commentary on John 20:3 that the disciples seem to have had saving faith without awareness that they had it as they approached the empty tomb.
WCF 18.2: Grounds of Assurance
This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
Pastoral Help 4: Assurance of salvation is grounded in the promises of God and buttressed by personal sanctification and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
The proper starting point for all true assurance of salvation is “the divine truth of the promises of salvation” set forth in Holy Scripture, “the promises of God” sealed with God’s own “yea and amen” in his Son, Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 1:19–20). Puritan pastors taught their hearers that though self-examination is important, they should nevertheless take ten looks to Christ for every look they take to their inner spiritual condition. They taught that as assurance grows, God’s promises become increasingly real to the believer personally and experientially, as they experience the truth and power of those promises.
Read More

Written by Andrew J. Miller |
Wednesday, March 13, 2024
Reading the Psalms Theologically provides an interesting and encouraging advanced taste of editorial criticism, doing so with vigor and an apparent love for the Psalms. The overall thrust is that the Psalter does point to Christ, which should lead believers to reverence and awe of God.

Reading The Psalms Theologically (Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology), edited by David M. Howard Jr. and Andrew J. Schmutzer. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2023, 344 pages, $29.99.
Reading most books out of order would be a disaster. Encyclopedias and collections of essays aside, if I was to randomly rearrange the chapters of a story like Pilgrim’s Progress and have you read it for the first time, you would understandably struggle. The ordering of things communicates something—in the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, effectual calling (ch. 10) comes before justification (ch. 11), matching and expressing our theological understanding of their logical ordering.
Yet curiously, readers of the Bible often skip over the intentional ordering of certain biblical books—the Psalms being chief among them, perhaps because it seems more to us like an encyclopedia than a narrative. Here the book Reading the Psalms Theologically helps readers to see the intentional ordering of the “chapters” of the book of Psalms and its significance. Reading the Psalms Theologically introduces readers to “editorial criticism,” wherein study of the final form of the psalter reveals the theological intention of the editor(s) (4). “Editorial criticism” could be described as a form of “canonical criticism,” associated with Brevard Childs and Christopher Seitz, which evangelicals can embrace to the degree that it reacts against the anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions of much modern biblical criticism by suggesting that we read the biblical books as the sacred Scriptures of the church.[1]
While Christians today are rightly cautious of anything with the term “criticism” in it, we should remember that this is essentially the same work that O. Palmer Robertson engaged in through his own The Flow of the Psalms: Discovering Their Structure and Theology.[2] In other words, editorial criticism, at its best, is reminding us that someone, by God’s inspiration, collected the Psalms (individually inspired at their composition) and put them in an order. Reading The Psalms Theologically asks why the Psalms were put in the order they were and what we can learn from that order.
This is a popular new way of looking at God’s Word, and thus pastors should be aware of it (if even to reject it). For example, another new Lexham title is Text and Paratext: Book Order, Title, and Divisions as Keys to Biblical Interpretation.[3] One more example is Don Collett’s intriguing proposal that Hosea has a signal position among the minor prophets (“The Twelve”), wherein
Hosea’s marriage to Gomer is intended to be a living parable of the Lord’s covenantal marriage with Israel….Hosea is not only the first prophet through whom the Lord spoke in the Twelve but also…the word the Lord speaks to Hosea is the founding agent or agency by which the witness of the Twelve is established.[4]
The first chapter, “Reading the Psalter as a Unified Book: Recent Trends,” sets the table nicely, describing the state of Psalms scholarship. Here we are told that notable scholars like Roland Murphy, John Goldingay, Norman Whybray, and Tremper Longman have been skeptical of the editorial criticism approach to the Psalms (24). Nevertheless, lamenting that “traditionally, most readers have approached the Psalter atomistically, looking only at individual psalms, assuming that they are included in the work in random fashion,” (31) the authors of the first chapter suggest there is indeed an intentional ordering to the Psalms. Again, this should set theological conservatives at ease: what we are after is the author’s intention as presented to us in the words of Scripture and its order. Explicitly we are told (and it is worth quoting at length because of the importance of this point),
We understand the entire Bible to be “God-breathed” (or “inspired by God”), as Paul puts it in 2 Timothy 3:16, and so another question arises in a collection such as the Psalter as to where, exactly, the locus of inspiration is to be found—in other words, what stage(s) of a text that came together over time is/are inspired? Only the original writing? Only the final form? Something in between? We affirm that the Spirit inspired the writing of the very words of individual psalms when they were originally written. We base this on Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:41–45 (NIV), where he states that David, “speaking by the Spirit,” uttered the words from Psalm 110:1. That is, when Psalm 110 was first written, this was done through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But we also affirm that the Spirit superintended the process that finally resulted in the collection that we call ‘the book of Psalms.’ (32)[5]
Read More
Related Posts: