What About Singing “Psalms”?

“Since the law of Moses was abolished by the death of Christ (Colossians 2:14), and the Psalms were a part of that law, why did Paul allow the singing of psalms in Christian worship (Ephesians 5:19)?”

First, we need to recognize that the Mosaic law was abolished by Christ’s death. This principle is clearly established in the following New Testament passages: Romans 7:4; Galatians 3:24-25; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 7:12.

But this fact does not mean that every truth or principle in the Old Testament suddenly became ineffective. In fact, the New Testament itself teaches otherwise.

In his letter to the saints in Rome, Paul affirmed that “the things written in former days,” i.e., in the Old Testament canon, “were written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4). In the first Corinthian letter, the apostle taught that specific incidents in Israel’s history were recorded as “our examples” (1 Cor. 10:6). Indeed, they were “written for our admonition” (v. 11).

Earlier in the Corinthian correspondence, the apostle introduced an illustration from Moses’ law to bolster the idea that gospel preachers are worthy of support. If Hebrew law provided for an ox to eat of the grain, as he trod upon it in a threshing process, then provisions most assuredly were appropriate for the minister of God’s word (1 Cor. 9:9).

The same example is appealed to in the apostle’s first letter to Timothy, supporting the idea that the elder who rules well is worthy of “double honor,” which signifies financial compensation (1 Tim. 5:17-18).

In the second place, when the scripture speaks of the abolition of the law, specific elements are in view.

The law, with its bloody animal sacrifices, is not valid today as a redemptive system. The shedding of Christ’s blood nullified that aspect of the law. Nor is the worship ceremonialism of the old regime with all its “carnal” features viable for those of the Christian age (see Heb. 9:9-10).

Finally, the term “psalm” means a “pious song.” It may or may not refer to one of the songs in the Old Testament book that bears that name. Many scholars believe it is impossible to draw a hard line between “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” in Ephesians 5:19.

Professor Moule has written: “It is impossible to fix precisely the limits of these terms.” He goes on to define “psalm” as “generally a rhythmic utterance, either actually one of the O.T. psalms, or [a song] sung in their manner” (136).

But why would it not be appropriate to sing, for example, Psalm 23, as we do frequently? Isn’t the Savior our shepherd (Jn. 10:11)? Or what of Psalm 8? Isn’t the Lord’s name still “excellent”?

Of course, if a psalm was prophetic and had already been fulfilled, it would not be appropriate to sing it as if its fulfillment were yet to come.

Otherwise, there is no violation of divine law in singing a psalm written centuries ago that expresses the same sentiments that children of God entertain today.