# Singing to the Lord a "new song..."



## J. Dean (Jul 2, 2012)

This phrase occurs more than once in the Psalms. 

How is this phrase to be understood?


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 2, 2012)

A helpful starting point would be to examine the Biblical concept of a "new commandment:"

John 13:34	A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

1 John 2:7	Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
1 John 2:8	Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

2 John 1:5	And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 2, 2012)

austinww said:


> A helpful starting point would be to examine the Biblical concept of a "new commandment:"
> 
> John 13:34	A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
> 
> ...



So "new song" doesn't literally mean "new song"?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 2, 2012)

No more than "new man" means "new man".


----------



## Tim (Jul 2, 2012)

...and knowing this is particularly helpful when one wonders about the value of singing the Psalms because they allegedly don't represent a "full" revelation.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 2, 2012)

I would offer that you take careful note of the context where the phrase occurs in each instance. 
It has been some time since I looked at that (seems like everything was long ago!), but as I remember, 
the context has to do with the proclamation of salvation to the nations. Thus, I think that context informs the meaning of the phrase. The "new song" has to do with the inclusion of Gentiles in the Kingdom.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 2, 2012)

"not a new commandment" -- The susbstance of the moral law is the same natural-moral equity written on Adam's conscience and published in stone tables on Mt. Sinai.

"a new commandment" -- Believers (even under previous administrations of the covenant of grace) are dead to the law as a covenant, but receive the law as a rule of life in the hand of the Mediator. This was true for believers before Christ came, but under the New Testament we see it more clearly (as the WLC says, in more "fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy").

For this reason, Paul can say we are "not under law" in one place and yet "under the law to Christ" in another. Are we under it or not? Is it a new commandment or an old one? Are they new songs or old ones? Is it a New Testament or was the gospel preached before unto Abraham and all the OT saints? That's the point. The reality has come to which the shadows always pointed true believers, while those who saw Moses with a vail upon their hearts (2 Cor. 3:15) pursued life as if it were by works.

It seems to me that Wayne's point about Gentile inclusion fits within this framework as well.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jul 2, 2012)

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
now _that_ is a new song!


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 2, 2012)

Wayne said:


> I would offer that you take careful note of the context where the phrase occurs in each instance.
> It has been some time since I looked at that (seems like everything was long ago!), but as I remember,
> the context has to do with the proclamation of salvation to the nations. Thus, I think that context informs the meaning of the phrase. The "new song" has to do with the inclusion of Gentiles in the Kingdom.



I'd have to agree with this conclusion. I believe the picture in Revelation is also a good passage:


> 14 Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, 3 and they were *singing a new song* before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 3, 2012)

So the majority interpretation taken here is that "new song" in the Psalms is not to be taken in the apparently plain sense used in the Psalms?

I'm not trying to be provocative here, but that almost comes across as forcing an outside meaning into the text where such meaning is not warranted. Why cannot "new song" just mean "new song"?

And I understand why people are pointing to "new man," "new creature" as used in other passages, but that doesn't necessarily warrant a carry-over in meaning. For example, sometimes when the Bible talks about stars, it simply means the celestial bodies that burn in the heavens, while at other times the word stars is figurative (see Revelation, where the dragon gathers a third of the stars (understood to be angels) from heaven). Right now I'm dialoguing with Lutherans over baptism, and by the logic above (carrying over the meaning of words) then Lutherans are right about the passages concerning baptism and their view of it.

I'm just making sure that there's no forcing a doctrine like an ultra-strict application of RPW over and against something that the Bible seems to indicate otherwise about. The Bible is never wrong... but we can be wrong.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 3, 2012)

Because context is king. Context informs and guides our understanding of the text.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jul 3, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Why cannot "new song" just mean "new song"?


Because there are no biblical parameters set for a "new song" where "song" means "a vocal singing or chanting of words with meaning," with the exception of the Song sung before the throne of which we are told no man on earth could know. Rev 5:9, 14:3


All Psalms are Songs.
Some Psalms contain the phrase "Sing... a New Song" <- 6 That I can identify.

Why do some folk that take a wooden literal definition of "song," believe that this must mean sing a new song _that *is not *a psalm_?
Note: I do not make the assumption that a "new song" always means "a vocal singing or chanting of words with meaning"


----------



## Christlicher Soldat (Jul 3, 2012)

My non-psalmist friends have recited this one to me before. It's amazing to me what straws people will cling to in order to justify hymnody. Even as an Arminian, I always interpreted these passages to mean a figurative new song. Why? Because they occur in poetical verse and apocalyptic visions, and they never specify what the new song is, but instead always focus on the occasion of the new song. The LORD has done this, the LORD has done that--sing a new song. If this were actually a command to sing a literal new song, we would expect God to at least give us a pattern, the way He does with prayer (which hymnodists love to compare to worship in song), if not the exact content of the song itself. He doesn't. If there is any basis for hymnody, it has to be sought elsewhere.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 3, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Why cannot "new song" just mean "new song"?



If you want to take that view, then you are required to sing a new song every time you worship. If singing a new song is commanded by God as a part of His worship, you (or someone in your congregation) had better start writing, because you'll need at least one each Lord's Day.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 3, 2012)

Christlicher Soldat said:


> Even as an Arminian, I always interpreted these passages to mean a figurative new song. Why? Because they occur in poetical verse and apocalyptic visions, and they never specify what the new song is, but instead always focus on the occasion of the new song. The LORD has done this, the LORD has done that--sing a new song.



Ditto. It's the natural reading of the text, in context. Even if it were a command to write new lyrics, we'd still have to ask, "Who?" and, "What kind of song?" When the psalms were written all praise songs for Israel's corporate worship were to be written by specific families of Levites and were inspired by the Spirit of prophecy.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 4, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> I'm just making sure that there's no forcing a doctrine like an ultra-strict application of RPW over and against something that the Bible seems to indicate otherwise about.



What would be an ultra-strict application of the RPW? What is your view of the RPW?

My understanding is that it can only be applied one way, and that is strictly: what elements are commanded are required, what is not is forbidden, and conditions are left to the common practice with regard to assemblies.


----------

