This one is really only of interest to folks in my Christian heritage. I’ve attached a picture that shows how broadly God uses the word “sing.” Notice that “sing” does not mean “sing, but without instruments.” Notice that “sing” is not in opposition to “play.”
In talking with a man recently, he said that we need to show that “sing” didn’t change meaning from Matthew to Jude, because they are “the other side of the cross,” and God’s use of “sing” in prior times needs to be re-proved for the period of Matthew to Jude.
It is my belief that God communicates through language, and as such, His use of words does not change based simply and arbitrarily based on “the side of the cross.” If the meaning he was conveying with words changed based on Covenant, we’d be entirely unable to understand what He loves and desires. It would be shocking if we one day woke up to find that, without notice, the definitions we’d all known were suddenly incorrect.
As an example, we don’t have have the following internal dialogue:
“Well ‘angel’ seemed to mean something like ‘a created being often used as a messenger’ in the Old Covenant, but what does it mean in the New Covenant? Perhaps it’s a type of rat? Perhaps it’s a creature whose mother was a hamster and whose father smelt of elderberries? Perhaps it’s a graven image? Man, we really need to find definitive proof that ‘angel’ still means something close to ‘heavenly, created being, sometimes used as a messenger,’ or we really can’t know what an ‘angel’ is in the New Covenant.”
The same goes for singing. We know how God uses singing prior to the New Covenant. We should not expect that God pulled a “gotcha” and changed the meaning, and then try to find proof that God didn’t change the meaning. To that end, please see how God uses “sing,” which is attached.
With love, always,