The basic meaning of the word "worship" is service. To "worship" God is to put every area of one's life under the His Law. As The New Bible Dictionary puts it, "[T]he essential concept in both the Old and New Testaments is 'service.'" John Murray writes,
[Worship in the] generic sense is the devotion we owe to God in the whole of life. God is sovereign, He is Lord, having sovereignty over us and propriety in us, and therefore in all that we do we owe subjection to him, devotion to His revealed will, obedience to His commandments. There is no area of life where the injunction does not apply (I Cor. 10:31). In view of the lordship of Christ as Mediator all of life comes under His dominion (Col. 3:23,24).
Worship in the generic sense is thus service to God in every area of life; total slavery to Him Who is Lord of all.
In the Old Testament there was also a more specific usage for "worship," namely, the observance of the ceremonial rituals given to a Spiritually juvenile pre-Pentecost people. These ritual observances typified worship in every area of life. Animal sacrifice, the burning of incense, attendance at temple, and other rigors were imposed on the slave-like people of Egyptized Israel (Galatians 3:24 - 4:9), and were but shadows of the worship of the New Covenant.
Jesus spoke of the New Covenant form of worship in John 4. The woman at the well, having been confronted with the ethical demands of the Lord Jesus (regarding her adulterous life), attempts a "doctrinal" diversion: she asks Jesus about "worship." Putting words in Jesus' mouth, she claims that worship occurs in a certain place (Jerusalem). (4:20). Jesus denies it:
Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
Here is the "Mountain" of Micah 4, the New Zion which covers the entire globe (Daniel 2:35).
In the common, specific sense, "worship" means attending to the ceremonial requirements of the Old Covenant, going to a certain place (cf. Acts 8:27). But these acts only symbolized true "worship," and were necessary to prod a Spiritless people to that Christian worship which is obedience to God in every area of life.
Thus, the phrase "worship service" is quite redundant! Can you find one occurrence in the New Testament of "worship" in the ceremonial/specific sense being required of Christians? Or are the occurrences of "worship" speaking of obedience in every area of life? Do any of the Greek words used for "worship" occur in any sense requiring Christians to go to Jerusalem, or a specific "mountain" to "worship" God? Would we expect centralized ceremonial "worship" to be required in light of Micah's prophecy? (If you "attend church," have you been trained to search the Scriptures to find the answers to such questions as these [Acts 17:11], or do you need to ask your "pastor"?)
The New Testament is clear: the "worship" required of believers does not consist in ceremonial ritual. Colossians 2:18 says,
Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship . . . .
The Greek word translated "worship" is "religion" in James 1, where we are told,
If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. {27} Pure and undefiled religion [worship] before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
James 1:26-27; cf. Matthew 25:36
Of course, "worship" is not limited to visiting orphans and widows, but involves obedience outside the temple, outside the synagogue, outside the cathedral, in every area of life.
Posts
"Of course, "worship" is not limited to visiting orphans and widows, but involves obedience outside the temple, out side the synagogue, outside the cathedral, in every area of life."
ReplyDeleteCouldn't this also mean following God's commands to break bread for communion, not forsake fellowship and baptize believers? Or is this where you're hyper-preterism (full-preterism to be politically correct) kicks in to exclude these commands of Christ?
Good points. It makes me think. :D
"exclude these commands of Christ."
ReplyDeleteThis assumes that they are commands. Or rather, it assumes a certain interpretation of the words. For example,
"break bread" -- does this mean having an ordinary meal with other Christians in one's home, or does it mean "going to church" (leaving the home) and engaging in a liturgy or ritual which does not in any normal sense resemble a meal?
"forsake fellowship" -- Does "fellowship" mean interaction, communication, dialogue, mentoring, accountability, and meals, or does this mean sitting in pews and looking at the back of someone's head while the sermon is preached? The Greek in Heb. 10:25 is "synagoguing together." How was this understood by "the Hebrews" before the destruction of Jerusalem?
So far, far from exluding these commands, I'm encouraging greater, more Biblical, obedience to them!
As for baptism, Paul rather remarkably says he didn't baptize (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). Every Baptist preacher I know boasts of how many people he has baptized recently. There is also an argument that Paul was never baptized -- with water, that is. This is the position of the so-called "ultra-dispensationalists," who argue that water baptism (coming chiefly from John the Baptist) was replaced by baptism in the Spirit.
So I wouldn't say that this is a "preterist" issue. It's just an issue of being more consistently Biblical.
I believe even Gentiles were told not to forsake synagogue attendance in the days before AD 70 (Acts 15:19-21. This is how I understand Heb. 10:25. If the verse means more than going to synagogue, it does not mean less than meals and mentoring, i.e., just "attending church." I suspect many pastors would feel threatened if I joined their church and started practicing Biblical "fellowship," inviting other church members to my home for meals and Berean Bible study. They would prefer it if I just "attended church."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response! :D I struggle, because I do see your point to an extent, and I think there is something deeply wrong with current expressions of the "Evangelical" church.
ReplyDeleteKevin Quote:
"break bread" -- does this mean having an ordinary meal with other Christians in one's home, or does it mean "going to church" (leaving the home) and engaging in a liturgy or ritual which does not in any normal sense resemble a meal?
Response:
Much of your arguments here may be true, but may not lead to a rejection of following a "liturgy" (work of the people) in some sort of formal fashion that resembles the life, death and resurrection of Christ. I may "break bread" in the form a formal meal as a form of liturgical (cultural?) practice that participates in remembrance of the passover meal fulfilled in Christ. I think you're right that "breaking bread" is a feast meal, but understanding it more correctly may not require me to throw out the practice, it may just set me against the norm of common American church practice (Eastern churches break bread in a meal context... from what I understand)
Kevin Quote:
"forsake fellowship" -- Does "fellowship" mean interaction, communication, dialogue, mentoring, accountability, and meals, or does this mean sitting in pews and looking at the back of someone's head while the sermon is preached? The Greek in Heb. 10:25 is "synagoguing together." How was this understood by "the Hebrews" before the destruction of Jerusalem?
Response:
Maybe not. Although Leviticus 23:3 reveals that the people of Israel gathered in "sacred assembly" on the Sabbath. It may be that if one interprets the Sabbath as continuing as part of the moral law, one may want to honor this practice. Again, you may try to object by saying that the Church doesn't follow this in the same way that the Bible reveals, but this only argues against modern forms of "sacred assembly" and could be used as an argument to return to a more "consistent" form.
Kevin Quote:
"As for baptism, Paul rather remarkably says he didn't baptize (1 Corinthians 1:14-16"
Response:
This is a weak argument, I think. The passage could be read a number of different ways... for instance it could be Paul is saying that, because of the spiritual decline at the time of his letter to the Corinthian church, he is glad that he wasn't the one who baptized them (except for the select few he mentions).
Kevin Quote:
"Every Baptist preacher I know boasts of how many people he has baptized recently."
Response:
My experience is quite different because my pastor never boasts or keeps track of our baptisms. I have had a wonderful experience at my "sacred assembly" and haven't had the run ins that you have... that may be because I'm kind of a softy, and haven't declared "war" on my church... maybe I should... dunno.
Kevin Quote:
"I suspect many pastors would feel threatened if I joined their church and started practicing Biblical "fellowship," inviting other church members to my home for meals and Berean Bible study. They would prefer it if I just "attended church.""
Response:
True, you may not be able to join an existing church. I'm trying to rethink much of my theology, and as far as Ecclesiology goes, I'm not sold on anything yet. I've had a great fellowship here in cowpoke Wyoming that hasn't kicked me out yet. I've visited many churches, some I liked, some I didn't like. I almost joined the Orthodox church at one point. I'm open to thinking though this. So, given your response, could it be that many "churches" don't consistently follow the NT in this issue (and many others) and there could be a better way rather than a non way?
Thanks!!
Nik: I think you're right that "breaking bread" is a feast meal, but understanding it more correctly may not require me to throw out the practice,
ReplyDeleteKC: I'm not advocating "throwing out" pews, sermons, wafers, or "church" as a whole. I'm only saying these things are not commanded in Scripture, nor were they the practice of Christians in the New Testament. What I object to are those who say that I am not a Christian if I fellowship outside the walls of church buildings.
Nik: Leviticus 23:3 reveals that the people of Israel gathered in "sacred assembly" on the Sabbath. one may want to honor this practice.
KC: Why that practice and not all the other seven "sacred assemblies" in Lev 23?
Kevin Quote: "Every Baptist preacher I know boasts of how many people he has baptized recently."
Nik Response: My experience is quite different because my pastor never boasts or keeps track of our baptisms.
KC: Again, I'm not being critical or "anti-church." It seems logical for pastors to give praise and thanks for people who become Christians. And if baptism is a high-priority item in the Bible, it's a good thing to acknowledge the new Christians' obedience to that command. That's why I think it's remarkable that Paul didn't baptize anyone. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch right there on the spot. How many similar instances must Paul have had? Why didn't the Apostle Paul baptize thousands? (1 Corinthians 1:14-16)
Nik Response:
This is a weak argument, I think. The passage could be read a number of different ways... for instance it could be Paul is saying that, because of the spiritual decline at the time of his letter to the Corinthian church, he is glad that he wasn't the one who baptized them (except for the select few he mentions).
KC: Again, why didn't the Apostle Paul baptize thousands of his converts? I tend to agree with the "ultra-dispensationalists," that there was a transition from John the Baptist and water baptism, to Paul the Apostle and baptism into the Spirit.
Nik: I have had a wonderful experience at my "sacred assembly" and haven't had the run ins that you have
KC: I think it's interesting that you think of every Sunday as a "sacred assembly," i.e., a fulfillment of Leviticus 23. It seems to me that the purpose of the Lev 23 assembling was to make offerings and carry out the feasts, which virtually nobody believes are still obligatory under the New Covenant.
Nik: ... that may be because I'm kind of a softy, and haven't declared "war" on my church... maybe I should... dunno.
ReplyDeleteKC: I want to stress again that I don't think of myself as having declared "war" on conventional churches. Analogy: I haven't declared war on "contemporary christian music," but so far nobody has told me I'm not a Christian because I don't attend CCM concerts (and I suppose someone could call such a concert a "holy convocation" and accuse me of violating Hebrews 10:25 for not attending).
Nik: So, given your response, could it be that many "churches" don't consistently follow the NT in this issue (and many others) and there could be a better way rather than a non way?
KC: I don't advocate "a non way." I advocate the way of Abraham and New Testament "house to house" gatherings. If I lived in a village in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, it would be very difficult to pursue these goals. It is difficult to pursue these goals living in an atheistic, materialist culture like America. But at least I've been a part of some experiments in home church and hospitality. Undoubtedly I've been lazy and not bold enough to pursue these goals more faithfully. I don't criticize closet-Christians in Afghanistan, or pew-sitters in America. I only respond to them if they criticize me for not doing what they do, exclusively.
Thanks! Do you have any links related to the Lev 3 passage?
ReplyDeleteI assume you mean Lev 23. Nope, I don't have any links. I haven't heard Lev. 23 mentioned for 25 years.
ReplyDeletewhoops, that was 23.. yeah.
ReplyDelete