More on Worship

What does the New Testament teach concerning worship? Many false ideas have been introduced concerning what God requires or (in the case of many false doctrines) what He does not require. Last week, we noticed a completely ineffective argument in favor of the use of instrumental music. Now, we want to look at some additional claims about worship from some one responding to an article of mine published in Seeking the Old Paths in September.

The correspondent began page two of his letter by affirming that I did not quote the entirety of John 4:23-24 on page 68. He is correct. I was summarizing what had already been said and only quoted the germane parts of the verse to the point being made. However, on page 65, I quoted the entirety of John 4:23-24 in the very first paragraph. One wonders how my critic could have missed that.

"And Now Is"

The point the letter-writer tried to make was that Jesus, by saying the words, and now is, was that people could worship in spirit and truth at that very moment rather than wait for the Acts 2 Pentecost. On the one hand, people have always been able to worship in spirit and in truth. Israel did in the days of Joshua, Hezekiah, and Josiah. They served God in sincerity and in truth (Joshua 24:14; 1 Sam. 12:24). But they adhered to the covenant they were living under.

No one could worship according to the terms of "Acts 2 Pentecost" until Acts 2 Pentecost came. Does the correspondent actually think the Samaritan woman could have partaken of the Lord's Supper before Jesus even died? She was not even following the right covenant when Jesus spoke to her; the Lord told her: "You worship what you do not know…" (John 4:22).

The first time Jesus said that "the hour is coming" (John 4:21), it is clear that such an hour had not yet occurred because He said that then people would not worship on the mountain in Samaria or in Jerusalem. But under the Law of Moses, Jerusalem was the official place for the Jews to gather and worship. The second time He said that the hour is coming (v. 23), the words, and now is, are added. Yet it is obvious the new covenant was not yet in effect. A testament only becomes effective upon the death of the testator (Heb. 9:16-17).

What, then, is meant in John 4:23? Some believe that the phrase in question is a parenthetical comment made by John, who merely pointed out that what Jesus promised had now come to pass. This interpretation certainly makes sense. The Pulpit Commentary, however, understands the phrase more metaphorically. They say that "already the day has dawned, the new conception is breaking like 'awful rose of dawn' upon the minds of some…" (17:1:169).

Brother Guy N. Woods agreed in his commentary on John: "These great changes, so far-reaching in their consequences, were on the verge of occurring" (82). The time of Jesus' public ministry was truly a time of transition. The Old Law was still in effect, but Jesus spent a great deal of time presenting the principles of the new covenant, which would soon take effect after the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross. That new kingdom of Heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:2; 4:17: 10:7).

What Is Worship?

The letter writer now moves in a different direction by making observations about worship. He wants to know how the Samaritan woman worshiped; however, the text does not say. Presumably, she did what the other Samaritans did—whatever their customs were.

But then he alleges that the word translated "worship" [proskuneo] is not "connected" to what we practice as worship (singing, praying, et al.) in our assemblies, which may be true. This word contains more the idea of worshiping or reverencing someone. Strong says it shows reverence toward God, Christ, heavenly beings, angels, demons, and even to Jewish high priests. However, in some instances that worshipful attitude was stressed by accompanying actions.

In some verses, the reverence toward God or Christ may just be listed by itself, but in other verses a specific act of devotion is mentioned. For example, Hebrews 1:6 declares: "But when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says: 'Let all the angels of God worship Him.'" How they might have done so is not mentioned. But if we recall Luke 2:13-14, then we remember the following actions:

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: "Glory to God in the Highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!"

While it is true that this was not the very night of Jesus' birth, it is the time period associated with the angels. Was this teaching done in connection with worship? Or were the angels singing? Consider Job 38:7; when "the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy" when the earth was built; were they worshiping—even if the term was not used?

Were psalms intended as worship? Consider the parallelism of Psalm 66:4: "All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You. They shall sing praises to Your name. Selah." Isn't Colossians 3:16 similar? "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." To whom? It's incredible that anyone would try to divorce singing from worship!

When the wise men came into the house where Jesus was, they "fell down and worshiped Him. And when they opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matt. 2:11). Does not the offering of these gifts constitute worship?

The correspondent says that the word worship is not connected to the assembly, as though that point is significant. The word worship is not used at all in the Book of Malachi, yet chapter one discusses the quality of the offerings Israel was providing. The food was defiled (Mal. 1:7). God asks His people: "And when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?" They were not giving as they ought to have done, but worship is the subject of the passage—even if the word was not used.

Does praying to God not constitute worship? Paul discusses the whole church coming together in 1 Corinthians 14:23. At these meetings, brethren prayed and sang (v. 15). Do these acts of praise and reverence not constitute worship?

He also discusses remembering the Lord's death in a proper manner when the church came together (1 Cor. 11:18-20, 23-26). Does it matter if the word worship is not mentioned in this text that discusses appropriate and inappropriate ways of honoring Jesus? Will the correspondent seriously affirm that the Lord's Supper does not involve worship?

The Purpose of the Letter

Why is the writer of the letter writing such gibberish? He seeks to justify the things condemned in the Seeking the Old Paths' article. His purpose has been to separate singing, praying, giving, preaching the Word, and the Lord's Supper from the word worship, which has now been answered. If he can get by with such a separation (which he can't), then he thinks he can justify various other things that are not mentioned as worship. Here is his statement:

If we may practice something that is not written [he means authorized, GWS], then drama, fund raisers, reading prayers, or hand clapping have their place with all the other "not written" [unauthorized, GWS] things we do.

As per the previous article, he would include using instruments of music as well. Here is his basic argument.

The things we normally practice in what we call worship are not defined by God as worship.

Therefore, He does not authorize them.

Therefore, we may do other things that are not authorized by God.

The first point above has been shown to be false. When has God ever left worshiping Him up to the judgment of mere men?

A Complaint Against Christians

Having pulled the rug out of worshiping in truth in the assembly (he thinks), the writer of the letter impugns the sincerity of church members by writing that "100% of our audiences do not maintain a level of enthusiasm." In other words, they are not worshiping "in spirit," either.

First, the congregation is not "our audience." Those in the assembly are offering worship to God; He is the audience. Second, those present for worship on any given Lord's day are a mixed group—some of whom have been faithful for more than 50 years. Others may be slowly drifting away from God. Still others are probably just visiting. But if 100% are not "enthusiastic," that does not mean that the majority are not. Those not worshiping properly do not invalidate everyone's worship—only their own. Furthermore, some may have health problems that inhibit the level of enthusiasm they would like to express.

The correspondent adds: "Our 'worship' at the building is more formal than any house-to-house assembly was in the first century." And he knows this from experience? But even if it were true, so what? One hundred to five hundred people did not likely meet in someone's house in the first century. We still have the command to do things decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). Besides, the early church had something we do not—spiritual gifts. When Paul regulated their use in 1 Corinthians 14, was he making their worship more formal?

Which Church?

Finally, the correspondent makes the same argument Rubel Shelly and other liberals have been making for decades.

Are we really being honest with ourselves? If so, which congregation in the first century is God's model for us to copy in order for us to be the New Testament church? If none of the first century churches are our copy / pattern because they did not conform to it 100%, then were they really the New Testament church?

Wow! What gobbledygook! Since churches had problems, they must not be New Testament churches! Really? Has the "theologian" writing these words noticed that Paul and others gave instructions on the way to solve these problems? By the time of 2 Corinthians, many of the original problems had evaporated. And in only six months' time! Our model church could be any of them—as long as we also follow the solutions to the problems that are written in the letters.

Both Christians and churches have been denigrated by the correspondent—and to what purpose? He does so in an effort to make any sort of worship acceptable to God and for any congregation to continue in the problems it has without finding any solutions. Instead of trying to justify error, he should be encouraging brethren to go on to perfection, worshiping in spirit and in truth.