I want to pause this discussion for a while. All of the good comments have left me with lots to think about, and I want to work through some of this in my mind before proceeding. More than once I’ve been accused of beginning a series like this with my mind made up, with my final conclusions preset. That’s just not true.
I want to leave you for now with one big question: how do we deal with the Old Testament passages on worship?
The traditional argument I always heard was that the Old Testament was nailed to the cross and has nothing to do with the practices of the New Testament church. Or as Thomas Campbell eloquently put it in his Declaration and Address:
That although the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the Divine will, for the edification and salvation of the church; and therefore in that respect cannot be separated; yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members; as the Old Testament was for the worship discipline and government of the Old Testament church, and the particular duties of its members.
Others say that the Old Testament moral law is still in effect, but all of the ceremonial law was abolished.
Another view is that the Old Testament shows us what is pleasing to God; unless a practice is specifically said to be discontinued, it should be a part of our worship.
And there’s a multitude of nuances from there.
What’s your view? In what ways should worship in the Hebrew Scriptures inform the worship of the church?
Tim,
Something i’ve been thinking about lately is how the OT should show us that physicality/materiality is not inherently deficient or un-spiritual in some way. The OT has no end of physical detail in worship. And baptism, Lord’s Supper, raising holy hands in prayer, greeting with holy kisses (and perhaps that Jesus made mud to heal someone’s eyes, handkerchiefs that the apostles had touched had healing effects, etc.) all suggest that this is still true in our era. i think i grew up with the idea that worship is very disconnected from physicality or physical expression–it’s something that takes place entirely in my heart/mind.
–guy
I think the key is whether you approach the whole OT as OT Law, and the NT as NT law, or is there within the OT a law. I think we sometimes go too far with the abolish the OT argument. While its true that just because a situation was acceptable under the OT, it doesn’t mean the practice is still to be used. However, it doesn’t mean it was abolished… there has to be NT reason to abolish it. One thing the usage in the temple does teach us… if instruments are not to be used, it is not because the use of instruments in praise is “of itself” objectionable to God. The reason for them not being used in the NT must be because of a perceived difference in the nature of worship in the old temple and worship in the church (the new temple). In the end I think we ask the wrong question. We ask, “Is it wrong to use instruments in the worship assembly?” The question we ought to be asking is “How can we conduct our assemblies so that we are best fulfilling what God wants from the assembly?”.
Tim,
I think I’ll just try to answer the actual question posed in this article without getting into that “instrumental music bug-a-boo” :).
1) The Hebrew scriptures: They are as inspired as the Gentile Scriptures :). They are for us an insight into the very mind of God. Without an understanding of the Hebrew scriptures- both in their ‘then’ context and in their ‘now’ context -we will not understand God. We will not “know” God. When one studies an Old Testament book such as ….oh 1 Samuel, one will understand that it is a complete work within itself yet part of the Hebrew Bible as a whole. It is great to hear the message- yes message and not just some history -that God has given that inspired writer. Each book of the Hebrew Bible has a theme and a specific message for God’s people. ALL GOD’S PEOPLE. There is not a single book of the Hebrew Bible that cannot be used to speak volumes from the pulpit to Christians. ((And not just these forced analogies.))
For example: We find out why Saul was not a man after God’s own heart and why David was. And, we find out how all of God’s people, even Christians, are supposed to be people after God’s own heart. ((BTW: God’s heart is what the Hebrew Scriptures are all about.))
The problem with most brethren is that from the pulpit and the lecture the Hebrew Bible has not been presented as holy scripture. Because it does not contain the “New Testament epistle form” we tend to not treat them with the same exegetical processes and the message to us gets lost. God is purty powerful. If He didn’t want us to “use” the Hebrew scriptures THEY WOULD BE LOST.
2) Hebrew scriptures and Christian worship: Again we should understand from the Hebrew scriptures- God’s nature. I can learn from them in worship the following:
*there is a demand for spirit as well as truth or truth that is spirit or spirit that is truth;
*there is a function and form to worship;
*God is 101% serious about the who, what, when, where, how, WHY of worship;
*worship is ABOUT God; and, the party aspect of worship is only godly when God is the Guest of the party or the social/personal aspect of worship is only godly when God’s church is understood in its fully developed spiritual nature :).
Specific details of Christian worship are not found in the Hebrew Bible any more than we can impose Mosaic Law on Cain and Able; but, general themes for Christian worship are found in the Hebrew Bible because it speaks of/from God’s heart. Never forget that not all of the Old Testament is about the Mosaic Covenant, as a matter of fact more of the Hebrew Bible covers pre-Mosaic time than Mosaic. So, “post” Mosaic specifics of worship are also not found in the Mosaic era. In the beginning- well close to it -ungodly worship, versus godly, is the first sin shown to us after the fall. This is not just a coincidence.
Sorry, that’s enough.
How we read the Old Testament (as well as the NT) remains a massive question. Nevertheless, the Apostle Paul clearly believed that the Old Testament was essential for the development of faith (cf. 2 Tim 3.16-17). The rest of the NT bears witness to this belief with it frequent quotations and references to the Old Testament.
Beyond that, I am connived that the view of the Restoration pioneers regarding the New Testament, such as that expressed by Thomas Campbell in your quote above which says, “the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament church” set our movement on a wrong course. Such a view not only taught us to discredit authority Paul gave to the Old Testament but it also taught us to turn the New Testament into a new Mosaic-like law.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex,
And to treat it (the NT) as though it were designed and intended to be some sort of recipe card for cooking up a 1st century church, no?
–guy
Guy, definitely. That is where the early Restoration view of scripture took the movement.
– Rex
At the very least, the OT provides context and background for the NT. When we see numerous quotations from the OT as authoritative, we should understand that in some way, the OT is still for us today. When Paul says that the OT was written that we might have comfort and hope, we know it is still for us today. When Jesus Himself says that the OT Scriptures “testify of me” we should understand that if we cut it out of our canon of Scripture, we are silencing a witness to Jesus. Were we to cut from the NT every quotation or reference to the OT, little would be left – just as there would be little left of, say Genesis if we were to cut every thing from it that finds a fulfillment or allusion in the NT.
The NT writers take the language of the OT to make their points, though sometimes that language is given new significance. Without a knowledge of the OT, much of the NT is meaningless. I have noted that in Eph 5:19 (a key passage in the IM debate), Paul uses a combination of Greek words translated “sing and make melody.” These same words appear in the Greek OT book of Psalms that Paul used for his quotations – and at times, these include IM. Yet, traditionally we have insisted that Ephesians 5 means sing unaccompanied. In the Psalms, the same words did at times explicitly include musical accompaniment. Somehow, my ignorance of the LXX background of this word combination kept me from seeing the great dis-connect between my understanding of Eph 5:19 and how the words Paul used are used in the OT Greek Scriptures.
Now, it may be that Paul used those words differently than David did. If he did, however, he did not make it clear that he was making a distinction. In the absence of such clarity, I would think we should understand at least a similar meaning in Paul as in David. At the very least, we should be able to show how Paul used them differently and how we can know that it is a different use of that word combination. To insist on a different meaning without being able to show how and why it is different seems to me to be an irresponsible use of Scripture in which we impose our own meaning on the text instead of reading the text for its own meaning.
As Jesus told the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, kingdom worship is not performance of ritual at specific times/places but rather in spirit (not physical) and truth (sincere). The NT (not a rule book but a story of God’s presence in the person of Jesus) is totally void of rules/suggestions/regulations for worship. It does provide descriptions of what some saints did when gathered together which subsequent readers will properly value as just that, descriptions, not prescriptions. The NT concept of worship is individual living a life of service (Rom 12:1; Col 3:17).
I think Don did a pretty good job of summarizing my view on the matter. I’ll just add a few thoughts. As others have pointed out, the OT is actually broken into two dispensations: patriarchal and mosaic. Were there similarities in worship and what God expected from His servants? Yes. Why? Because God chose to carry over some aspects of one to the other. Some, but not all. No one besides Noah was ever commanded to build an ark, just as no one besides Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son, yet we see both being commended in Hebrews 11 for their faith. Should we also build an ark or sacrifice our son in order to be faithful? Of course not, we understand the limited nature of those expectations from God. We have both of these dispensations recorded for many reasons. It gives us the history we crave, answers to the “why” and “how come” that each of us have. Would we truly understand sin and the nature of Satan if we didn’t have the history from Genesis? We get to see God’s plan for man’s redemption revealed bit by bit, the flickers and shadows of the OT finally revealed in glorious light in the NT. We see the nature of God. Yes, He demands obedience, which is proof of our love. Yes, He punishes those who willfully disobey Him, as well as those who change His words, commands or expectations. Yet we also see that He is a God of love and patience, constantly giving His people opportunity to repent and change their ways. As for the Law of Moses, from Scripture we see three things that are important to note: it was to a limited people, for a limited purpose, and for a limited time. Those points can be proven via many passages, but fortunately all three can be proven through Galatians, where Paul constantly tells those attempting to bind aspects of Judaism on others: Stop It! If we want to justify any act of worship based on its inclusion in the Law of Moses, we are then putting ourselves back under the Law – “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Galatians 3:10 ESV). Friends, the Law of Moses wasn’t written for us to obey. It never applied to Gentiles or anyone other than the children of Israel. They were never told to spread Judaism throughout the world. It was a Law for the Jews of that era, and only existed until Christ arrived to fulfill the law and the prophets. If we’re trying to justify some act of worship based on its inclusion in the OT, then we are basically taking a step backwards (Paul’s words, not mine). Just as we can’t build an ark or sacrifice our son because God commanded it to Noah and Abraham, we cannot use the Law of Moses to base our rules of worship and sacrifice today.
Thanks for adding that, Travis. I forgot to add “dispensationalism” as one of the ways people have chosen to interpret the Old Testament. That view was very popular in our brotherhood, especially during the heyday of the Jule Miller filmstrips.
Don,
I love that paragraph. Well said!
Tim
P.S. — I’m headed to peanut country this weekend.
Danny,
I think, personally, that’s one of the flaws in Campbell’s description. Neither testament was written to be a “constitution.” When read as such, the true meaning is lost.
Tim
Guy,
I had an interesting experience trying to get “laying on of hands” included in the ordination of a group of deacons. One elder was strongly against it and stood up during that service and said, “We are substituting the right hand of fellowship for the laying on of hands.” I couldn’t help but wonder what other “substitutions” would have been acceptable to him.
There is definitely an anti-physical bias in our brotherhood. Look at some of the New Testament things we often exclude: holy kiss, washing of feet, laying on of hands, raising hands, fasting.
Grace and peace.
Tim
Tim,
Thanks, I think. Can’t really tell if that’s a good thing or not! Anyway, I had never heard of Jule Miller. Turns out he’s from the same subdivision in Louisville where I’m from. Interesting. Regardless, the dispensations in the OT is something I’ve heard in every CoC and Christian church I’ve ever attended, as it relates to God putting His plan of man’s redemption into practice. I realize God chose other ways to communicate with non-Jews (from Jonah and occasional glimpses in other passages throughout the OT). There’s just not a lot of information out there about that, though.
Rex,
I’m still wrestling to understand Paul’s view of the old Law. He definitely held it in reverence, yet not as the basis of our faith.
And he seemed to have no problem with the tens of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem who were converted but continued to be “zealous for the Law.”
Grace and peace,
Tim
Jerry,
Dr. John Willis did an in-depth study of “sing and make melody” in the Old Testament. I’m not as sure as he is about some of his conclusions, but the study is definitely interesting: http://professorwillis.blogspot.com/2011/04/sing-and-make-melody.html
When Willis talks about the Old Testament, I listen.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Travis,
There are some good things about dispensationalism, but I think there are some errors as well. Especially in failing to differentiate between commands given to a person and commands given to a people. For example, just as Noah was commanded to build an ark, Philip was commanded to go to the desert between Jerusalem and Gaza. It’s not a matter of dispensations as to whether or not those commands apply to us; those commands were given to individuals.
I also worry when dispensationalism wants to leave the gospels out of the New Testament. Not everyone does that, but I have heard it taught that way.
Grace and peace,
Tim
i think making the contrast that the NT doesn’t contain details and regulations analogous to the OT still presupposes that the NT is meant to be some sort of recipe card with all necessary ingredients included. Baptism and communion is mentioned, but no where is there any step-by-step about how to conduct either one. If we conclude, “therefore, there is no step-by-step” or “that proves we shouldn’t be concerned about the step-by-step” or “God clearly doesn’t care about the step-by-step”–similar to the position of those who do treat the NT as though it provides us with all the step-by-step that we must following, these conclusions all seem to presuppose that the NT was designed to include all the details there are, and there just don’t happen to be any. Seems to me if you want to cry ‘foul!’ about the underlying assumption when responding to patternist-types, then there’s something fallacious about employing that very same assumption when arguing for a non- or anti- patternism.
–guy
Tim, I agree with your last post. I understand the dispensations as general periods in which God communicated His will to man through various methods of His own choosing (directly to heads of families, such as Abraham, or others of His choosing who it appears took God’s words and taught others, such as Melchizideck, who was both priest and king), to a specific people via the law and prophets, to all men through Christ and a select few who, for a time, received divine instruction and knowledge which is now available to us through the Scriptures/NT). There is definite overlap during the transition periods between the dispensations. I haven’t come across anyone wanting to keep the gospels out of the NT. I’m guessing that means they only count the NT as anything after the crucifixion and/or resurrection, or do they just go straight to Pentecost? Thanks.
Tim,
So what did he mean by “right hand of fellowship”? i mean, was there some official handshaking that accompanied their initiation into the deaconate?
This anti-physicality bias reaches deeper than i thought. As i said, i’m visiting an Orthodox parish, and even though i’m conscientiously okay with everyone making the sign of the cross, i have to tell you, i still feel super, super weird every time i do it. And this lingering bias is the only underlying cause i can think of.
–guy
He meant that the elders (and non-elder minister) would shake hands with the new deacons up in front of the congregation.
Tim,
I am more and more convinced that we need to read the OT and NT in similar fashions…neither being read exclusively as a prescriptive rule for being God’s people (though both testaments do contain certain prescriptions which are necessary) but as a descriptive story meant to awaken our imagination as to how we, as the people of God, can follow Jesus by the power of the Spirit in ways that are faithful to the gospel and contextualized to our host culture. That means our reading scripture is Trinitarian and Christological approach that moves us to not just confess the Doctrine of Incarnation but to put that doctrine into practice.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
First of all, I think we do injustice to God’s instructions in scripture — both testaments — as merely law; arbitrary things we must do to gain His favor or to avoid obliteration. Psalm 119 saw the law as an insight into God’s deep love for us, and so did Jesus (Matthew 22:34ff). God gives us instructions for us to become more like Him, not only for our own good, but for the good of all.
Secondly, I think we understand poorly the concept that law has been supplanted by grace in the example and Person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Law is not bad, but it is insufficient to save. Its time and function to lead us has past. It is now written on our hearts, which should be much softer than tablets of stone.
Third, God still has instructions for us through Christ. He repealed specific instructions through what He taught, did and suffered – rendering them obsolete: animal sacrifice, priestly tribes, sabbath observance, as examples. They were replaced by much broader, wider, more demanding, more perfect expectations: self-sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, constant spiritual act of worship, etc. But not all were specifically repealed.
Some were specifically reaffirmed. We still are not to commit murder … but neither are we to hate. We are still not to commit adultery … nor are we to look after someone not our spouse with lust, and thereby commit adultery in our hearts.
Some were left as matters of conscience and tradition, not binding on Gentiles.
And some of the 613 precepts of the law just don’t get mentioned at all.
This calls for discernment, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit, and we can ask for it.
Does God still detest divorce (Malachi 2:16) and find remarriage to the original partner detestable (Deuteronomy 24:4)? When did it stop being an abomination to Him, so that some teach it as a requirement to please Him? Does Numbers 23:19 lie about Him?
He commands and is pleased with worship that includes singing accompanied by instruments of music, right through the the Old Testament– see Psalm 150 for a sample. When did He change His mind about this? Why would He not express this change explicitly as Jesus does about the Sabbath? Has He ever failed to tell — no, to SHOW — us what is expected of us?
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” – Micah 6:8
You know its interesting that Christianity is one of the few institutions not phased by discovery, scientific research, but stuck in traditions of doctrine. Industry, science, physics,agriculture, nations of democracy, governments all accept change. They have to so that they can survive. People will not stay put in a stagnant environment, churches have to change to stay viable. Its sad to know that some churches can’t see that doctrine change is needed to survive and grow. But then do they really want change? Do they really want to grow and willing to look at current doctrinal statements that are antiquated, and wrong in todays ever changing world that must be changed to reflect new knowledge. Keeping heads in the sand, stiff necked and fear of change will be left in the dark.
We have freedom as long as worship builds up the church to be who God called us to be.
In Acts it is clear from the beginning until the end that Jewish believers continued doing what they always had as it relates to worship. Prayer times, temple worship, etc. They did not see some line of demarcation created by Jesus resurrection. Why would they? He was their Messiah.
Paul connects us to Abraham. A very Old Testament character and to the promise that God made him. Jesus is connected to this same promise both with Isaac and Melchizedek.
Pingback: Three Ways We Shortchange Law and Grace « Blog In My Own Eye
Pingback: Three Ways We Shortchange Law and Grace « Blog In My Own Eye
heavenbound says:
“You know its interesting that Christianity is one of the few institutions not phased by discovery, scientific research, but stuck in traditions of doctrine”
Unless we discover “proof” that Jesus Christ is not who he said he was, I don’t see the reason to be “phased by discovery”
Worship transcends both testaments as it is a one on one relationship with our Creator. There is a more intimate ability to worship with NT believers as we now have access through the throne of grace to God by Christ Jesus Darrell