Chris noted in a previous post that we have a very diverse set of voices reading and commenting on this blog and I would like to hear some of that diverse perspectives. I have to deliver a sermon on the subject of worship within a few weeks. The sermon will be one in a series about spiritual growth, worship being one aspect of that. I would like to hear your perspective on worship.
My main scripture will be Luke 7:36-43 where the immoral woman (I assume a prostitute) crashed a dinner party of some very religious people to worship Jesus.
Luke 7
36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so Jesus went to his home and sat down to eat.[h] 37 When a certain immoral woman from that city heard he was eating there, she brought a beautiful alabaster jar filled with expensive perfume. 38 Then she knelt behind him at his feet, weeping. Her tears fell on his feet, and she wiped them off with her hair. Then she kept kissing his feet and putting perfume on them.
39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him. She’s a sinner!”
40 Then Jesus answered his thoughts. “Simon,” he said to the Pharisee, “I have something to say to you.”
“Go ahead, Teacher,” Simon replied.
41 Then Jesus told him this story: “A man loaned money to two people—500 pieces of silver[i] to one and 50 pieces to the other. 42 But neither of them could repay him, so he kindly forgave them both, canceling their debts. Who do you suppose loved him more after that?”
43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the larger debt.”
495 Comments(+Add)
Great topic Eugene.
We’ve recently been discussing worship, defining it as an attitude of the heart.
The danger we’re presented with is that we reach some sort of religious plateau where we perform outwardly, but within there is no adoration.
Jesus speaks of the “true worshipers” (John 4) which must allude to the fact that there is false or empty worship.
Also, Matt 15 works well as it pertains to Isaiah’s prophecy: drawing near with our mouths and lips, but our hearts being far from him.
I think we can’t really talk about worship without dealing with the heart and the seat of our affection.
Did I just beat Rick to the #1 spot on a comment thread?
When I first got into “ministry” (we are all called to ministry whether on staff at a church or not) I shared with my pastor my sordid past and my concerns about that. His response was “I would much rather have someone who’s experienced grace than merely read about it”.
I think true worship comes from both an awareness of need and an awareness of God’s ability to meet that need.
On another but similar note (I think) last night at our youth meeting I shared a bit of my story and a girl who has grown up in church responded and said “I wish I had a story my whole life has been in church”. Another leaders response was “The faithful steward story is as powerful as the prodigal son story” I tend to agree.
I find it noteworthy that the Scriptures do not call her a “formerly” immoral woman. The good news is not for the moral, but for the immoral. And immoral sinners by the millions worship Christ every Sunday morning, while modern Pharisees take pride in their morality, their high view of Scripture, and even their divinely approved mode of worship.
Good post, Eugene.
But Rick, isn’t there a danger in swinging the pendulum that far. I don’t mean to suggest we are to be perfectly moral or sinless (mission impossible), but we should remember that Jesus said (to the same woman possibly, John 8):
“Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
To another man he healed, he told him to stop sinning, “lest a worse thing come upon you.”
I’m not really dealing with the Pharisee aspect here, but more so addressing what happens once one becomes a “true worshiper”. Their desire is not so much to become moral, but rather to please their Lord. That means they start to battle with breaking off sin, no?
Agreed.
I think the key word here is “battle”. We so easily judge who is worthy to worship without know their battle.
Thanks for the thoughts so far.
BTW… Happy birthday Chris
Eugene. As biblical church discipline is basically an unknown in the American chruch environment, this probably a non-issue in most cases.
John, I wouldn’t mind a discussion about church discipline on another thread but on this one I would like your perspective on worship.
Not the main point of this passage, but some thoughts:
The woman’s response in worship was costly financially and socially. We come up with all sorts of reasons to not gather together or to not serve because of the little that it will cost us.
I would have more thoughts Eugene in response to your own, which you haven’t shared.
Eugene,
Wonderful topic. I would love to participate but I am afraid I don’t fully understand what you hope to do with this text.
You say this:
My confusion, I guess, lies in the idea of pre-determining a topic (worship as a form of spiritual growth) and then reading that topic into the text (Luke 7). Personally, when I prepare a sermon, I would either a) allow the text speak for itself (which may mean it could have nothing to do with worship being a form of spiritual growth or even about worship at all) or in rare cases , b) have a topic in mind (worship) and weave a number of texts together which speak to that topic.
I think worship is certainly an intricate part of our spiritual growth but I am not sure I could build such a case on the text you provide alone.
Help?
A few other thoughts…
It is popular to say and believe that worship is something we do 24/7. And while this is true, I wonder if that is the sort of worship you are talking about, Eugene. Worship (giving worth) is something we ought to do all the time (Rom. 12:1-2 comes to mind) but worship in a corporate setting is something that is equally vital and important to our spiritual growth. It is in such setting, IMO, that our imaginations are being reformed so that we are then able to go out into the world and see God in a variety of ways “24/7″. The liturgy of a worship service teaches us something about who we are and, more importantly, whose we are.
So while it may be cool (and correct) to say worship is something we ought to do all the time we should not just say that. We should also highlight the necessity of what we do when we gather together each Lord’s Day to take part in things like prayer, singing, reading Scripture, proclamation, Eucharist, and so forth.
Ok…..thoughts over.
Thank you my friend. You are officially my furthest ever birthday wish.
I’m gonna wait 182 days and wish you happy birthday.
Worship and service are separate. Worship requires your entire heart and focus on Christ.
Worship is done in the Spirit. Service can include building buildings etc..
Rick,
I am not sure you can make such a distinction. Paul says in Romans 12:1-2 that we are to offer our bodies as our spiritual act of worship. Thus, what we do with our bodies (service or otherwise) is our “act” of worship.
Nothing, including worship, is done outside of the Spirit.
Regarding comments #9 and 10…
I read #9 on my mobile phone which doesn’t display the emotiocons. I thought John was serious and thus my responce in #10. Sorry!!!
Not that church discipline is not a serious issue.
Christian, I purposely did not give too much of my thoughts in order to get people’s perspective on worship (with the piece of scripture in mind) and it paid off so far:
“…because of the little that it will cost us.” Wow, that is a great thought. Would you care to expand on that?
My thoughts have centred around the social cost for the woman (those people knew her sin) and how easily it keeps us from doing what we know would honour God. IOW it is to costly for us because of pride/shame. Kind of the opposite of your perspective that too little cost would devaluate the act of worship?
Chad, this spiritual growth series will cover a number of disciplines that helps us to grow spiritually. Other areas to be covered in this series are prayer, bible reading/study, service to the body of Christ, caring for the need of others… (I’m writing from memory here which is sketchy. When I heard “worship” in the meeting I kind of tuned out and then missed the rest
) Though I should address “worship as a form of spiritual growth” I wasn’t thinking of doing that from this specific scripture.
Would you say that this touches on the spiritual growth aspect:
When we focus our attention on God, his character and what He does for us, our hearts get changed/reformed and that has an impact on our perspective and actions “outside church”. Is that what you are saying?
While I agree that worship is something we do 24/7, it is not my focus here. The act of worship we do corporately, with a smaller group (our family even) and alone time with God is what I have in mind.
Rick, what does “worship in spirit” (Probably refering to John 4:23? ) mean for you?
To me it means in the heart.
Eugene,
Yes. Exactly. I might also add that this is not done in a vacuum but in community and requires some sort of leadership. In Eph. 4, Paul makes it clear that there are some gifted in such ways so as to help “equip the saints” for ministry. People don’t know instinctively how to worship the one true God. And we should not expect them to. We all need to learn how and why we worship this peculiar, particular, God. So, I would say worship requires some preparation.
Cool. I thought that might be the case.
Eugene,
I have written on worship as a form of Allegiance, Repentance, Recreation and Inclusion HERE, if you are interested.
We do not worship 24 hours a day. Our lives are cluttered with all sorts of activities. Some are germaine to normal life; some are germaine to self indulgence; and some that are germaine to directly serving Christ.
But true worship is different. Worship calls the spirit away from those things. It prepares the heart to meet its lover, its redeemer, its Creator Lord. It leaves the good of the kitchen and sits or kneels at His feet.
Worship opens the windows of the soul to experience the fragrance of God’s presence. It presents the worshiper as a branch, willingly bending in the wind of the Spirit to both experience His glory and to be changed by it as well.
Time goes without notice and worries disappear. The inward divine presence of Christ soars, and the One before Whom you worship burns within you as well. There will be time to witness and time to serve, but at that moment you are transfigured within and becoming transfigured without.
As Paul says, you come to present your bodies a living sacrifice and your spirits as purchased worshipers. There is no greater zenith for a redeemed sinner than to bow before Him with faith, hope, love, and worship. It is a glimpse of heaven, and in that moment we are in concert with the spirits of just men who are worshiping Him in heaven that very moment.
Do not think that worship, true worship with the whole heart, can have any competition. The things of this world, both good and bad, must give way to undivided worship that sees nothing but Him in all His glory and wonder.
There will be time to serve Him, but when you come to worship, you must come with nothing in your hands. You must hear and obey the call to come before Him, which in some ways is a trial run for an event that can never fully enter the human mind until that day appears.
Rick, that is absolutely beautiful. I might use that in the sermon just as you wrote it. He that’s ok with you…
Sure.
me too? me too? me too? *waves hand frantically*
Rick – really good thoughts in #25. Thanks for that.
Here’s a scripture I think is beautiful as it serves to outline the simplicity and sincerity of worship. When asked about his life by Pharaoh, Jacob replied, “Few and evil have been the days of my life.” He lived a hard life full of ups-and-downs, but this is what Hebrews 11 says:
It seems void of much outward show. There must have been such a depth of appreciation and even an overwhelming feeling that yes, God is in control (as it pertains to Joseph). There’s something in that verse that I really like but can’t quite put my finger on… an old man, at the end of his days, so full of gratitude and trust in God, despite his errant life at times. It appears he had found peace and redemption at last.
Good Paul. The Hebrew word for worship implies bowing or becoming prostrate before someone. The Greek word implies bowing and kissing the hand in reverance.
I might include kissing the nail prints in the hand.
#30 – There are actually a few words for worship that have different meanings/connotations in both languages.
#25 – Rick, I think you are looking at worship in a very narrow way. First of all, you say that we should come to worship “with nothing in your hands.” The woman in this story came with all sorts of things in her hands. A lavish gift, her emotional baggage, and who knows what else. It is because Christ speaks and works in the midst of all of the clutter of our lives with grace that we come to worship. We worship in and through obedience to Him, and we absolutely can worship doing other things. Not everybody and not at the same point in their walk. I agree with Chad that we learn how to worship and I think that learning takes us beyond a devotion of the heart to a life lived 24/7 in and through Jesus Christ.
Rick, your comment in 25 sounds really good, but I just have to disagree with it on it’s foundational level because you are describing an emotional feeling or experiences. Throughout the history of the church, some of the men and women that we would consider stalwarts of the faith have described their worship of God with feelings that would be considered far from what you described.
Worship is not an experience (no matter how you would describe it), it is also not emotions. I have seen many Christians become unnecessarily distraught and in despair because there is this notion that is pushed that particular feelings (many as you have described) are what it means to be close to God and in his presence. I just don’t see that as Scriptural.
Now, that being said, you do make some important points. We do need to draw away at times and be still before God.
Christian P – I agree
When we encounter the Risen Christ in worship, what drives us to tears? Or to kneel? Or to wonder? It is His recognized presence. It is not enough to be in the presence of Christ, all men live in the midst of His omnipresence. But we as believing followers must seek to see Him and His face (or presence). Is it possible that men can rise Sunday morning, spend most of their time preparing their bodies, drive to a building, meet with other professing believers, drive home and change clothes, and claim they have just met with the Lord of Lords but have no discernable alteration in their beings? Is that possible?
As much as we attempt to define worship we can only go so far. The act of worship is a sacred mystery, but true worship has an effect of those that worship. Emotion is residual, but always residual when worship is taking place. The Beloved Apostle had rested upon the chest of Jesus, but when he encountered the Risen Christ he fell at His feet as though dead. Who John saw had to change him; what John saw overwhelmed him as it would any mortal. This act we call worship has been so maligned, so redefined, and so diluted that many times a church service appears no different than a meeting of an Irish American club where fellowshipping and singing are the hall marks.
See people, supposedly worshiping Christ, looking around the building or following the song leader like a sing along with Mitch gathering. And in our doctrinal statements we say that Christ actually lives inside the believers in that gathering, and added to that He is meeting in a mysterious yet powerful way with all of them. And we say we ourselves are actually meeting and encountering the Creator King and Redeemer of our Souls and yet we show more emotion at a football game, or at a birthday party, or even while watching a sad movie. I can never believe that.
So I am left with only two general options. I must believe that worship is so unremarkable both in practice and in effect that the redundant ritual that takes place on Sunday mornings is actually what God had in mind when He allowed us to worship Him on this earth. Or I must conclude that because of time restraints, the need for organization and control, and a palatable fear of the Holy Spirit, the church has slowly but surely navigated the act of worship into an ecclesiastical compartment so confined and so powerless and with so little awe and mystery, that the gathering comes together with infinitely more ritual than spiritual worship.
When I became a Christian in 1975 I would climb Garret Mountain many nights and sit before my Savior. Sometimes I would shout, sometimes I would sing, and many times I would cry. There was no praise music and it was just me and Jesus. There have been times where I have gone to and even preached in church services where I came out the same and had not experienced anything during the “allotted” time. In those times I did not meet the Resurrected Lord. But there have been many times where I was broken or revived or brought to tears and repentance and a litany of other effects that were made manifest in me. I submit to you, brothers, that I have no inside information on worship, but one thing I do know, when a saved sinner worships God something happens, sometimes something great and sometimes something small, but something always happens.
The fear of excess and the fear of false doctrine are legitimate concerns, but so many times that fear imprisons us and keeps us from deep and penetrating worship of our Lord. We must not seek emotion and experience, but if we are truly seeking Jesus, both of those will be present. We do not need less experience…we need more.
I’m going w/ Chad and Christian here – What you’re describing is not worship, but just a singular (incredibly narrow) experience that many expand as if it were the bolus of what might be termed “worship”.
True worship, as defined within Scripture, is what happens every minute of the day in which what you are doing is in thanks and recognition of its provider. Just a sampling of daily activities which can be lived out as “worship”: getting up in the morning, showering, brushing your teeth, driving, working, eating , laughing, mourning, studying, walking, conversing, playing with your kids, blogging, watching a football game (live or on TV), cooking, tucking in the kids, and going to bed at night. All of these can be acts of worship, and none require “wonder and awe” to be valid, or specific emotional evocations to honor God. None of these things should be “mundane”, but lived out in cognizant gratitude.
Expecting “deep” experiences is far more pomo, and possibly less grateful, than what each minute of worship should be – whether experienced individually or corporately.
i would agree with Chad, Christian and Chris L…
i would say though that expecting “deep worship” is not a particularly “pomo” reality…
the expectation of “deep experience” is a longed for feature of most religious systems throughout history.
improperly understood/pursued the spiritual journey gets hampered.
properly understood, such experiences can be powerful touchstone moments wherein we can say that beyond “reason” or “common sense” we know God has spoken/moved/come to us. rightly understood, it can become fuel for living the life that IS worship as Chris L wonderfully described.
also, i’d say that if a Christian gets all emotionally effusive for a sports event, but can’t show something during corporate worship for the maker of the universe…then there is something wrong.
i.e. Peyton Manning gets you fired up, argumentative, screaming and jumping around, but Jesus? Forget it.
that’s sad to me.
“Just a sampling of daily activities which can be lived out as “worship”: getting up in the morning, showering, brushing your teeth, driving, working, eating , laughing, mourning, studying, walking, conversing, playing with your kids, blogging, watching a football game (live or on TV), cooking, tucking in the kids, and going to bed at night.”
With all due respect, you have no idea what worship is, except you are correct that watching a football game is worship – only it is worshiping another god.
When “worship” is not accompanied by repentance, awe, and a host of emotions, you are going about your business as is the ant. Brushing your teeth as worship? Worship cannot be part of multi-tasking – it must be focused, separated, and singular in purpose.
Rick Warren suggests the same form of “worship” as does Chris. I have prayed while brushing my teeth; I have praised while brushing my teeth; but if I ever began to worship while brusing my teeth I would have had to stop brushning my teeth.
This kind of pragmatic worship is what has captured western religious culture and fits nicely and without sacrifice in the lives of modern evangelicals. Even Muslims cease their duties and worship and pray to Allah.
And your “possibly less grateful” phrase is a redundant fulfillment of expected verbiage. I am attempting to rise to your level of gratefulness; until then I am trapped by my pomo chains.
And if the mundane deeds of life can be considered “worship” as long as they are carried out “in thanks and recognition of its provider”, then I suggest hardly any worshp occurs. That kind of worship isn’t even present in Christian blogs, much less driving or watching a football game.
Signed,
The Incredibly Narrow Rick
(Worship is extremely narrow and can only happen in the heart when it is excruciatingly focused solely of the Creator and Redeemer. Worship without change is idolatry)
Rick,
I don’t think anyone would disagree with you that worship can and should encompass a whole host of things, repentance, awe and various emotions can be some of them. But that is not to say worship must be married to some particular emotion or else it isn’t worship.
To be frank, sometimes I just flat out don’t feel like worshipping. Sometimes I leave church and have felt nothing, or very little. But I have worshipped.
Everything we do should be, in some sense, an act of worship and it can be if we do all we do with a consciousness of God and thanksgiving in our heart. I think this is what Paul mean’s in part with the admonition to “pray without ceasing.” Ideally, our entire life (from eating, drinking, working, fellowshiping, singing, praying, dancing, painting, writing, gardening, reading, etc) becomes a prayer (which is worship) offered up to God and the world.
And I would disagree with the idea that this is a pomo thing or something unique to emergents. It is actually a rediscovery of how Christians from the earliest Desert Fathers to the monks lived out their lives. Brother Lawrence, while doing dishes, famously penned:
I find that beautiful.
I’ve stayed out of this conversation for the most part, but I’d say worship as it relates to the passage in the original post is a pouring out of ourselves as a realization of our creator. When the sinful woman was pouring out the perfume from this jar, she was really offering Christ the most valuable thing she had. It was really her dowry – the only thing that she could offer anyone who would even think of marrying her. Now she was “sinful”, so she may have been a prostitute (which would explain why she was carrying the perfume), so in addition to spending her dowry, she was also sacrificing her livelihood to a degree.
So as far as what worship means, I’d say it means living in a way that our lives are poured out for Christ. And honestly, a “worship” service, probably is not something that requires much actual pouring out of ourselves. Now, I have nothing against worship songs (well, at least not all of them), but to say that worship must be or look a certain way, is to really miss the point.
In a way, there is a paradox at play. To borrow a concept from N.T. Wright, I believe we can only truly worship Christ the way he created us to when are truly being the people He created us to be. In being the people we were created to be, we reflect the Imago Dei, and in turn, glorify Him. This isn’t to say that worship is about us, but it is simply acknowledging that there is a truly relational aspect of worship that is missed.
Didn’t we just talk about this in another article?
I find both are your comments presented in an acceptable format, even when disagreeing with me. And I do not find them:
“almost entirely opinion with a good deal of moralistic stretching with little Scriptural basis.”
Christian – I wondered whether anyone would actually make the connection. Good catch.
Worship is an attitude of the heart.
No heart? No worship.
All this talk about worship while watching the football game (and those bouncing cheerleaders or a Janet Jackson kerfuffle) is embarassing. Now I know why McManus has devoted so much time to his Casket Commercial.
Worshiping while blogging? Awesome – especially as I take the head off my opponent in a vicious debate! God loves it.
Eugene brought to light a beautiful scripture and a picture of a woman so deeply affected by Christ that she poured out her heart.
We might take a lesson from the Jews who, several times (Is 1, Mal 1 stand out), went through the motions outwardly – but their hearts were far from God. It was not acceptable worship.
Another thing I find interesting about the passage in the OP is how Jesus is OK with letting this woman anoint Him with this perfume. Because of this perfume being poured on him, Jesus would have had this smell, which people would have associated with this sinful woman, lingering on Him for quite a while after the event. It’s interesting that Jesus did not seem to mind being associated with the sinners in such a way.
It kind of the opposite of Christians I know who will not to place like bowling alleys because they don’t like to have the smell of cigarette smoke on there coats when they leave.
Paul C,
One could just as easily conclude from your comment that your heart is not in all you do.
Good thoughts, Paul. Worship gazes toward the Savior and bows in sacred reverence. Worship offers the heart and sacrifices, however in length, the business and recreation of the day.
I do not dismiss or demean anyone’s opinion and I originally only dealt with my thoughts. I consider worship – corperate and individual – as perhaps the highest calling for a believer. It is the only thing on earth that believers do in heaven as well.
It is connected on some level with lrayer as well.
#45 – Excellent.
Phil, that’s a great point.
Seriously? I’m assuming their reason is because they don’t want anyone to think they might actually smoke, right? Sheesh.
I don’t like it just because I am an ex-smoker and it makes me nauseated when I smell ciggy smoke. Now, a cigar on the other hand…
You cannot be saved and smoke.
I think I’ll agree with Rick on this one. I’m not sure this is a topic we should argue about. If you feel to content to worship a certain way, that is fine for you and may the Lord be pleased.
I might introduce one thought: is there a difference between praise and between worship?
What I mean is that my guess is what happens most often on a Sunday is praise. But worship takes place deep within the recesses of a man’s heart where he communes with his God. I am not preaching to anyone here.
In fact, when I read Rick’s #25, it struck me how little I, personally, worship God in the true sense of the word (ie: Jacob in Hebrews 11). Praise? yes. Pray? sure. But deep worship… that’s something in and of itself.
I’d love to believe that as I was brushing my teeth this morning I was worshiping. But I wasn’t. Sorry. Call me an infidel.
Sadly, I have met people who think like that. Personally, I must admit, I don’t like smelling like cigarette smoke just because it kind of makes me feel like a have a film all over me or something.
I just used that example because it was the first that came to mind, but I could think of others as well. For example, my mom, who of course I love dearly, likes to make beer bread occasionally, but she has my sister-in-law get the beer for her because she doesn’t want to be seen buying beer.
Why would you think this? I would say the opposite – actually, I would just not say that at all.
Worship is what we ought to be doing all the time but it is learned behavior that begins in corporate worship on the Lord’s Day with God’s people. We do not know instinctively how to worship. We must be taught. So I would say if you are part of a church that does not worship on Sunday morning find a new church that values worship and is intentional in going about it.
Phil – it would all depend on what kind of beer it is. I don’t want to be seen with anyone buying Miller Lite.
Praise can be done while you are working. Prayer can be done while you are about to eat.
But worship requires preparation and is singular in its focus. Worship is and act that glorifies the Creator, the Redeemer. It is not a preamble before a meal, and it isn’t a praise for meeting the electric bill.
Worship is not a Sunday morning format. And if people leave the same as they came, they did not enter into worship. Worship takes place in the Holy of Holies. Most gatherings meander around the Holy Place, which is good, but they never go through the veil.
I know, mysticism. I have admitted to being a mystic before.
Rick,
I guess I am just not as comfortable as you seem to be with separating praise and prayer from worship. Prayer and praise are also acts that glorify the Creator, the Redeemer. They are also acts that change us inwardly. So by your own definition of worship, prayer and praise are just 2 of any number of ways we might worship God.
And I am not opposed to mysticism in the least
Theword “prayer” would generally indicate “ask”. Praise can be immediate as when informed of something we can say “Praise the Lord”.
Worship requires more preparation and more spiritual brokenness.
Rick,
Says who?
And who says prayer is about “ask[ing]“? I would argue that asking is only one part of prayer – and perhaps the smallest part.
I would also add, that even if prayer is reduced to no more than “asking” this is still worship. To trust in God for our needs and wants when our flesh would rather trust in ourselves or in others, is to ascribe worth to God where the world does not.
Not to pile on to Chad’s question but I am curious, where do you find this requirement in Scripture.
Among others:
Abraham had much preparation when he climbed the mount to worship God with his son. And the woman that Eugene referenced seemed to be significantly broken.
But I could be wrong.
So you are inferring it? The word that always makes me curious when I hear it is “more” because how much more? Where is the tipping point that makes the action actually become worship?
I would say that brokenness is a result of, not a prerequisite for, our worship of God. When Isaiah found himself in the throne room, he the declared “woe is me”, and then the angel touched the coal to lips. It wasn’t that he had to make himself broken to come into God’s presence, but rather that is what happened as a result of this encounter.
To say that we must prepare ourselves in some way before entering into worship is really making it sound like God is capricious, and that He only accepts worship in certain forms. There’s nothing we can do to purify ourselves to enter His presence. It’s only through His grace that any of can do that anyway.
#63
Phil, have you ever read the book of Leviticus?
How about Jesus in John 4:4 God is Spirit and those who worship must worship in Spirit and in truth?
What about if we approach God and have something against our brother?
It seems that our heart is important to God, and how we approach Him should not be in a casual way. Though Christ has purchased free access to the Father for those who are His, we ought to approach the throne with awe and reverance
John,
Can you ever enter into dialogue without being snarky?
Re:64-65.
Seriously. It wouldn’t hurt you, PB, to say things like “can I remind you” or “what about” as opposed to “have you ever read [you dummie].”
It’s called being a gentleman.
Can I remind you sounds pedantic or condescending.
What about? Maybe.
This thread frustrates me with the exception of Rick F’s and Eugene’s comments. I have to be honest, I question of many of us understand what worship is.
What we do on a daily basis, if it is truly focused on God in Spirit, loving him and honoring Hm as God with all of our hearts, souls, mind, and strength. But I contend, along with Rick, that if we see God, if we see a portion of His glory in worship, we would be completely undone.
I would agree that worship does cause brokenness, but a certain amount makes the way more accessible.
Joe – There is no exact measurement, and only the worshiper can actually know when he is prepared to worship God. BTW – Sometimes God breaks us to draw us in.
Worship is actually seeking the very presence of God. If you were watching a football game and Jesus walked into the room, I doubt you would continue to watch the game. That is the point.
Worship, as I understand and have experienced it, is the most sacred act and does not come just because we gather together. I doubt true worship happens many times in the space of a 20 minute song service, and if we do not worship privately, we will be hindered in a corperate setting.
Not necessarily. Depending on how it is approached and appreciated, it could be perfectly acceptable.
Worship is completely independent of emotion. Worship is part of attitude, not emotion. It is the same as with joy vs. happiness. Joy is an attitude that is independent of circumstance and emotion, whereas happiness is an emotion that is dependent upon the environment and circumstance. What you are describing is an emotional context of worship that is incredibly smaller and far more mercurial than the attitude of worship.
Then that means at least one Rick (Warren) understands what worship is. He ties this back (as do the early Christians and post-exilic Jews) to the shema:
Since you’re a “Musical” guy, if you think back to Fiddler on the Roof, Reb Tevye frequently provides the proper blessings for everything – including sewing machines. This tradition – of blessing God for everything – is the basic act of worship that has been practiced since the days of Joshua. It is the ingrained attitude that purposely blesses God for each and every encounter in our lives. (I would note that there is an ancient blessing said when relieving oneself – “blessed are you, oh God, King of the Universe, who graced us with holes in our bodies that we might find relief.”)
When we love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, that means we are to do so in everything (except sin) – and that love is the minute-by-minute act of worship. When we work with an attitude of blessing to God, and we perform our diligently and with joy, we are worshiping God. To use the football example, if I take my daughter to a football game, I can do so giving blessing to God for the time spent with children, for His thoughtfulness in telling us to take time to rest and to celebrate, for the beautiful smells of creation, and for giving us different gifts – some of which are displayed in disciplined and honorable competition, (etc., etc.) – we can do so in gratitude and worship of Him.
Part of the problem some modern Christians have with associating worship with emotion, rather than attitude, and narrowly defining it in mystical terms stems from the syncretism Paul spoke against, which has brought in streams of gnosticism and stoicism. As with breaking the more defined “laws”, when we constrain our views of worship to such narrow, myopic terms, we end up cheating both ourselves and God by refusing vast wells of blessings He has provided.
What it requires, though, is balance – because we also need to spend significant time in study, praise and prayer – as individuals and corporately. What we tend to lack in the American church, myself included, is that balance.
I actually ripped Leviticus clean out of every Bible in my house… I’m a 4/5 Pentateuch kinda guy.
Seriously, though, the way that Jews look at Leviticus isn’t so much as a collection of things that please or tick off God. Really, it’s the laws that God gave to His people to teach Him how to live as His people. It was for their benefit, not His.
So as far as John 4:24, what is Jesus saying? Well, the whole discussion is really focused around the Jewish Temple. The Temple was the focus point of Jewish worship, and the fact that the Samaritans did not accept the Second Temple made them something of an outcast group. What Jesus is getting at is that one day, worship will not focus on the physical temple, but on the spiritual temple of His people.
So now worship isn’t about a proscribed method, but about the people of God being who they were created to be. When we live as His people, we proclaim and demonstrate our worship of the Living God. Whether that through singing a song or designing a building, doesn’t matter much. God is glorified in all His people do in His name for His Kingdom.
I can be, but it is not limited to this.
That’s not the point. That’s just a non sequitur.
“That’s not the point.”
That is exactly the point. Can you seek the presence of God in an unusual and mystical way while doing other things as well? And can you come in direct spiritual contact with the I AM and not exhibit some outward effects?
I suggest you cannot, or at least I cannot.
Rick, I sense there is a bit of a disconnect. Chris L kind of misses the mark when he claims that sitting on the porcelain throne is a form of worship, as well as frolicking with 70,000 people in a stadium as they wrestle for a ball and cheerleaders do what cheerleaders do. Big, big disconnect…
Not saying some are wrong. It’s just a different hymnbook that’s being sung from.
The point of worship is not to “seek the presence of God in an unusual and mystical way”. While one might experience God in “an unusual and mystical way”, that is not at all the point of worship. Since worship is focused upon God (and not on the individual), whether one experiences Him in “an unusual and mystical way” is irrelevant, because it is based on the experience of the worshiper, and not the worshiped.
No, which is why our worship of him in what we do should reflect His desires, rather than simply our own. Where you seem to be having a difficulty with this is in that day to day life (i.e. “living life”) is part of His desire for us, and in so doing, we worship Him when we bless Him for the life He gives us to live.
Worship (n.): to love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol;
In defining the meaning of “worship” there is no mention of rituals, or “reverence” or “seek the presence of [the object of worship] in an unusual and mystical way”. Simply to “love unquestioningly”.
And how are we to love God? With all of our heart (attitudes), soul (our being), mind (our thoughts) and strength (our activities). (Deut 6)
And what are the guidelines? “If you love me obey my commands” – do our attitudes, our being, our thoughts and our activities (heart, soul, mind, and strength) should be within the realm of obedience, and should give blessing to Him who gave all to us.
All of our activities should be rooted in love of God – which is worship of Him. Those activities include the ’sacred’ (singing praise, meditating on His word) and the ‘profane’ (brushing your teeth, “sitting on the throne”). In everything, we should give thanks and love Him. The early Christians and their Jewish forerunners understood that. It’s a pity we’ve cheapened it by constraining it so narrowly.
For someone with nothing good to say about the Catholic tradition, you’re pretty steeped in its incredibly narrow view of “worship” (at least its medieval view).
If your focus is on the cheerleaders, then perhaps you’re right. If your focus is on the Provider and giving him the credit for all of the good and wholesome things which are present, then there is no problem.
Actually, Orthodox Jews to this day recite a blessing after going to the restroom (actually, there’s one for after washing your hands as well).
The bathroom blessing:
Handwashing blessing:
I think we in the West have bought far too much into the idea that our lives should be segregated into holy and secular parts. God’s ideal for us is that we be complete people who are same whether we’re in the shower, at work, or at church.
Chris L – where have I lent myself to advocating for mysticism or anything like that.
All I have said is that worship is an attitude of the heart. To me, there is a depth in worship, separate from the mundane routine of life.
In the course of my day, I might whisper, “Lord, you’re awesome. I am so glad to be called by your name.” To me that’s worship – adoration, heart-felt, sincere. Not mystical or weird.
You define the term worship from the dictionary. That’s great. If worship is just as natural as breathing, then why did the author of Hebrews say of Jacob, “he worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff”?
I think he’s pointing out that after a life of ups-and-downs, of seemingly frustrated plans, of let-downs and depression, it dawned on him the awesomeness of his God. He could have said, like Joseph, “You meant it for evil, but all this time, God was working for good.” There was depth.
So again, I’m not trying to be narrow or mystical. I’m simply looking at worship being deeper than brushing my teeth, sitting on the toilet or worshiping a quarterback who can throw a ball (which is basically what happens in arenas and stadiums). People have more adoration for a sports hero than for the Son of God.
So, go ahead and enjoy the game, but don’t label it worship to make yourself and your kids feel good.
Phil. You perfectly illustrate my point.
Words mean nothing. Songs mean nothing. Recitals and empty prayers avail nothing.
Jesus said to the Orthodox Jews of His day:
“You worship me with your lips, and draw near me with your mouths – but your hearts are far from me.”
When it comes to worship, it appears Christ is most concerned with the heart.
Read Malachi 1. On the outside, all appeared grand, but God rejected the worship because the heart of His people was not in it.
This theme recurs throughout the OT: the Jews failure to be inwardly what they professed to be outwardly. It is the heart, which is why the Lord mentions to the church of Ephesus about their “first love” or condemns the state of Laodicea – outwardly OK, inwardly “poor, wretched, blind and naked.”
This is incredibly condescending, and just wrong.
It’s not about labeling different things we do “worship”. It’s about living our lives in a way where God is constantly in our minds, and where nothing we do is done without our remembering Christ. That really what the Shema is getting at in Deuteronomy 6:
Everywhere the Jewish people went, God’s law would be with them.
So as Christians, we do not need to wear phylacteries, but God’s word is written on our hearts, and everything we do should bring glory to His name. I’m not saying I do this perfectly, or that anyone does, really. But it is what we should strive for. To outright say that we need promote some sort of dualism in our life, just leads down a dangerous path. If I am doing something that doesn’t glorify God, than I shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
But, yet, He did not tell them to quit saying the prayers. He told them live in a way where their actions met what they were saying.
Personally, I can say after seeing my wife go through a horrible illness which affected both her kidneys and her colon at the time, that thanking God for the ability to excrete waste is something I’ve actually become more aware of.
And I am simply saying that not everything we like to do has God involved. When you’re watching 24 and Jack Bauer is blowing the hell out of people, is that a form of worship? Can it be to some degree. Please be honest.
I am not trying to be condescending at all Phil. If it came across that way, forgive me.
Yes, Phil. Chris L quoted the Shema earlier. I contend that we have the cart before the horse. The word of God is to direct us so that God is kept at the forefront. Instead, we direct our lives as we damn-well please (excuse me) and then cram God in. It’s backwards a lot of the time.
I agree that this should be the case. When we are watching an R-rated movie, how do you see this as bringing glory to God?
I am not promoting any dualism of any kind. Period.
Agreed. But easier said than done.
I don’t recall anyone here claiming that it was. I’ve never watched 24, so I can’t give an opinion one way or the other.
I didn’t argue against this. You’re giving an answer to an argument I didn’t make.
To Phil’s point, we shouldn’t be involved in something that we can’t praise God for giving us, and we should be willing to follow Him as He leads us, not how we “damn-well please”. Even so, I brush my teeth every day. I drive to work every day. I use the bathroom every day. There are things I shouldn’t (in the case of my teeth) or can’t avoid, but I need to worship God when I am involved in both the mundane and the profound – and who knows but Him, sometimes I may receive additional blessings when the mundane has profound moments.
It depends – is it The Passion of the Christ or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
It depends on the movie, I suppose. I actually don’t watch many R-rated movies for this very reason. There are some that I’d say have some redeeming qualities, but on a whole, a lot of movies leave a lot to be desired.
I don’t mean that as a legalistic thing, either. I just think that when the Spirit of God is at work in us, He will lead and convict us about the things that are God-honoring and those that aren’t.
But, you are. You may not recognize it, but that’s the mindset you promote when you say stuff like “so, go ahead and enjoy the game, but don’t label it worship to make yourself and your kids feel good”. You’re saying that there are some earthly activities that Christians can do which can be deemed as worship and some that aren’t. If that’s the case, that sets up the thinking that some activities we do are holy and some aren’t. It’s a form of gnosticism, really.
If God isn’t glorified as much by my actions during the week at my job as He is during my singing at church on Sunday, than something is wrong.
There’s a great line in the movie, Chariots of Fire by the Eric Liddell character who was talking to his sister about his postponing going to work as a missionary. He says, “I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure.”
If God has given someone an ability to be a great athlete, a great scholar, or a great cook, these are no less of an anointing than someone who He created to be a great pastor.
#82: love that clip and the lesson. I wouldn’t necessarily classify it as worship. The young man learned an invaluable lesson and it the a pivotal point in the movie.
#83: I brought up 24 as an example as it seems to be quite popular among Christian men. It could have been anything I suppose, but I mentioned to highlight the reality of this life. The truth is that not everything we do is worship.
And if we are under the illusion that everything is worship, the question we should ask is: Does God accept this?
Or am I offering lame, maimed and blind sacrifice?
I brought up the R-rated movie, who you deftly avoided addressing though I think you grasp my point. Not everything we do is acceptable to God, let alone worship.
Worship, I am convinced, is an attitude of the heart. Not a trance. Not a head-spinning experience. It’s heartfelt, sincere and true. Like Jacob. Like the woman in the Op. Beautiful, simple and pleasing to God.
If your argument was true, there would be no reference to worship in the Bible since everything is worship. But there are many times when worship is highlighted as something more than just toilet duty.
Phil, I think the problem with this forum is that the point is being missed. Probably in person, I could communicate my understanding more clearly. But this last paragraph confirms you’re not getting what I’m saying.
What the Orthodox Jews do is irrelevant, and sometimes antithetical, to what a New Testament believer should do. Professional football is a game played by overpaid men, suvsidized by alcoholic beverages, and reminesent of the Roman Colloseum.
The tickets are absorbident, the food is obscenely priced, and most believers who attend spend more time there than they do in private prayer. This is all not to mention millions of people starving and dying and being persecuted around the world. (Note – the previous statement was made abscent a western mindset.)
If you can praise God for the hedonism called sports than you see it differently than do I. I root for Notre Dame but it is very far from a worshipful experience. I suggest that if we could bring a 1st century believer or even a 1st century Jew into today (if that even matters) they would find our lifestyles as antichristian and self indulgent on a profound level. I doubt they would even have worship on the list of possibilities.
If we like it and we do not think it is sin then it is worship? And if you “claim” to enjoy it in the context of “I thank God for it”.
I thank God that I can digest and eliminate food but that doesn’t contribute to my worship times, because as Chris noted, it’s about God and not me. I have never met God on an intimate level and not been moved emotionally and spiritually. But that’s me.
Paul, I think if anyone is missing the point it is you. No one here has even remotely said that everything we do is worship. What people have said, repeatedly, is that everything we do can be worship.
Big difference.
You are confusing the two.
This reminds me of something that happened when my wife went to see one of her TAs for help on a homework assignment when she was an undergrad. After trying to explain something to her for a while, the TA actually told her that the homework assignment “couldn’t be described in words” – he actually used that phrase. I mean what do you say to something like that? Give me a picture, then!
I like to think I’m fairly proficient in the English language, so I fail to see why this forum is the thing that’s preventing me from understanding the point someone’s trying to make. I understand completely, actually. There are some things you deem acceptable forms and expressions of worship, and there are some that you don’t.
If living your life in a state of divine acknowledgment is worship, then everything can be worship. But I do not subscribe to that definition of worship.
So, Rick, acknowledging the divine is not worship?
No. Even unbelievers sometimes ackowledge the existence of the divine. That is not worship.
#90: to see where I think you’re missing the point, after numerous attempts to simply convey what I believe worship is, see your comment here:
Completely irrelevant, causing me to come to conclusion that you’re not getting what I’m saying at all.
Simply put: a person can no more worship without their heart than they can run without legs, breathe without lungs or see without eyes (please get the point before interjecting modern science and prosthetic limbs).
That is what I have consistently stated since the beginning.
And this is according to whom?
Rick surely you have to agree that whatever worship is it certainly has to include acknowledging the divine, yes?
What I think your hang up is is with improper vs. proper worship. Yes, even unbelievers acknowledge the divine and this may or may not be proper worship – but it is still worship.
I mean, we are all worshipping something at all times – the question is: who or what are you worshipping?
Chad (or anyone else), what is “vain” worship?
Paul C-
Vain worship could be any number of things. I would say that, primarily, it is worship that seeks self-gratification rendering it useless worship or worship of the wrong thing.
The greek won’t copy but this is in reference to the word latreia
Balz, Horst Robert ; Schneider, Gerhard: Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 1990-c1993, S. 2:345
For Paul this new worship occurs in his ministry “in the gospel of his Son” (Rom 1:9 — ?? ?? ???????? ???, in connection with the appeal to God as witness [?v.? 9a], the total commitment of Paul to his mission, which only God can test; see also E. Käsemann, Rom [?Eng.? ?tr.?, 1980] ad loc.). Phil 3:3, however, is determined by the contrast ?????? — ???? and refers to the whole of Christian existence: The sign of relationship to God (????????) is life and activity in the Spirit of God, not carnal trust in traditional assurances of “worship.” Rom 12:1 indicates, however, that what is said does not involve a “spiritualization” of the traditional terminology of worship (cf. Wenschkewitz 189–95). The ?????? ??????? consists of the offering (????????? is Hellenistic sacrificial terminology; cf. ?Xenophon ??An.? vi.1.22; also ?Josephus ??Ant.? iv.113, in the ?LXX?, however, in the sense of service and placing oneself at the disposal of another) of the whole life (?? ??????) of the believer as a sacrifice to God. The use of the cultic expression represents clearly the shift that has taken place (Käsemann 192) over against a ritual understanding of worship (cf. also Deut 10:12ff.; Josh 22:5; Mic 6:6–8; see also Blank 41ff.; Kraus 177f.). The connection with ? ??????? emphasizes that the Spirit of God itself enables believers to carry out this worship in everyday life (cf. also T. Levi 3:6; John 4:23; 1 Pet 2:2, 5).
Balz, Horst Robert ; Schneider, Gerhard: Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 1990-c1993, S. 2:345
The question marks are where the Greek words are, if you want to read the Greek words, get your hands on the Exegetical Dictionary of the N.T. You’ll find the bibliographical data in each comment.
Christian P –
Your quotes raise more questions than they do answers
It’s all Greek to me… (ba-dum-bum)
#99 and # 100 – They their opinion and I have mine. I used to believe what they do.
Just a funny detour, Brit Hume is stirring up controversy again:
http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2010/01/brit-hume-causes-controversy-with.html
Wow. File it under:
Hume speaks Truth.
(I pray he will soon see how stupid some of the remarks his Fox colleages make as well.)
this makes me think of the two types of worship found in scripture – that which is acceptable and that which is unacceptable. the criteria is the heart of the worshiper.
#107 – Exactly. And when you heart is distracted, even in a good thing, it cannot be in the act of worship. Worship requires sacrifice.
Let’s see…
Do we go with (a) an examination of the actual language describing worship as recorded by the first century witnesses, or (b) a gnosticized mystic search for the right “emotion”.
Maybe prior to AD70, in the minds of the Judeans, but not in the words of the Torah, the Psalmists or the Prophets, nor Jesus and his Disciples… but other than that, I’m sure Marcion and Plato would agree with you…
So worship requires an absence of all distractions?
Again, according to whom?
What do mean if the heart is distracted? If I am serving God with all my heart, all my mind, and al my strength, while I’m mowing the yard, that is an act of worship.
I don’t need to drum up any certain type of special emotion or go to some secret in order to worship, even though those in and of themselves aren’t bad. God receives worship by His creation doing what it was created to do.
That’s why Creation itself can even worship God.
What that old John Piper quote? “God is most glorified in me when I am most satisfied in Him”. That seems to to have a lot of truth in it.
Rick,
Your concept of worship seems to require a solitary, isolated environment. I gather this because you seem to think it paramount to limit any and all distractions lest worship be tainted. Is that fair to say?
The problem with this is it more or less renders corporate worship if not something to be avoided than at least a lesser good. But this is contrary to the biblical witness which stresses the importance of gathering to worship. And any time you get people together you run the risk of distraction.
One of the major points of Hebrews is that worship doesn’t require anymore sacrifice because of the one sacrifice made for all by Jesus Christ.
I think Rick and Paul are worried that worship while mowing the lawn or doing the dishes or eating a meal will replace other modes of worship that they deem as more appropriate.
If so, they are mistaken. No one here (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that. All that I and I think Phil and Chris L are saying is that worship can and should be the posture of our lives all the time. There are moments where that worship is heightened and deepened and other moments where it may be less so. But it is, or can still be, deemed worship.
107: Neil. You hit the nail on the head. The bliss of brevity. Thanks.
I’m not getting involved with the emotion or sacrifice side of this discussion. But Neil answers the question that I have been trying to address:
Worship is an attitude of the heart.
There’s your starting point for any discussion on worship.
That’s basically what I’m getting at.
I’ve played in worship bands in one way or another for the last 15 years or so. One thing that has always annoyed me is when I get to the church or wherever the service is, and we setup, and than a pastor will come and say something to the band like, “let’s go pray so we can prepare for the service”. Well the fact is if I haven’t been in an attitude of worship the whole week prior to the service, spending 15 minutes praying before the service (which too often becomes something like a contest to see which band member can say the best prayer) isn’t going to really do much to change my attitude.
In order for me to really be the same person on the stage and off, I need to make sure my life is being lived in a way where I’m seeking God with all my heart, strength, and mind. I’m not saying that I do this well, or that I’ve not been hypocritical sometimes, but it is what I strive for.
#109 – No, I unfurled my sail and caught the wind and it blew me into the truth!
Who said anything different?
I would like to continue this discussion but I am in the midst of worshiping. (eating some pizza)
Before I began worsiping though I injected myself with some holy oil. (insulin)
Rick,
It is only true worship if your pizza has anchovies on it – 153 to be exact (some Bible trivia for you).
But what is the significance of 153?
It’s the number of fish Peter caught in John 21.
Yes, I know that.
I’m asking about why it was 153…
#118: Chad says
Maybe you have a short memory.
Rather than getting into one of the trusty rabbit-holes we find ourselves in more often than not, this caused me to ask you about “vain” worship, which Neil answered for us all correctly (#107).
Make sense?
Another day in the blogosphere I guess
It is the number of the Psalms plus the number of God.
Or, the number of Gentile Nations, as taught by the rabbis…
Paul C – 95 was a response to Rick in 93. We posted at the same time.
Get over yourself.
worship a “we” define it is expressing god’s greatness in response to his redemptive work in christ.”
At the risk of taking both sides – this is much more than just sunday morning – but it is that… and the bible assumes corporate worship.
on the other hand, expressing god’s greatness can be so much more, and involve other activities.
i hesitate, though, to go so far as to include everything from personal hygiene to sports.
at some point if “everything” is worship than there is nothing special about the church gathered, time set aside to worship.
if sleeping is worship because i glorify god when my body functions properly – i might as well sleep in on sundays.
if distractions negate worship,
i have never worshiped.
further, i think you can prepare for worship.
Neil, I agree with everything you have said above but you, like Rick and Paul, seem to be missing the point.
No one is saying everything IS worship but that everything CAN BE worship. Whatever we do in the course of the day can be done in such a way where we are mindful of God. No one is saying that everything is worship in some ontological sense.
I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand.
i did not miss the point i disagreed with it – at least in its severity.
i believe there is something different about setting time aside, whether corporate or personal, for specific worship.
let’s not equate disagreeing with misunderstanding… as if to say i would agree if only i understood.
Neil, you said “everything is worship” and I am saying that is missing the point.
so yeah, i’d say you misunderstand
i did not miss the point i disagreed with it – at least in its severity.
i believe there is something different about setting time aside, whether corporate or personal, for specific worship.
i saw the difference.
[between "is" and "can be"]
i understand the difference.
[between "is" and "can be"]
i still disagree.
Neil,
So you don’t believe that anything (within reason – remember, we are assuming actions done by Christians) can be an act of worship?
As do I. And from what I can tell, so does everyone else commenting.
It’s not an either/or but a both/and.
Because it would be good to be given a list of the things that can’t be done in a worshipful manner so that we can all just not do those things since we are called to offer our very bodies as living sacrifices as our spiritual acts of worship.
maybe i’m trying to nuance it too finely… or i want the proverbial cake and…
i understand the concept of glorifying god in all you do… that w/i reason as you say anything can bring glory to him.
i’m just not prepared to agree that brushing teeth or attending football is worship.
re 140: ask a little nicer and i may respond.
“Because it would be good to be given a list of the things that can’t be done in a worshipful manner…”
1. Arguing in a blog thread.
Thank you everyone for the great response to the OP.
Even though much of the comments centred on the “worship can and should include all activities in life” vs. “worship is a special time that requires special attention” debate, some great thoughts have been shared so far.
To me worship is a multi facetted concept and just as difficult to fully comprehend as other things concerning God.
I agree with the sentiment that all of life should be acts of worship to God. I love how Eugene Peterson translates Paul’s words in The Message (please don’t take this as a licence to hi-jack the thread in a “The Message is such a bad translation” campaign)
I think it is a theme through the epistles that we should honour, bring glory, ascribe worth to God through everything we do.
I think if we have this attitude of worship towards everything we do we will do a lot of things very different and some things not at all (without becoming legalistic about it). We all fall far short of this and that is an area of growth we should give attention to.
That said I also agree with Neil that when we look at worship this way we run the risk that we don’t value special times of worship when we focus our total attention on God. Do I want my cake and eat it? (#141) Well… I don’t think the two ideas are mutually exclusive. I think that there are special times of worship and that is what I want to address in the sermon. During these times Rick’s words ring true and he puts it so beautifully in comment #25:
These special worship times should be so valuable to us that we offer up our time to seek the presence of God and worship in reverence. This should include corporate worship, with a smaller group or alone with God. During these times we can expect to be transformed and that will impact our everyday lives so that it becomes acts of worship as Chad noted:
Great thoughts, Eugene. In the context of your words, I will agree to a certain amount of semantics that seem to agree in large part with each other.
I would suggest that we all agree to special times that are specifically set apart to come together to worship Christ. Call the rest of life what you will, but these times seem to be very special and many times are used of God’s Spirit to significantly change our lives.
In my 35 years of knowing Christ, I have been in hundreds of very special times of worship. I have been in maybe 8 where God’s Spirit and Christ’s presence were so manifested that I was broken in an unusual way.
One of those very special times was with 12 people with one guitar worshiping on a dirt floor in a hut on the mission field. Those times cannot be put on a CD, and I find myself longing to be in one again. Not that God doesn’t work in many other times, but just as Peter alluded to the Mount of Transfiguration, so do I remember certain times of extreme refreshing and breathtaking manifestations of the Lord’s presence.
In that I think we all agree.
Eugene,
Well said.
I was never arguing against the idea that there are times or thing that are more worshipful than others, or that we should treat some times as “special”. All I was arguing against was the idea that someone could label what is worship and what isn’t for someone else. I don’t believe that’s our job to do.
I’ve have profound worship experiences with God at church services, but I’ve also had profound worship experiences while doing things like hiking, reading a book, or even washing the dishes. I’m not saying there all equal or that there’s no difference between the them. All I’m saying is that I see no point in me saying about something, “that’s worship” or “that’s not worship”. Worship is truly a matter of the heart, I agree to that. And only the Father can truly know our hearts. That’s what I was taking issue with. If you say that worship is truly a matter of the heart, you cannot then turn around and say you somehow have the ability to know what it is in someone’s heart.
Agreed, Phil.
Phil, that is all I have been saying from the beginning of the thread.
Nothing more, nothing less than this.
If you look at some of the comments (from Chris L for example), the insinuation made was that because a person is a Christian, ALL that they do is automatically worship (ie: brushing teeth, using the bathroom, etc).
Chad even went so far as to question Rick (#93), asking why unbelievers can’t worship God.
Phil you mentioned something that I would like to look into a bit more:
Where can I find more information about this?
I didn’t get that from what Chris L or Chad wrote. How I read it is that that is how it should be. Like I said we fall short by far.
Eugene,
).
I have heard this from a few different sources. Probably one of the most recent ones where I read it was in the book Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus. If you do a Google search on the passage, you can find a few different commentaries as well (although, as always, don’t trust everything you read on the internet
This is getting tedious, but no one ever said that. No one said everything a Christian does is automatically worship, but rather, that it can be worship. You went as far to imply that if Chris were at a game with his family that he should not say it was a worshipful thing. That, in my opinion, is crossing the line from your personal opinion about something for yourself to issuing an edict about someone else’s experience.
I admit that it may be easy to become distracted by various things while at a football game, but that does not mean that is impossible to have an attitude of worship while at the game.
I actually believe that unbelievers can worship God. They are still His children and His creation, and I believe that they can express worship to Him even unintentionally sometimes.
Unregenerate sinners cannot worship who they do not know. (Acts) They can have a form of worship, but it is a lifeless structure. No one can worship God without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Unregenerate sinners are not the children of God. They are the children of the devil.
Incorrect.
I said that all they do (that is not sin) CAN BE worship, if they approach it with the correct heart.
Not that it is automatically worship.
Big difference.
See – here’s the rub as far as I see it.
We have finally arrived at a consensus that “worship is an attitude of the heart.”
Now, we say that an unbeliever can “worship” God unintentionally. Can they acknowledge God? Sure. But worship occurs within the heart and involves understanding. It involves spirit and truth.
Can you demonstrate how this makes sense?
Paul – You nailed it.
155: OK Chris L. I won’t argue against this further. To me, I feel more comfortable being honest (not insinuating you’re not) and just saying that if I’m brushing my teeth, I’m just brushing my teeth. If I’m watching the highlights of a football game, that’s what I’m doing. If you personally feel you’re worshiping (or can be) that’s fine.
?!?
They are Imago Dei, “regenerate” or not. Their current vector of destination is not reflective of God’s view of them.
An unbeliever cannot acknowledge “God” perse. He can only acknowledge an “existence”. He is dead in his sins and has a heart of stone until the Spirit gives him life.
In essence, the unbeliever can only acknowledge the office of “God” and not the Father Himself since without the Spirit he cannot know God – just His existence.
#159 – That does not authenticate a family relationship just because they look like God. My neighbor’s children may look like mine but they are not my children. It has nothing to do with their “vector of destination” which I never mentioned.
BTW Chris – Are you saying unregenerate sinners can worship their Father (God) because they are His children?
re 147 – agreed as well.
Well, I believe it makes more sense when you start looking at the world in the perspective of the Kingdom, which was the thing that Jesus talked about more than anything else. If the Kingdom of God is the realm wherever God is functionally King, wherever His will is done, than I believe that even people who don’t know Him can occasionally do things that are within His will. They can do things that proclaim His rule and reign, as it were.
This isn’t to say that there’s the same level of intimacy there as when a Christian worships, but it could be worship nonetheless. I have heard many testimonies from people who had experiences prior to becoming a Christian that caused them to literally fall down and worship God. It wasn’t until later that they looked back and saw that God was at work in their lives in ways they didn’t fully understand.
Probably 19 times out of 20 I am, as well, but I can think of occasional mornings when I am struck by something profound by God during that time that I’m showering and brushing my teeth – times where I express gratitude for what I have been given (far more than what I deserve) and recognize that it is all a gift, and not something truly of my own making.
And too often that is the case with me as well. But there is usually at least one game during the season (out of the 6 or 7 I go to) where I look at my kids sitting next to me, the friends I’ve made in the seats around me (including the Jewish couple behind me that I’ve had a number of conversations with about Christianity), and I feel the fall breeze and hear the roar of the crowd and I bless God for the freedoms we have, for the family he’s entrusted to me, for His wisdom in telling us to take time away from “useful work”, and a host of other things.
I should strive to have that kind of heart at all times, no matter what I’m doing – mundane or sacred.
Chris L: what would you make of this?
or
II Cor.6:17 – 18 – Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters…”
Yes. If He calls to them, as Phil notes, they can worship Him, even if they do not yet know fully who He is. It is His love that calls them, not their recognition of Him.
He is the shepherd, and the sheep (even the lost ones) hear His voice. Whether they answer it, He leaves up to them, but they are still creatures made in His image who can – even if they do not understand it – hear Him.
#165: that’s cool Chris L. I think we’re in the same boat on this. I’ve had the same kind of experiences. Deep thankfulness and gratitude welling up toward God for His abundant mercy, grace and love.
I have found that the inadequacies of language can be leveraged in any way we desire to plead the perspective we have established. And this process not only can lead to using the same Scriptures to prove two diametrically opposed views, it can often prove that truth itself is tethered to the mercurial nature of the human will, mind, heart, and environmental molding.
In short – we are truth.
#168 – Can you provide examples of this in the New Testament? How can objects of God’s wrath worship Him. Sure God calls them, but without the Holy Spirit no sinner can worship God in spirit and in truth.
What about the people worshipping Jesus as he made His way into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. Most of these people misunderstood what it meant that Jesus was the Messiah, but yet they worshiped Him.
As I alluded to earlier, I think that the term “spirit and truth” is taken in a more mystical way than what Jesus was originally getting at. Jewish worship at that time was centered on the Temple. If you asked an observant Jew how he worshiped Yahweh, he would most likely answer by saying something like, “by observing the Torah and making sacrifices at the temple”. So when Jesus says “true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth”, He isn’t making some mystical point. He’s getting to a point that’s related to the upcoming destruction of the Temple, and the eventually obsolescence of the Temple system. It hearkens back to the promises given in Isaiah and Ezekiel about the Lord pouring out His Spirit again, such as in Ezekiel 37:
So the point that Jesus is making isn’t about the correct methodology of worship per se, but rather, He’s letting the Samaritan woman know that the time promised in the prophets has arrived.
If you are suggesting that an uninformed worship structure can be considered a form of worship, then I agree. People worship all sorts of people and things. But those people in Jerusalem worshiped a caricature of theirt own vain imaginations, which is a form of worship, but is not in substance worshiping God.
They were worshiping their view of God and not the true and living God. They were worshiping another Jesus.
Does Cornelius count?
Cornelius was seeking. His prayers were answered with the gospel. As a matter of fact, when Peter entered the house of Cornelius, Cornelius began to worship Peter!
God commanded that Cornelius send men to seek Peter. Cornelius was born again and that event was rehearsed at the council in Jerusalem. No one can truly worship who they do not know and who the Spirit does not empower their worship.
From Piper’s view (my favorite
):
“take “in spirit” to mean that this true worship is carried along by the Holy Spirit and is happening mainly as an inward, spiritual event, not mainly as an outward bodily event. And I take “in truth” to mean that this true worship is a response to true views of God and is shaped and guided by true views of God.”
And yet it also said that his gifts had ‘come up before God.’ It also says he ‘prayed regularly to God.’ And it says when God sent him a vision and he responded ‘Lord.’
Funny that someone so involved in paganism would be noticed by God, the God of Jesus Christ. Strange, that.
Not strange at all. Gog loves and seeks lost sinners and responds redemptively to seeking sinners.
God hears all prayers and in fact all conversations. But without the One True Mediator, pagan prayers are processed redemptively and not in the same way when a believer prays to God through Christ. Unless you minimize the mediator and Intercessory ministry of Christ and the Spirit.
“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”
That’s all well and good for Gog, but what about Magog?
(I know, I know, that’s a cheap shot…)
Don’t forget Tubal too…
Gog and Magog Kettle.
isn’t “objects of wrath” a future potential as opposed to a present ontological state?
sure, those w/o christ are spiritually dead.
and sure, if they stay that way they will be subject to god’s ultimate judgment, i.e. wrath.
but not all are objects of his wrath at the present time. he is not putting forth judgment and/or wrath against them currently.
i’m not necessarily arguing for unbelievers worshiping. i just think this reference is too often misused – particularly as we’ve seen pastorboy try and play it off as cart blanche.
They are objects of a coming wrath in their present state. However they are loved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is a divine paradox which none of us fully understand.
I hate people with whom I am extremely angry. God loves them with whom He considers enemies.
That is why I am not God in case anyone was wondering.
so in that sense, is the fact that they are objects of potential coming wrath relevant to the argument?
Only to accentuate the concept that God does not hear their prayers or receive their worship in a relationship mode. Only through Christ can we be the sons of God.
I think people may be enemies of God, in the sense that they are living in a way that is counter His will, but I don’t believe He considers them His enemies in the sense that He no longer has enmity against them. That is really our job in Evangelism, to proclaim that Christ has made the way for reconciliation.
This is not necessarily saying that people are free but they just don’t know it. I believe people are still bound, and when they are saved, they are really set free. So from a person’s perspective, salvation really does come at a moment they begin a relationship with the Father through Christ. However, from God’s perspective, the work of salvation is complete, and nothing can be added or taken away from it.
I posted this Brennan Manning quote a few months ago, and it’s one of my favorite quotes from darn near any author. I believe Manning understand the heart of the Father more than most speakers or authors I’ve heard or read.
A great quote!
You know Rick, I want to believe what you wrote, but there’s a part of me that can’t. First of all, I have no idea what it means to say that ‘prayers are processed redemptively’; chapter, verse please?
It’s all nice to say that I have thusly ‘minimized’ the intercessory work of the Spirit and Son, but how else does God hear our prayers but through Jesus?
And besides, that’s not at all what Acts says about Cornelius’ prayers is it?
Not trying to argue at all. Rather, trying to figure out how ‘we’ know that God does or doesn’t answer the prayers of ‘pagans’ when it seems rather clear that he does. Unless of course you minimize the Old Testament.
Well, at least you have been open and admitted you believe God answers the prayers of pagans. I do commend you on your open honesty.
that god answers the prayers of unbelievers is obvious – lest none could repent (as well as confirming visions) the question is – which prayers does he hear/might he answer?
OK. I don’t know if that is a compliment or a slam, but that’s cool.
Again, chapter and verse, please, where it says he doesn’t. Because when I read the Bible I see the prayers of people being answered. Sometimes, in fact, I’m inclined to think he answers the prayers of unbelievers before those of believers.
Thanks for your time.
“I’m inclined to think he answers the prayers of unbelievers before those of believers.”
Chapter and verse?
(That is quite an odd view of our covenant relationship.)
Well, I think Scripture doesn’t tell us a lot about the prayers of people not in relationship with God simply because Scripture’s primary concern is telling the story of the people of God.
Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that God answers prayers of people not in a relationship with Him. I have heard far too many testimonies of people praying for something before they were a Christian and God answering them in a very specific way to just chalk it up to coincidence.
Whether, He answers them before or after, I guess there’s no way to really know that. I’d say in some sense it doesn’t matter.
If your experience is your view that is fine. And to say it is true even while Scripture doesn’t bring that out is your view as well.
But Jerry said God answers the prayers of unbelievers before the prayers of believers. Would you care to address that statement thouroughly?
(Also, I have heard Muslims and Buddhists claim answers to prayer even though they prayed in the name of a false god. Am I to believe them?)
To say God answers the prayers of sinners who follow false gods and are driven by the spirits of antichrist is absurd. But to say God answers their prayers before He answers the prayers of His own covenant children boggles the mind. Is there anything unbiblical anymore unless it comes from the list of “not like us” list? There are some things that are settled truth, I think.
If you study voodoo, you will see that people who adhere to this structure also have their prayers “answered”. Of course, there is a trade-off (further bondage/fear).
I once spoke to a Muslim professor on a flight back from Africa who said that they also experience miracles and such in Islam.
I would be interested to know if Cornelius was actually a pagan. He lived in Caesarea and was exposed to the Jewish faith. He seems to have believed in the One True God and lived accordingly. I am not saying he was a full-fledged Jew or that he had perfect understanding, but was he in fact a pagan?
How can a pagan or unbeliever be sure those prayers were answered by God and not the devil?
There is ONLY ONE mediator – Christ Jesus. How are pagans getting access to God without Jesus?
Cornelius was a God-fearer. They were not considered pagan. They were Gentiles who had adopted some practices of Judaism without becoming full-blown converts, which in Cornelius’ case meant that he was not circumcised.
They can’t. And this is where a person who has only lived in North America might be a little surprised. People who openly worship and pray to demons receive “healing” and “deliverance” (again – always with a massive trade-off). They believe their prayers are answered.
198: thanks Phil. That’s what I thought.
So, it would be fair to say that he would not simply be classified as a pagan having his prayers answered. He lacked full understanding to be sure (as do we all), but he believed God and lived according to His laws, seeking to please Him.
God gives dreams and warnings and speaks to pagans. We know this, of course. But Christ is the bridge to God, upon which all must cross.
“God gives dreams and warnings and speaks to pagans. We know this, of course. But Christ is the bridge to God, upon which all must cross.”
Everything God gives to unbelievers is to draw them to Christ. God is not interested in answering unbeliever prayers and make them feel they are connected to Him.
For one thing, I don’t think God is insecure. He blesses people all the time and doesn’t receive the credit, so I don’t really follow this reasoning.
As far as demons performing miracles, I do actually believe this happens. But I don’t think that if an unbeliever cries out in a moment of desperation, “God help me!” that it is a demon that comes running to his aid. I believe God is merciful and does answer these prayers sometimes.
Christ’s role as a mediator has to do with His making the role of the Temple and the Jewish High Priest obsolete. He is the mediator in the sense that no additional sacrifice is required in order for us to have a real relationship with the Father. Saying the Christ is the mediator doesn’t mean that the Father doesn’t hear any other prayers but those from Christians. When the Jews prayed, they did not have to pray through the High Priest. An individual Jew could and most often did pray individually to God.
Not complete.
“No man comes to the Father but by me…”
Remember also the parable of the Vine. Detached from Him? Cut off from God.
“No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”
To distill this down to a matter of “insecurity” is silly. In times past (Acts 17) God winked at such ignorance, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent.
Christ is more than a high priest, though this is certainly a type he has fulfilled. He is the mediator – the bridge – of the new covenant.
Rick, Is it not you who have continually reminded us that God ’sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous alike’?
So again, chapter and verse where it says that God doesn’t answer the prayers of ‘pagans.’ Thank you.
“And all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved.”
Sounds to me like there are some who are unsaved, who call on the Name of the Lord, and God hears that call.
And then there’s the question of the Jews…
They pray to the same God as we, but yet many of them do not accept Jesus (many of them do not accept that He is part of a triune God, because that would be idolatry). Does God answer their prayers? Faithful or not, they are still blessed by Him – the Covenant with Abraham did not have an expiration date…
So, when they pray, does God hear their prayers before they come to recognize Jesus?
The Abrahamic covenant was for those who trusted God by faith for all time. Read Romans 4. Those who are born again by grace through faith are true Israel.
Chris L – doesn’t Jesus deal with this in John 8. He acknowledges that they are physically the children of Abraham (:37). Yet when they insisted on this point He says:
The aspect of bringing Abraham into the discussion is one of faith according to my understanding.
Also, the first part of Romans 7 does a good job demonstrating that the old covenant is dead, freeing the married woman (Jews) to be married to the new covenant in Christ.
Yes, that’s what I’m getting at to some degree. Christ is more than just a mediator.
If we are going to use a bridge metaphor (which I don’t particularly like), I’d say the bridge is from God to us. God bridged the gap himself by coming to our rescue. The bridge isn’t something that was put in place for us to walk across, it was put there so God could come to our rescue while we were still sinners.
So to me to spend all this energy arguing that God doesn’t answer the prayers of unbelievers is simply silly. God has always been answering the prayers of unbelievers. If He didn’t we’d all be out of luck.
What makes you think that Jesus is talking about all Jews in this passage and not just the group of Pharisees and onlookers in the temple courts when He said these things? Were all the Jews in Israel looking to kill Jesus?
“They pray to the same God as we..”
No they do not. Our God’s name is Jesus. There is no other God.
210: that’s my point.
Abraham’s covenant is one of faith. Just because they could claim a physical heritage to Abraham, this didn’t avail much in the sight of Christ.
Just for a bit of context he was speaking to those who put their trust in Him. He then told them about being set free, which started this firestorm (”We were never in bondage!”). These weren’t the Pharisees (who were moments earlier chastened and walked away with the incident of the woman caught in adultery).
Our God’s name is YHWH – He is creator of the universe. He is in triune nature with Jesus (the Word) and the Ruach Hakodesh (the Holy Spirit).
Orthodox Jews believe in God, and they believe in the Ruach Hakodesh, but they do not believe the Jesus is the Word from Genesis 1.
Exactly. He is speaking to a specific audience, and not a people.
He who denies the Son, denies He who bgat the Son. If you deny Jesus, you deny God – even if you are a Jew in the flseh. In fact, in the spirit, you are no more or less a lost sinner as is Hugh Hefner.
Romans 7 does not say that at all!
Romans 11 even makes it clear that we are grafted into the old tree, not a wholly new one.
He who denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is a liar and an antichrist.
Romans 11 tells us they were cut off because of unbelief. They are not blessed anymore – we are.
Yes, they were, as this whole exchange begins with this:
Even so, we are told in verse 30 that there were some Jews in this crowd who put their faith in Jesus.
All I’m saying is that I don’t believe we can paint a caricature of Jesus trying to outright condemn all Judaic practice of His day. As far we can tell, Jesus was an observant Jew. The fact that we are told that He wore tassels tells us that He observed Judaism in a way that was in line with other Jews of His day.
What is the definition of “cut off”? They have a zeal for God but without knowledge. They go about attempting to establish their own righteousness and refuse the righteousness of God in Christ.
I am amazed that you guys believe all kinds of people pray to the same God and He answers all sorts of prayers. If you do not pray in Jesus’ name you are going through a religious format but you are not having access to the throne which can only be entered by the grace of Jesus Christ.
But it also says, that they did not “stumble so as to fall beyond recovery”.
But in any case, the point of Romans is exactly that one group can’t claim any sort of special status over the other. If the natural branches can be cut off, than the branches that were grafted certainly have no room to boast that they are more blessed than the natural ones. They too are fully dependent on the grace of God.
Even if you are a Jew in the flesh, you are still one of God’s chosen people. That did not cease with Jesus. (I will note that “chosen” is not equivalent to “saved”, but that it is not ranked with “unbelief” either).
The disciples and their churches in Israel and Asia Minor worshiped alongside Jews in synagogues for 100-300 years (depending upon the location). The more Palestinian Jews turned on Christians after they refused to fight Rome in AD70 and the Bar Kochba Revolt in AD135. In the 300’s, Christians turned on the Jews when Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire. And then later, we had Luther…
The disciples treated the Jews who did not yet believe in Jesus as Savior as “God-fearers”, and not rank unbelievers. We should do the same.
I’ll let God’s promise to Abraham stand for itself. God’s covenants have no end dates. Only man has added to them, as you do here.
“They too are fully dependent on the grace of God.”
This isn’t some nebulous grace; this grace only comes through Jesus Christ. He who has not the Son has not life and the wrath of God is upon Him.
No Jew or Gentile or Arab etc. can approach God except through Jesus Christ. That is the exclusivity of Christ. Do you believe that only through personal faith in Christ can a sinner be saved??
You seem to be saying something to the point of that if we don’t say “in Jesus name” or explicitly pray in His name that God simply doesn’t hear our prayers.
If that’s the case, why when Jesus when He tells the disciples how to pray and gives them the Lord’s prayer does He not say anything about it being in His name?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, because I’ve actually heard people make a huge deal of saying “in the name of Jesus” while praying. But is that what you’re getting at?
Paul had a lot to say about the Jews and most of it wasn’t that they are still God’s people. That is an made. Meshing the OT with the NT is antithetical to the gospel. There are only saved sinners and lost sinners. The Jew thing means nothing.
224 – That is not my point at all. Do you, Phil, believe as Jerry stated that God answers prayers of unbelievers before He answers the prayers of His own children? I realize Jerry is a writer and your discernment of his statement, regardless how absurd, are given a major league pass.
That is heresy, plain and simple.
Praying in Jesus’ name means praying in the New Covenant.
They believe in the Spirit as representative of a person? No. They believe it is the Spirit of God.
Chris, he is speaking of the law now being dead, replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Essentially, the Jews who are in Christ are free from the ceremonial law (dead).
It is not a matter of what you say (ie: “In Jesus’ name”) but the fact that you are approaching God through the authority given through Christ. You can’t do an end-run around Christ to the Father.
I am beginning to see why some of the Authors on this site consider the RCC legit (ie: praying to/through saints). Interesting as this hasn’t really come out before.
If it meant nothing, than why in the world did God even bother making a covenant with them in the first place?
Jesus is actually the fulfillment of the covenant the God made with the Jews. His very name means “YHWH saves”. So to say that we can just ignore or completely discount the Jewishness of Jesus is pretty bold.
I do believe God will answer prayers of people who pray to Him even if they are estranged from Him. I think Jerry was using the word “before” simply to emphasize his point. God is an infinite being, so it’s not like He has a limited amount of resources at His disposal where He has to prioritize prayer requests. That’s why everyone who prays truly has His undivided attention.
Let me ask this.
If an earthly father had a son who was completely estranged from him, let’s say they haven’t talked in 20 years, and one day the son found himself in very dire straits and as a last-ditch effort decided to call his father and ask for help. Don’t you think there’s a good chance that in many cases, that father would help that son despite the years of pain and silence that separated them? If an earthly father would do that, why wouldn’t we expect our heavenly Father to do the same?
If someone legitimately calls on His name, even if they may not understand completely what they’re doing, will not the Father give them grace?
They are all part of the same entity, not completely disconnected, nor is the OT “irrelevant”, as some Christians treat it.
I believe that God causes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on believers and unbelievers. I believe that He answers all prayers directed to Him. ALL of them, whether from fully-cognizant believers or those who have no consciously formed belief of him. Whether He answers them in ways they/we would like, is another matter.
I don’t know where Jerry gets the “order of answers” from, and until I see a reference, I would disagree that there is any favoritism in either direction.
You are mixing salvation (which is through Christ) with Prayer, Paul.
Just a sampling:
“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut 6:4)
“Answer me when I call to you, O my righteous God. Give me relief from my distress; be merciful to me and hear my prayer.” (Psalm 4:1)
“I call on you, O God, for you will answer me; give ear to me and hear my prayer.” (Psalm 17:6)
“Hear my prayer, O God; listen to the words of my mouth.” (Psalm 54:2)
“Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.” (Isaiah 38:5)
“On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.” (Acts 4:23-24)
“At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him” (Acts 10:1-3)
“About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them.” (Acts 16:25)
“I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.” (Romans 15:30)
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.” (Philippians 4:6)
And on, and on…
Seems like an awful lot of folks are praying directly to God, and not “in Jesus’ name”…
You missed my point. I said it is not so much important that you say “In Jesus’ Name”, but rather that it is through the authority in Christ that we approach the Father (in the NT era).
This has nothing to do with prayer – it has to do with atonement – two completely different things.
The disciples (in the NT) asked Jesus how to pray.
His answers:
and
He does not tell them that they must pray in his (Jesus’) authority. They are to pray directly to God. [And - Jesus' answer was probably confusing to them, because they had already been praying this prayer as part of the shmona esra since they were toddlers.]
That is what Jerry said. He DID NOT say anything in absolutes. Please read without the “absolute” glasses on. I sometimes feel the same way….I pray and pray and pray, getting seemingly no answer, and Jane Pagan over there, who cheated on her taxes and lied to her boss and neglects her family, well she had some major prayer answered. God often seems abundantly more vocal in seeking out the lost than He does in answering my life-questioning prayers. If He did in fact come for the lost, and the healthy don’t need a doctor, then maybe, just maybe, He takes a lost person’s prayer and acts more apparently than mine. And the idea that Jerry REALLY meant God acts on one prayer BEFORE another, because God has to prioritize since He can’t do it all at once….sheesh, people. Gracious reading involves clarifying in a gentle way a point that you think may be ridiculous….. because what if, just maybe, it didn’t come out quite as intended or you read it poorly? I know that never happens, but….
I think that’s a fair reading of what I meant.
Chris L,
Jesus is is the ultimate fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel which many of them have, indeed, rejected. All God’s redemption of national Israel will be through the Son, effected by the Son and to the Son’s glory, no matter what your escatology. Even under the Old Covenant all Israel was not saved.
(1) Anyone saved or unsaved can pray to God and God may of course “answer” any prayer He so chooses. God is omnicient and hears all and can choose to respond as He sees fit. We can rest assured that God’s answers to prayers are always the “right answer” and I would be very secure in positing that all God’s answers to the unsaved prayers’ are redemptive in nature.
An unsaved father may pray to God for the life of his sick child, for example and God could send healing if He so wills.
But when I read many of the comments here it is almost as if their is an utter distain for the People of God and a refusal to recognize our unique status. A status that is by God, through God and for God’s glory, but none the less a unique status. The Redeemed, the Called Out, the Church of God is a special people with a unique relationship to God. Again, the tone of several here is to seemingly champion the sinner so to speak and to degrade the Child of God.
Though God loves all, all sinners are NOT repentant, and it is the repentant sinner who receives God’s favor not the unrepentant. Jesus commended the REPENTANT sinner and not the sinners still reveling in their sin. And although hypocritical Believers (of which I am one) often bring shame to the name of Christ and cause the gentiles to blaspheme the name of Christ, we still non-the-less hold a special position and are the Children of God.
#238: good comments John. I think you strike the balance in that God is omniscient and is not bound, yet He cares especially for His sheep.
There are a few things I’ve observed that I think are fundamentally wrong on this thread (the latter part):
1. children: though all mankind is created in the image of God, we have been marred by sin. When we accept Christ – and only then – are we adopted as children into the family of God, and God becomes a Father.
2. Zan said:
This is why I believe God gives us His word. Think of Psalm 73, when a young man named Asaph almost backslid because of what he observed about the ease the ungodly enjoy while he, trying his best to please God, was suffering daily. What’s the point? he almost asked – until he went to the house of God and understood a few things.
I appreciate the honesty and openness in questioning like Asaph did, but we should also arrive at the same conclusion he did at the end of the Psalm. Breath-taking.
3. Israel: the tabernacle of David has fallen down (Acts 15) and the Jews are largely blinded from the glory of Christ (still veiled as per 2 Cor 3). God will return to them before the end of this age, but until then they are involved in a dead covenant – see Romans 7.
Paul,
I appreciate your thoughts, and I love the Psalm 73 reference. Thank you!
I guess I see it a little like the prodigal son’s brother….we need to be that brother with a better attitude. We need to be ok with God, for a time, showering a little extra attention on a lost sheep, because, as John Hughes mentioned in 238, God’s answers are often redemptive in purpose. We who already know the peace of God and the life of a child of God should be willing to stand aside for those still lost. That being said, I too often act like the brother actually did and wonder why I am not hearing from God…at least as quickly as I would like!
I like your thoughts on this Zan. the only thing I would say is that we should not just stand aside, but actively proclaim the goodness of God we ourselves have tasted.
As my pastor said this weekend, “Salvation is one beggar showing another beggar where to find bread.”
Often in the same boat.
We cannot overestimate, and we should never underestimate, the uniqueness and exclusivity of Jesus, His church, His covenant, and the ministry of God’s Spirit indwelling in each believer.
I take a back seat to no one in proclaiming that the sacrifice of Christ was for everyone, but until a sinner is in the blood covenant with God through Christ he has no right to any of the promises.
God always deals with the lost with a view toward redemption but never as in an authentic relationship. If God heals the child of a lost sinner it isn’t primarily because the sinner asks Him (all parents ask that), but it will be part of a plan to draw that sinner to Christ.
242 – Exactly.
Zan, you are so balanced. So, how did you marry you-know-who?
Maybe that’s why we married….he balances me out on a number of other issues that just don’t happen to be so visible!
Rick, it isn’t that I necessarily disagree with anything you say in 242, but I also don’t ever like to put an absolute on God. I can say things like, “The Bible says X about this” or “I have seen predominantly Y”, but I have been learning that I should never limit how God may work. This is very hard for me, admittedly, because I am a B&W, recovering legalist who likes routine and consistency. But I don’t want to ever be accused (by God, especially) of assigning His actions (or disallowing a possibility of action) in a lost person’s life to something less than ultimately God-ordained. Does that make sense? A fine line, I know….but aren’t so many things in a Christians life?
i tend to agree.
while this true,it is true in christ. to be a child of abraham, to be a chosen race, is to be chosen in christ.
i do not know what place the jew has in god’s heart compared to the druid – but they are equally lost.
and in christ i am of the chosen people.
chris l, i agree this to be true… but if a muslims calls out to allah, so example, it is not directed to him.
yet they are all in covenant relationship with him, is that not assumed?
248 (and your other comments 245-247): I agree. The covenant relationship is assumed. Just like when Jesus says, “It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but unto them it is not given…” It is completely understood that He is the missing link.
I see no disdain for Christians, other than the superiority they tend to exhibit when looking upon sinners, quite easily referring to them as “children of wrath” (a future state, not yet determined).
I recall a Jewish rabbi telling a story about a shepherd who left 99 sheep to go seek out a single one that was lost.
I also recall another rabbi who followed that rabbi who talked of God’s exceeding love and patience when dealing with those whom He chose, for no virtue of their own, to rescue from bondage in Egypt.
Even if many of them have not yet accepted Jesus, they do not worship or pray to a false God, and they are still part of a covenant with the One True God. There is nothing in Scripture which suggests that their prayers to Him fall upon deaf ears. Even now, their existence as a remnant should be a reminder to us of God’s love and patience when dealing with those whom He has created a covenant with.
“Keys to the kingdom” is a rabbinic phrase that refers to knowing the proper application of a parable or a set of parables. You’re making up meanings where none exist.
#250 –
Well said
In what way? Let’s see what the Bible actually says…
This is because of the grace of God through faith in Christ. I am not sure where your “keys to the kingdom” reference comes in here (unless you’re referring to Matt 16?).
I would be the first to affirm that the Jews are God’s people, though held in darkness largely until now. He will return again and “rebuild the tabernacle of David which is fallen” signifying His faithfulness, despite their rejection. Right now, as a nation, they are dead in sin.
As I said earlier, I’m not going to concern myself with whose prayers God will and won’t answer. He is God.
But the only covenant in place right now is the New Covenant through Christ, opened to us by faith in him. The Old Covenant – through Moses – has passed away, hence the term “old”.
Paul,
Rather than copy and paste, please read this article I posted earlier which deals with the issue of the “keys to the kingdom” (since you didn’t quote the entire context, choosing to prooftext the single verse). I’m referring to the synoptic equivalent to Matt 13 in Luke. The “them” here is not synonymous with “unbelievers” or “all Jews”, but rather the crowds that were listening to the specific parables.
The “old” one was not done away with – Christ came to fulfill it, not abolish it. God’s promise to Abraham is still in effect, even though Gentiles have been grafted into it.
So just so I can be clear, Chris. Are you saying that an orthodox Jew who does not believe in Jesus but believes in the God of Abraham will be saved when he dies? (Goes where believers in Jesus will go.)
I don’t think that’s what Chris is saying, but I’ll let him speak for himself.
The way I see it, is that the covenant that God made with Abraham wasn’t disposed, but rather it was the law associated with that covenant that is obsolete. In other words, the way someone becomes a partaker of and stays in the covenant has changed.
As Paul makes clear in Romans, God did not abandon the Jews. Rather, in some sense, it was the Jews that abandoned God. So a Jew has the same access to Christ as a Gentile now and vice versa.
It’s interesting how much the paradigm of “old” and “new” plays into Scriptural interpretation. Many times when Scripture speaks of something new coming to supercede the old, it is not that the old is disposed of. The old is renewed. So in a very real sense, the new covenant is a renewal and expansion of the old, and Jesus is the one who initiated this renewing. And just as before, the just shall live by faith. So just as their is discontinuity from the old to the new, there is also continuity.
What good is a covenant when that person dies and goes to hell?
You can use any verbiage you wish, i.e. Christ fulfilled the OT, or supercede, or renewed, but that avoids the question. I will grant all those descriptions.
My question is this: If God still is honoring an Abrahamic covenant with orthodox Jews who do not believe in Jesus, upon that Jew’s death will God’s grace allow him to spend eternity with Jehovah and not separated from Jehovah?
My personal view of the Abrhamic covenant is similar to Chris’s view of the “children of wrath”. That Abrhamic covenant will be fulfilled in the future to the living Jews at the end, but the unbelieving Jews today, just like the unbelieving Gentiles, are without a covenant sine the only valid cobenant today is cut by faith through the blood of Christ.
In fulfilling the old covenant, Christ replaced it with a new covenant, through faith and trust in Him as the propitiation for sin.
The tabernacle of David is fallen down, but God will return to the Jews again (hence the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant – as Rick says in #259).
But right now, though the Jew pray to God – if he does so without faith in Christ, what does it profit him?
How do you get around scriptures like this?
The Jews of the OT had little belief and not focus on the afterlife. The promise of God’s covenant with Abraham was that God would provide them with children (a continued line of people, set apart from the rest of the world – which they still are today) and land, and that in return they would be blessed in order to be a blessing to others. What comes after was not a concern. God had saved them, so they would worship Him and preserve His word (which was the purpose of being “chosen”).
An observant Jew would follow God and obey His commands regardless of his outcome in the afterlife. Questions and developed beliefs about the afterlife didn’t come onto the scene until the Jewish persecutions during the Ptolemaic Greek period in the third century B.C.
Is that any of our business?
I would say that in the context of the Great Commission it is our highest business, but I acknowledge your dodge. No one spends eternity with Christ who dies in their sins without believing in Jesus. (Notice no ambiguity)
I sometimes am…uh…surprised when we have to go back to Christianity 101. But I am happy to retrain those who are in need. I am not looking for gratitude, I receive enough just by shining the light of truth.
FYI – I’m not trying to be coy. This is the same answer I gave to Chad when he asked a similar question. (i.e. Jesus’ answer to Peter – “what is it to you”, as it pertains to God’s decisions about someone other than you).
I do believe in hell, and I do believe that it (very regrettably) will be populated. But I’m not willing to say who will be in and who will be out, other than that it will be those whose names are not in the Book of Life. At the same time, I would agree with Phil. God’s covenant with Abraham has not been nullified, nor are the Christians a “new olive tree”. How God deals with those He chose to carry on His word 4000 years ago is up to Him. He is their God and He is ours.
There are many observant Jews who accept the stories of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, but do not put him as equal with God, because God commanded that He is One, and that worshiping a man as equal to YHWH is blasphemy. So their “no” to Jesus is out of a “yes” to God. How God chooses to deal with that is up to Him. I cannot deny, though, that they are worshiping the same God – YHWH – as I. I will allow God to deal with them as He will.
Also, having slept and prayed about Jerry’s comment about God listening to the prayers of “unbelievers” before those of Christians, I am inclined to believe – per Jesus’ parable of the lost sheep – that Jerry’s inclination may be right, and that God may give a special ear to the prayers of lost sheep. In his parallel parable, I see that we may be in the role of the older brother who is indignant at the amount of time, energy and concern that the Father gives to the prodigal son – even before he has returned home…
Let me put this in stark relief. Who cares whether God answers the prayers of this one or that one – either He does or He does not. I have my conviction about it.
But when you suggest that a lost sinner can die without Christ and get to “heaven” based upon his faith in an Abrahamic covenant, that is just pure heresy and makes the Abrahamic covenant on a par with the Jesus Covenant that we observe in communion.
The Abrahamic ovenant pointed to Christ – we are the stars in the Spirit. The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled in Christ, however there are some hints about God drawing the end time Jews to Himself through Jesus Christ and that event might be considered His promise to Abraham.
When a Jew dies today without Christ he goes to the same place as does a lost Gentile.
Yes, but once you’re in the club, God pretty much leaves you on your own.
This is a flight of fancy and not even what I think Jerry was saying (though he can correct me).
Again, this is what happens when we abandon scripture in place of commentary and imagination.
Even though there is not a single mention of it in the OT (which you seem to lean very, very heavily on) or the epistles or Acts or…
The question of life after death has been the question of the ages for all peoples and all faiths.
There are several instances in the OT that reflect a concern with the afterlife and the promises of God. While I agree the focus is not as great as in the NT, it is there nonetheless.
From the oldest book we read:
or Daniel:
They believed (correctly) in a resurrection at the end of this age. Isaiah refers to a new heavens and a new earth – a renewed creation. There are several, several references to a resurrection at the end.
Paul – Even though you do not believe in hell, do you believe those that die outside Christ will spend eternity with Christ?
Just for a scripture reference:
And please, don’t fall back on your argument that I or anyone else is hardened to the plight of the lost (as per previous comments that insinuate that). What you’re arguing sounds pretty much like universalism – a more tamed version. In effect, you are saying God is covering all His bases – the Jews are a-OK through Abraham, now for the Gentiles…
No. But I would not presume to know who is in Christ or not as many people will be surprised in the end.
God has hung everything on His Son and expects us to spread the news that man can be freed from death through Him. This is the gospel: that God is reconciling the world to Himself through Christ.
No end runs as some would love to believe.
I agree. Only God know who are wheat and who are tares. However in the bastract, no one can die outside Christ and spend eternity with God. The lost will either spend eternity in hell, or be consumed – take your pick.
That is your opinion.
I’ll let God decide that one, following the example of the early Christian church who treated the Jews as being different, under Scripture, than unbelieving gentiles. I would not that this attitude included the Christian church in Jerusalem under James, the brother of Christ. I believe that we should take the Gospel to Jews, no question, but I’m not going to be so arrogant to tell them that they’re worshiping the wrong God, when in fact, they are not.
For clarification, ALL of us go to the same place when we die – bar none. We die – absence of life.
Also, see the 3 references to resurrection “at the last day” in John 6, as well as Mary’s remarks about the “last day” regarding Lazarus (John 11). There are dozens.
Again – just a point of clarity that might help.
I never said (and I didn’t take it that Jerry said) that “once you’re in the club, God pretty much leaves you on your own”. Even so, from the father’s treatment of the older brother, and the indignation of the older brother at the treatment, I suspect that many Christians’ view of unbelievers – the lost sheep in this world – is right on par with his (the older brothers’).
Actually, in the Psalms and Daniel, the question of the Book of Life and its importance is on the table. As for leaning “very, very heavily on” the OT, if that means that I at least consider what it has to say, rather than calling it “old” and “irrelevant” and “superseded”, then so be it.
I do consider it possible (based on the descriptions in Rev 20) that annihilation may be the ultimate destination of hell and those in it (which I believe is more in line w/ your view).
For a Hebrew people in the OT, the primary consideration of “life after death” had to do with children and further descendants and the individual’s remembered legacy. The view we have of the afterlife is far more developed, and heavily influenced by the Babylonian and Greek views of the afterlife, not the OT view of it.
For one thing the question of heaven and hell wasn’t the question that seemed to drive the early Christians. To turn the issue of covenant relationship into one of a binary end would seem a bit foreign.
Certainly, the idea that God would be faithful to His people at the final resurrection was an idea that was prevalent in Second Temple Judaism, and there was a concept of a judgment for those estranged from God. As far as determining who was evil and just, I would suppose that like the Jews, the early Christians would trust God to make that determination.
Not at all. The OT covenant with the Hebrew peoples was not rooted in promises about the afterlife, but rather the impact upon this life: Children. Land. I will be your God. Your people will never die out. Your people will preserve the Torah for the nations. The question of the afterlife to the Jews of the OT was completely up to God, and not something you dwelt on (the way we Westerners do).
I’m not saying the Jews are “a-OK” through Abraham. I’m saying that the covenant to them has never been nullified. That covenant was not centered on an afterlife. If God chooses to add it to that covenant, that is up to Him, but it is not something the Jews should count on (since the Hebrew Scriptures do not treat it as part of the covenant). Even so, it is not our place to nullify it and call Jews “unbelievers” (which is inclusive of both YHWH and “YHWH-saves”- Yeshua).
I can’t believe what I’m hearing here Chris. Are you basically saying that Christ introduced the concept of eternal life as an answer to pagan religious influence?
I quoted a couple verses above (such as Job, Daniel – and there are others) that clearly show that consideration of a new creation was important. It has become more clear and important with us, but you seem to nullify it altogether. Now, you seem to be saying it’s more due to pagan influence.
I lean heavily on the OT account myself and don’t see it as irrelevant in the least. I see it as pointing the way to Christ who had yet to come.
Hebrews 11 is a good picture as to how I see it.
This may be true, depending on your personal experience and general observation. But Jerry (I don’t think, based on his agreement with Zan) was really saying this.
He (and Zan) were saying that it seems that faithless people seem to have things working a-OK while those who believe suffer as if God doesn’t hear them. That’s when I mentioned Psalm 73 – we’re in good company.
Regardless, your assertion is not particularly valid or factual. If you left it at, “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” that would be fine.
Chris, can you please explain:
How do you rationalize this?
Or…
The way I see it: God sent His Son to redeem His people from sin. he was doing all He could, short of forcing them to believe. Christ was a herald – yet He was rejected.
As a result of their unbelief (but part of God’s plan), they cut themselves off from God. For a time. God is visiting the Gentiles right now, but true to His word, will return and rebuild the tabernacle of David which is fallen (Acts 15).
I see the Jews as a unique people because of this. But they are lost right now.
What the early Christians did and thought is not relevant, unless they had ek cathedra. The Scriptures are the only source of spiritual truth, and extrapolating such specifics from parables like the Prodigal Son is extremely subjective and weighted toward what the parable might have said, not what it does say.
The Prodigal Son parable teaches self righteousness and may have been to reveal the coming introduction of the Gentiles in the New Covenant. It has nothing to do with what Christ “suggests” in might say.
Parables can say anything you want them to say if you journey away from the obvious principle.
“It has nothing to do with what Chris “suggests” it might say.”
“Even so, from the father’s treatment of the older brother, and the indignation of the older brother at the treatment, I suspect that many Christians’ view of unbelievers – the lost sheep in this world – is right on par with his (the older brothers’). ”
Apples and oranges. We all should have compassion for the lost, but that doesn’t mean we should not see some as lost.
Or we just let God determine who’s lost, and minister to all…
No – I’m saying that Jesus used the view of the afterlife in the first century Hebrew traditions (with that view of the afterlife having been influenced by Babylonian dualism and Greek mythology, since the Hebrew Scriptures have so little to say on its workings) as the substrate for his commentary on the afterlife. I’m not accusing him of syncretism.
I’ll go with the scholars on this one, and you can go w/ the Frueh view.
I consider the disciples’ actions relevant. And, considering that they (and their churches) worshiped in the synagogues with the Jews for a couple of hundred years, I’d say that their view of Jews was somewhat different than your “enlightened” view…
Sorry – rereading that, it came off a bit more snarky than intended.
The view of the prodigal son as casting the older brother as the Jewish faith was a product of Luther, and does not fit contextually or chronologically with the Gospel account. The prodigal son, by all rights and definitions was truly “dead” to the father (and thus, the older brother, as well). The father’s act of compassion was scandalous and beyond what was believed to be the bounds of grace
The divine intent = the Frueh view.
I offer internet degrees.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am reading this as if it had been doused in a flood of sarcasm right? I mean, that’s not even remotely close to what the parable of the prodigal teaches. So you are just being absurd to illustrate absurdity right?
Jerry – Since you have the approved interpretation, enlighten us with your parabolic acumen. Unless you are being absurd to illustrate the absudity right?
(Now this is doused in sarcasm.)
* Hint: Next time tell us what you think it teaches and I will tell you if you are remotely close.
Rick,
a, that wasn’t the point.
b, with each passing comment you seem angrier and angrier. what’s up with all the hostility?
c, Tim Keller’s book The Prodigal God is a good place to start.
good night Rick.
I can vouch for Chris L – he is not a universalist. But he one day will be
Rick, I will never understand your dismissal of the traditions, thoughts and prayers of the saints who have gone before us. Especially since you seem to be desirous, by your very presence here, of convincing others that your traditions, thoughts and prayers are relevant.
It leads one to logically conclude that the best compliment one could pay you is to dismiss everything you say as irrelevant.
Everyting I say is irrelevant as it pertains to the interpretation of Scripture. I claim no divine authority over anyone else.
Jerry – Let me share with you a view from the cheap seats. I have studied, taught, and preached about the parable of the prodigal son for 40 years this March. During that span I have seen people saved and others repent and return to Christ under the preaching of that parable. And although there may be some Jewish significance to it, I believe that self righteousness is a main and core component of the teaching.
So you can imagine what I think when someone doesn’t just disagree and present a different view, but suggests that my view isn’t remotely true and in fact…absurd. But in a larger picture, in the rare case when you disagree with the other writers here, and in the rarer case when you are compelled to voice your direct disagreement with one or more of the writers, your tone and approach and general mode of interaction is decidedly different than when you address some others including me.
I would love to see you call Chris Lyon’s views as absurd and not even remotely close. I would have accepted “I completely disagree with your interpretation on that parable” or something akin to it. But you did not just disagree with my view, in fact, you did not even give your view in response. I do not expect you to understand this, and I do not expect you to acknowledge it either. But there it is and I do not believe what I have shared is absurd.
So, Rick, when you offer a thought on Scripture we should just ignore you unless we enjoy wasting our time?
Are pastors who interpret Scripture to a congregation each week irrelevant?
Just irrelevant, right?
(btw, I think you are right in 290)
Chad – Perhaps irrelevant was a poor choice of words. What I was attempting to communicate to Chris was that just because some early believer did and thought something carries no interpretive weight. Some have made the case that since we today have so many more recourses and education that our interpretations carrie more authenticity than what the early belivers thought.
Bot are not true and we are accountable to the Scriptures and the leading of the Spirit. Learned men and sincere followers of Jesus Christ disagree on many things.
Sometimes Chris overemphasizes what rabbis or early believers (not all of either) thought and suggests that they should be our guides and authority. I completely reject their authority or anyone elses. We all can read and process the thoughts of others, but we cannot let their thoughts be our simply because they were 1st century believers of had Jewish roots.
Many rabbis disagree on many things. That is what I meant when I used the word irrelevant. In full disclosure I have read many Jewish and non-Jewish books that make me think but do not sway me. I purchased the present Pope’s book and enjoyed it immensely, but that odesn’t affect me in my view of Scripture.
That is what I mean.
Rick,
Thanks for the further elucidation.
In my pastoral mentoring group this week the Episcopal priest leading our session said something profound. He said, “Today, especially in America, the idea of accepting what you say as a pastor as authoritative is a foreign one. No one in America likes to be told how they should think about anything.”
I believe the saints before us are a gift. Whether we agree or disagree they are extremely relevant and we stand on their shoulders, like it or not. We only think what we think today because we have been handed a story to think within – a story passed down to us – one we do not own ourselves but are merely stewards of for the next generation.
So I would argue that everything and anything said about this story is relevant. Also, as the present-day stewards of this story we have an awesome task to do it justice so that those who follow don’t write us (and by consequence, the story itself) off as completely irrelevant.
As I said, irrelevant was a poor choice. What others thought and did is interesting, but not authoritative.
Rick,
In your view, do pastors hold any authority?
Yes, in an ecclesiastical structure. But as to interpreting Scripture? They all disagree so which one do you subscibe to?
In many ways the disintregation of the one church model has made some things almost impossible today, including the accountability which Eugne posted about.
Rick,
So if I understand you correctly, pastors have authority in church structural matters but not when it comes to Scripture? What, then, is a sermon? A mere opinion?
A sermon is exposition and application, but I contend the listeners are not lemmings. Watch a congregational member get mad at the pastor and go and join another church that teaches things they used to preach against.
Careful, is my challenge. A sermon many times is mere opinion, however the ministry of the Spirit can take that and make it life in a listener’s heart.
BTW – I have all the answers but I do not feel led to share them all yet.
Rick,
That’s it? And this exposition and application carries no authority?
Happens all the time. As I said earlier, most people today are loathe to accept any authority from another- especially a pastor.
I would argue that is not a sermon, then.
During my growth as a believer and as a pastor I preached a whole lot of sermons that contained much opinion, which I have changed through the years as well.
(I would respectfully suggest that is the norm with all pastors.)
Rick,
Again, I would say that a sermon that contains “much opinion” is not a sermon at all.
Of course a sermon is an opinion. Hopefully it’s an opinion based on facts and exposition, but it’s an opinion nonetheless.
I do believe the Holy Spirit can move through a sermon, but I don’t think that the pastor’s words themselves carry the authority of the Holy Spirit. I’ve seen people who seem to operate under that assumption, and it almost always leads to abusive situations.
I agree with this sentiment, but how do you rationalize this in reality?
For example, you might believe in hell, I do not. We both can’t be right.
You believe in universalism, while Chris L does not. Who is right.
Who is promoting the truth in scripture?
Do you believe in right and wrong? Truth and error?
Wow! So a man is called by God to lead the flock, yet when he speaks the word of God it doesn’t carry the authority of God’s Spirit.
Everything’s just opinion. Nothing is true. Nothing can be known. All are shades of grey.
Right Rick. As if you never do the same. Then you just add a smiley face to it to make it “OK”.
I got it. Maybe ‘not even close’ was a bit over the top. And maybe it is important to note that you have studied this for 40 years. And you baptized yourself in the ocean. OK.
BTW, I don’t think Chris L’s view on Genesis 1 is even remotely close. I don’t think Chad’s view on ‘universalism’ is even remotely close. But that doesn’t mean I think they are not my friends or anything like that. But if I disagreed with Chris L he would respond to me differently than you would and do.
I apologize for minimizing your interpretation of the parable of the prodigal sons. I hope you have a nice day and that you remember Jesus loves you.
The preacher’s sermon carries weight unless he is in a congregation full of 60-80 year-old people. And you may as well cross out the 0-30 year-old people. Usually a preacher’s words mean something to his own generation or, roughly 31-59. If he’s lucky. And you may as well cross of half of those people too due to complacency and absence. I figure any preacher worth his salt is meaningful to about 10-15 people per week.
Beyond that, the preacher has no purview what so ever. Beyond that, the Holy Spirit may as well not even show up.
Well, in some sense, everything expressed by a human is an opinion. I’m not saying there isn’t such a thing as absolutes. All I’m saying is that people are fallible, and we can utter a truth in one sentence and an utter lie in the next. I think a congregation needs to have a certain amount of skepticism to be healthy.
If you look at the Epistles that Paul wrote, his authority is always based in serving the congregations he’s writing to. He never puts forth the idea that they should solely listen to him just because he’s the “man of God”, even though, he admits, he would have some right to claim more authority than he does.
The problem with these discussions of authority is that they are based on the world’s ideas and models of authority which is inherently top-down, i.e., the boss tells those under him what to do and they do it out of fear. Authority in the church is based on mutual submission, i.e., the leader washes his disciples’ feet. That in turn causes the disciples to submit to him. Until pastors see themselves as truly serving their congregations, they shouldn’t really expect people to treat them as an authority.
Sermons are opinion, unless they are Biblically true. The believing listener is accountable to search the Scriptures to judge those words. There are some issues that are fring and we should allow a wide latitude of interpretation, but there are some issues about which we cannot compromise.
For instance, some of Paul C’s views on hell or the Holy Spirit are important but not deal breakers, however many evangelicals would say he was not even saved.
Sermons, even ones with a whole lot of opinion, can and are used of the Spirit to convey truth and conviction to the hearts of the listeners.
Phil, that is a rather sad commentary. I’m surprised.
I’ll grant that there may be many, even a majority, who hear a sermon and chalk it up as mere “opinion.” And I would say that is a problem with their perception.
I’ll say again: A sermon that is just one man or woman’s opinion is not a sermon. It’s an Op-Ed, not a sermon.
To put it in stark contrast, what we are doing here (chatting) is opinion. It is not a sermon.
To say that a pracher’s sermon has divine authority is a form of ek cathedra and makes the Spirit a confusing voice since so many preachers preach opposing interpretations.
That’s odd. Who dropped me as a friend on Facebook?
Yeah, you mean like…
or:
or:
Bunch of new age junk:)
Honestly, if I really believed that each Lord’s Day I was going to listen to some guy or gal just offer me their opinion on Scripture I’d just assume stay home and talk to you all or go play golf.
Paul – Those Scriptures where before the church disintegrated into a denominational mess.
Well, that is obvious. I am operating under the assumption that we all agree on that and no one is thinking of “authority” in an authoritarian sense. I certainly am not.
Well, what’s the other option for a sermon to be? Is it authoritative? If a person sitting in the congregation does not follow the words of the pastor is that the same as disobeying God?
This is actually one of the main points of the Reformation. The priest’s words do not represent the words of God.
So Chad – How do you rectify the fact that in your very neighborhood there will be 5 different churches preaching five different views of Scripture this Sunday? Which one is not opinion?
Sure, I believe that. And I do agree with Phil that a person can speak the truth in one sentence, followed by error. Man is fallible, not perfect. But this should not detract from the authority of a man’s office and calling in God.
Correct. Until they actually study it for themselves, absent Roman Catholicism.
A sermon is the word of God incarnate among God’s people.
Of course it is authoritative. If it is not, it should not be preached.
How might St. Paul have answered that question is asked by a member of his church?
It’s interesting how we Protestants love to talk about the priesthood of all believers – unless, of course, that priest is the pastor.
Twenty years ago I might have preached that someone like Paul wasn’t saved. I preached many of the gifts of the Spirit were no longer operative today.
I no longer believe that so were my sermons opinion then or now?
If that man is called of God, then yes – when he is telling them God’s word. There are many people in ministry who were never called. Hasn’t that been a common trend throughout scripture?
Great question. Therein lies the rub.
I don’t know that there is an easy answer. But I will offer my opinion…
Assuming each pastor is living into their vocation faithfully, I would assume that the word brought forth is authoritative and “true” in that given congregation in their particular context. It may be exactly what the Holy Spirit desires to convey to God’s people gathered that particular morning in that particular locale. We worship a God who is no stranger to particularity. What one church may need to hear may not be what another needs to hear. One church may need milk this Sunday while another meat. One church may need rebuke this Sunday while another edification. If the pastor is faithful to his or her calling the church will receive a Word from God. The question is: will the church truly receive it or will they reduce the words to mere opinion?
I am speaking of serious disagreement. One sermon says baptism saves; one sermon says God is calling His people into politics; one sermon says baptism is only ny immersion; and on and on it goes. They cannot all be true.
By the way, I never said that I don’t believe a pastor’s words can and should be considered inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’ve heard more sermons than I can count where the pastor said something that convicted me, and I knew that if I didn’t act on it, I would be disobeying God. However, that does not mean that what he said had the same impact for everyone in the congregation.
I also don’t deny that calling factors into this as well. But I’ve seen far too many people who I honestly believe were called fall short of that calling, and eventually their sermons are not much more than their musings on the world.
Thank God for the good news of Jesus Christ or we’d all be damned.
Phil, we’ve all heard those. What I am saying is that “musings on the world” are not sermons. Apparently you (like most Christians led by the Spirit) are able to tell the difference between a sermon (which is authoritative) and an editorial piece.
“Thank God for the good news of Jesus Christ or we’d all be damned.”
I do not consider that opinion!
Jesus is the word of God incarnate among God’s people. A sermon should point to this fact, but a sermon is just words uttered by a preacher.
A very low view of kerygma and one I disagree with.
Again, if this is the case lets just drop the sermon from our worship services. You can get mere words uttered on a blog. Golf would be a far better use of your time – and more spiritual
The vast majority of sermons, if not all, are a mixture of both. So the hearers are dependent on the Holy Spirit to act as a filter in some way.
To this point, I heard many speakers talk about stuff that to me sounded like inane ramblings of idiocy, but then I’ve talked to people afterwords who were deeply moved by that. There wasn’t necessarily anything special about the words themselves, but rather it was just the working of the Holy Spirit.
I’ve been in service where the presence of the Holy Spirit was so thick that someone could get up and practically read from the phone book and people would be healed. I think it just points to the fact that God often works despite us not because of us.
“I’ve been in service where the presence of the Holy Spirit was so thick that someone could get up and practically read from the phone book and people would be healed. I think it just points to the fact that God often works despite us not because of us.”
Exactly.
So, to summarize for the class:
1. Sermons are not authoritative.
2. Sermons are mere words uttered from a preacher.
3. Sermons are mere opinions of a preacher.
4. Where a sermon might be authoritative is in those unique moments where I agree with the preacher.
5. If the above 4 are true, do yourself a favor and sleep in this Sunday.
As my wife heads off to have an ultrasound to tell us the sex of our lil bambino it occurred to me how odd it is that in our culture today a doctor has far more authority among Christians than a pastor.
I suppose that would be true if the only reason I went to a service was for what I can get out of it. But that’s not why I go.
I go because God is glorified when His people come together and He dwells in the praises of His people. And worship from the congregation as the whole is something that pleases God. The sermon is a big part of the service, but it’s not the reason I go.
#335: Chad you are sadly correct in your assessment here (can’t believe we’re agreeing on something so important as this).
And what I am saying is that it’s a pity we have to muck that all up by interjecting a preacher’s opinions in the midst of all this God-dwelling-time.
Well, when pastors start getting sued for all they have because of telling their congregations the wrong information, then you’ll have a valid argument. Even then, though, people for the most part don’t listen to their doctors. If they did, there wouldn’t be so many Americans in line at the drive thru at McDonalds everyday.
And many cases it is. I’ve been in plenty of services where it was pretty clear that the pastor wasn’t supposed to preach. When He got up to preach, it was as if God walked out the back door.
Look, I’m not saying the Spirit isn’t present in some way in a pastor’s words, but that is not the same thing as saying every word a pastor says is authoritative.
It’s funny, I was having a conversation similar to this with one of the deacons of a local EO congregation. They basically have a pretty high kerygma, but even he said that they don’t consider the words of a Priest or the Church Fathers infallible in the way you seem to be suggesting.
(emphasis mine)
- Bonhoeffer, The Proclaimed Word.
This doesn’t negate their authority but only proves Americans do not accept authority – as this present line of enquiry bears out.
I never said that.
I never said that.
I actually agree with that Bonhoeffer quote, Chad. He is basically saying that when the pastor proclaims Scripture, it is still living and active.
He isn’t saying that the pastor’s commentary on a certain passage of Scripture is in any way authoritative.
Phil, actually Bonhoeffer is saying that when the preacher preaches Christ, these things happen. The sermon is not one’s musings but the prophetic announcement of Christ in our midst through the Word. That is what a sermon is (which is what I have been saying all along when I say that where a “sermon” is opinions of men it is, by definition, not a sermon).
He is saying it is authoritative. I could email you the whole letter if you’d like (it’s only about 8 pages). The main point I was trying to make, however, was a rebuttal of your opinion that a sermon is not incarnate but mere words uttered by a preacher.
I still stand by my opinion that a sermon is mere words uttered by a preacher.
Where in Scripture does it say that when a pastor gives a sermon that those words he speaks are equivalent to the incarnate word of God?
I understand Bonhoeffer would be speaking from the Lutheran tradition based in the “real presence” understanding of the sacraments. I tend to be more in line with Zwingli’s understanding on this particular point.
Actually, it kind of goes back even further to the Great Schism. After that, the Western church tended to de-emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit, and I can see how that comes into play here. By saying that sermon is the Word incarnate, it diminishes the need for the Holy Spirit to be at work in the hearers.
Source
By saying that sermon is the Word incarnate, it diminishes the need for the Holy Spirit to be at work in the hearers.
How so? The Spirit is still essential for confirming God’s Word in the hearts of those who hear. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
Phil, I’ll again repeat that if a sermon is nothing more than mere words uttered by a preacher then it is a waste of everyones time and should be dropped from the order of worship.
Do you believe God still speaks through people? Do you believe God still calls pastors? Do you believe God calls pastors just so they can share their opinions and utter mere words from a pulpit 30 minutes a week?
From the same source…and this is probably the most important point:
Of course I believe God still speaks through people… I’m Pentecostal for cryin’ out loud!
I believe people are called to be pastors, but I believe that the primary calling of a pastor is to be a shepherd to his congregation. So the majority of that calling is not accomplished through preaching. Actually, preaching may be very little of it. Truth be told, I believe someone could effectively be a pastor and never preach a sermon in his or her life.
Also, I asked for Scripture to support what you’re saying and you give me Barth. I mean, I like Barth and all, but he ain’t Scripture.
I will concede that much of what passes for preaching these days is little more than “mere words” or “talks” with a bit of Scripture thrown in as a proof-text to hang this or that idea or opinion the preacher wishes to convey. It is as if the scripture passage gives weight to the meaning of what the preacher says rather than the preacher having weight to what he or she says because they are proclaiming scripture.
Those are not sermons. A sermon, simply stated, is the proclamation of God’s Word – it is, or should be, a revelatory event in space and time. It is affirmation to the church gathered that God still speaks and desires to speak to us through God’s word. The preacher stands, in a true sense of the word, as a priest for the people – mediating this kerygmatic event.
IT’S A GIRL!!!
First, of all, congratulations, Chad! I’m extremely happy for you and your family for this blessing.
Don’t you see, though, that this is essentially saying that the clergy is a special class of Christian? What you’re saying is the congregation needs a mediator to truly receive the Word. I just don’t see Scripture saying anything like that.
2 Cor 4:5
Rom 10:17
2 Tim. 4:2, 5
These are just a few examples of where preaching is seen as the actual proclamation of Christ and also to say that the role of a pastor is preacher.
The role of a pastor, Phil, has many aspects in Scripture. Shepherd is indeed one (John 21:16, 1 Peter 5:2-4). But so is Priest (1 Peter 2:5, 1 Tim 2:1) as well as Preacher (see above) along with Confessor (James 5:16, John 20:22-23) and Rector (or Ruler/Order – 2 Cor 10:1,
I’d say this attitude is a reflection of the same attitudes and problems Barth addressed in my comment #348.
And lets not forget that one of the primary forms in which Jesus saw fit to inaugurate the Kingdom was through the ministry of preaching.
These verses basically support the principle of the priesthood of all believers, Chad.
I’m not saying that preaching isn’t important, or that some sort of incarnational event doesn’t happen when the Word is preached, but there is nothing inherently special about a sermon on a Sunday morning that this happens. An incarnational event could just as well happen when a person talks to their neighbor about Scripture.
I guess, perhaps, what I’m saying is that if pastor truly feels this away about himself and his words, he probably needs to get over himself. Remember, God spoke through an ass before, and he still does it today.
Phil,
First of all, if that is how God has ordered the church who are you or I to say it isn’t fair? Are all apostles? Are all teachers? Are all pastors? No! Let not the hand say to the foot I wish I were a foot (my paraphrase).
But we don’t even need to say that. This is not a distinction in class (as if one is better than the other) but a distinction in role. You admit God still calls pastors, right? So obviously there are different roles to be fulfilled in Christ’s Church.
I think part of the problem in our modern church is that we have watered this distinction down so much that we have people saying (like you said) that a pastor could be a pastor without ever preaching a sermon- in essence, we have gutted the pastoral office of any sort of authority and have stated we have no need for God to speak to us from God’s Word through people called to be God’s preachers.
Thus, sermons are mere “talks” that could be done by any Tom, Dick or Jenny off the street.
(or herself)
Well, I’ll pass that on to Paul and all the other preachers in the NT on up to our own modern era.
I would say that if a pastor does not feel this way about his or herself and his or her words than they probably should find a new vocation. They can go start a blog and offer their musings and opinions there.
First, I never said that we have “no need” for God to speak to us through people. Of course we do. That why we are part of the body of Christ. But I do not see Scripture saying that there’s necessarily anything special about a sermon being the proscribed method of this happening. Honestly, the times that God has spoken to me through other people (which has been quite often), it has not been through a sermon. It has been through one-on-one meetings, a small group settings, or even through a song. It’s rarely been through a sermon.
Also, don’t forget Chad, I come from a long line of pastors, so I would never want to come down on the side that says we should give less respect to pastors. But I also know that these men are simply human, and they would tell you themselves that anything they say should be weighed against Scripture.
I was cluttering up your newsfeed with all my conservatism. Besides, if Facebook is the extent of our friendship, then we were never friends to begin with.
It was a bad day Chad. That’s all.
PS–for all who think preaching doesn’t matter or is not authoritative or carries no weight, they would do well to read Willimon’s book Conversations with Barth on Preaching or Barth’s book Homiletics or even Johnny Mac’s book on Expository Preaching or John Stott’s Between Two Worlds.
“How can they hear without a preacher?”–Paul
That’s sad. But given your theology of preaching as outlined above I can’t say I’m surprised.
The people in my congregation expect to hear from God during the sermon (as well as other aspects of our worship life together) and therefore, usually do.
Thanks for deferring to me on this one, but I have to say on this issue, I completely agree with you.
Therein lies your problem. You have become cynical.
Chris L: I find it interesting that the same man who called himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews and “in keeping the law – blameless” (Phil 3) also indicated that he was a blasphemer prior to his conversion (1 Tim 1).
The ultimate salvation of the Jews awaits the return of the Christ. I agree with Rick that since Calvary, individual Jews are saved just like any one else. I do believe, however that national/physical Israel is still within their eternal covenant with God, but in regards to individual salvation it is still by faith in Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 10)
I actually misspoke in my comment above. I meant to add “most” before “of the times”. Of course God has spoken to me in sermons, otherwise I would have completely given up on the whole deal by now. And actually, I would have no problem saying that the senior pastor at my church does hear from God and when he speaks it is authoritative for the congregation.
What I have an issue with is the idea that simply because a man is a pastor of a church, even if he is called to that position, that when he gives a sermon, it is considered authoritative. I find that idea not really supported in Scripture.
I’m not arguing that a pastor shouldn’t communicate the Word of God, or that the congregation shouldn’t expect as much. But to say that a congregation just blindly accept a sermon as authoritative simply because it comes from a pastor is downright dangerous.
Perhaps I am cynical to a big extent, but I’ve seen far too many people burnt by pastors who’ve abused their authority.
John,
Paul’s comment to Timothy was “He [God] considered me trustworthy and appointed me to serve him, even though I used to blaspheme the name of Christ. In my insolence, I persecuted his people. But God had mercy on me because I did it in ignorance and unbelief” which is where some churches and scholars see a difference between observant Jews and Gentile unbelievers – that an observant Jew’s “no” to Jesus is out of a “yes” to God (having no other gods before Him), and that God may still have mercy on them.
Phil, forgive me, but I’m not sure how you got this idea from anything I have said here.
On “preaching” and “authoritative”:
I see that the eklesia of the first century is the model for that of today, which itself was partially modeled on the synagogue. As such, there are levels of “authoritative”:
1) Scripture is ultimately authoritative, and everything said, in terms of teaching, must be aligned with it.
2) Each community has its own accepted bounds of interpretation of hagadah (the commands/principles of Scripture) and halakhah (the way hagadah is lived out). This is authoritative for the community (insofar as it meshes with Scripture). These bounds are approved by the eldership of the community, not individual teachers.
3) Teachers within the community use #1 and #2 to inform their midrashim (examples, stories) and parables. These are not authoritative (the community is not bound by them), but they are illustrative of #1 and #2.
So, in a sermon which references #1 and #2, those parts are truly authoritative for the community. The specific examples, stories, and parables are not authoritative.
Chris L –
I buy that.
If you look at the early church and synagogue, this is exactly what sermons were.
Each adult member of the community (age 13 and above) would have an opportunity to teach. First, they would read from the Scriptures (usually assigned via a lectionary, years in advance). During this, the people would stand (because it was the Word of God being read, with the reader as the voice of God during the reading). Then, the speaker would give a short (less than 5 minute) midrash (a story, often from their own life, applying the Scripture and its accepted halakah and hagadah). During this, the people would sit (because it was man’s words and not God’s). Then, people in the community would ask questions of the speaker (not to trap them, but to further understand them and to draw out more meaning). After that, the speaker was done.
Pastor and preacher are not synonymous.
Pastors are responsible for caring for the spiritual needs of the community. In this, they should be apt to teach (from the requirements given to Timothy and Titus). Teaching is not preaching, though – it can be one-on-one counseling or preaching or anything in between.
#366 – Chris, I see no problem with your statement, but I would interpret “God’s Mercy” on Paul as having been not having him die before he had a chance to respond to the Gospel. Paul was also affored an extra-ordinary “mercy” in having Christ appear to him in person.
I would say I get that idea from this statement here:
So what does the term authoritative mean? To say something is authoritative means we are submitting to it in some way or another. If during a sermon, as pastor is preaching the incarnate word of God, as you say, than to not submit to that is to disobey God, correct? So it does not seem like a big jump to me for a pastor to start saying that people not submitting to him are disobeying God.
So let’s say, for argument’s sake, that a pastor is preaching a sermon in which there is a mixture of truth and opinion, but some in the congregation are not wise enough to discern the difference. Are they bound to submit to the parts that are opinion? And sadly this is far from a purely hypothetical situation. I’ve seen it quite often.
John, I heavily lean toward your interpretation as the correct one, but I leave open the alternate interpretation as a possibility (since how God applies His mercy is His business and not mine).
I also fear you have romanticed the Jewish nation to some extend (speaking as one who would consider himself almost a Zionist). Orthodox and/or practicing Jews are a very, very small minority of Jew today. Israel is almost a secular society as they self-attest. To me it appears that your view does not delineate a remant at all but includes the whole cloth, but this is contrary to 1 Cor 10 (wherein all shared God’s benevolence but all were not saved) and Hebrews 3 and 4 (i.e., Israel who was not able to enter God’s rest because of their unbelief).
Exactly. That is the point I was getting at earlier. I know quite a few people who have an obvious pastoral gift, but they are simply horrible public speakers. But they have served in a role as shepherd for many people. So I have no problem calling this person a pastor.
Actually, in the first century, the “authoritative” position in the church was the Apostle. This was most likely the person who founded the church. But this person, like the Apostle Paul, didn’t stay at that church. He turned over the leadership to the church to the local elders, who would in turn serve as pastors. These people generally didn’t receive compensation from the church, and their role was definitely more of an overseer, caretaker position than simply a preacher.
#347 – Don’t lean to heavily. I break easy!
Phil,
The question, I think, is not “what does authoritative mean?” but rather, what is a “sermon”? When I say a sermon is the word of God incarnate among God’s people (ala Bonhoeffer) that is to say a sermon is the proclamation of Jesus Christ as revealed to us through revelation (of which Scripture is a primal component).
If the pastor takes the pulpit and doubts that he or she has heard a word from the Lord or what they have to say is not authoritative (because they have not heard from the Lord), than they shouldn’t preach (or if they do then it would not be fair to say what they are doing is preaching. They may be talking and offering their opinion, but they are not preaching).
No. Because the pastor knows that the preached word has nothing to do with him or her but that this is a free standing event imbued by the Holy Spirit. The preacher can no more claim personal authority for the word given than Moses could claim personal authority over the tablets brought down from Sinai. It is all a gift – both to the pastor and the congregation.
The moment a pastor demands submission to him or herself or uses his or her gift in ways that coerce, manipulate, or lord over another is the moment they have ceased operating within the gift and are operating out of their human capacity and reason.
A friend of mine and I share some reflections on what it means to be a preacher and what it means that preaching is revelatory and authoritative HERE.
I think that should make it more clear where I stand, if it is not already.
I think I would agree with the heart of what you’re getting at if you were using a term other than “sermon”. When you are using that term, you’re meaning it to say “Scriptural proclamation” or something like that. But that is simply not how the term is used in common usage. And sermons that are 100% scriptural proclamation are pretty rare.
It’s like you’re saying the pastor delivers a message, of which part of it is really the “sermon” but of which the other is simply chaff. There is probably truth in that.
My problem with saying that “sermons are authoritative” is that too the vast majority of people, it will not mean what you are intending it to mean.
Regarding this:
I would still say that this is putting a whole lot of confidence in a human. I think there are times when pastors are 100% sure they are hearing from God, but they miss it for whatever reason. I think if pastors are honest with themselves, they probably all have a little bit of doubt a lot the time. I feel you’re almost putting a pastor in a position that says he either has to perfectly hear from God or go home.
“I also fear you have romanticed the Jewish nation to some extent”
Bullseye.
#381: yes, there is danger here.
For example, 1,000 years from now (if Christ hasn’t returned), if scholars were analyzed our present timeframe (21st century), they would fall back on the record of:
- Joel Osteen
- TBN
- others on the list of the 100 most influential pastors
- the Pope
- the poor Bishop of England
Does this give a true picture as to what Christianity is today? Of course not.
In my view, that’s why falling back on the Talmud or even early church practices (after the Apostles passed off the scene) can lead you down a wrong path.
Scripture is sufficient.
Serious question: Does anyone grow in Christ through their library?
Nothing like stating something that isn’t a fact as a fact and then burning it down to prove a point.
Nothing is as easily distorted – either intentionally or mistakenly – as history. Surely, living in the US should teach you this (hark back to elementary school history when the jolly little Indians and pilgrims worked hand-in-hand).
Or watch a “scholar” wax eloquent on the early church on the History Channel. It’s sickening sometimes.
Nothing like making a statement that doesn’t deal with the actual truth of what’s said in an attempt to burn it down to prove a point.
Oh I’m not proving a point but I will. Your statement set something up as fact to tear down Chris’s belief system or at least show us the potential fallacies and dangers in it.
Of course, without doing to many mental exercises I can come up with a few logical problems with your assertion.
1. How do you know that historians 1000 years from now will fall back on those guys?
2. If the mainstream does, how do you know there won’t be good historians who are more faithful to the study and not fall back on those guys?
3. How do you know the historians that Chris L reads and studies are the type that fell back on the simple stuff and not the type that did better research?
4. Isn’t there a danger in ignoring history? I mean can’t that make us really distort the truth?
5. What is your solution? What historians do you believe to be accurate and that can speak to the faith in an Biblical and literate manner?
6. How do you know they aren’t the ones who are falling back on the easy stuff? Is it because they believe what you believe?
Of course! I’d say reading various authors throughout the years has had a huge impact on my spiritual formation.
Books, or more importantly, the ideas contained in them have impacted the life of and affect the spiritual growth of virtually whether they acknowledge it or not.
Wow – didn’t see that coming!
Not tearing down Chris’s belief system… if his belief system is built on history by itself, it will crumble on its own. That’s not my intent at all.
It seems you’re missing my point. Whether Osteen & TBN are on the list or not is moot. The point is that what they draw on (just like what we draw on) will most likely not give an accurate representation of what things are really like.
Just like Chris L makes sweeping generalizations on what things were like 2,000 years ago. You can literally say whatever you like (for example, he asserted that Christ addressed the aspect of eternal life in answer to pagan questioning about life-after-death).
Yes and yes. But as the cynics say, “History is little more than an agreed upon lie.” There is some truth in that (again, I point you to pat-American history, which a large majority of people buy into today).
As I said earlier, the scriptures are sufficient as our guide. that doesn’t disqualify historic info, but it should maintain its place (I think more than one would agree that Chris L seems to elevate historic research quite a bit – which is what John H and Rick & I agree on).
I have learned some interesting things from what Chris L has pointed out (ie: his series on the 7 Churches) – good information, but not foundational.
#386: that’s cool Phil.
The reason I ask is that it seems that many today seem to read more commentary than they get from the Author.
Sometimes I get the sense that we are more comfortable quoting extra-biblical sources than we are the bible. This is just an observation and I could well be wrong.
#387.
Sorry if I missread your statement. Thank you for answering my questions.
Joe, I guess my point made more clearly is this: how do the Catholics trace back their Popish ancestry all the way to Peter when he wasn’t even a Pope?
They were able to control history to make it say whatever they wanted.
Perhaps the better point is that people can make history validate whatever they want. You can analyze a timeframe and pick pockets of agreement, then build your thesis accordingly.
On the other hand, the biblical account (while not inerrant) is something we trust God inspired.
I would put more weight on the gospel of John than on the gospel of Mary Magdelene.
I have a very good friend that I grew up with who is a Catholic Priest and he would tell you that the Catholic church bases their view of Peter on the gospels and the Bible. He would also tell you (I think) that while the idea of Pope’s comes from Peter they don’t believe Peter was the first Pope as we understand it today.
See, you bring up two great points. First of all, there are people who use the Bible to support a belief that is hotly debated. If one uses only the Bible sans historical knowledge it would behoove us to acknowledge that Peter may well have been the first Pope.
Secondly, I still am not sure I see the connection between Chris L’s belief’s and the gospel of Mary Magdelene.
That would be impossible. Just one scripture and verse? They would never find Peter affirming this at all with an honest reading.
In your mind, line up a caricature of Peter with what we see of Popes today (perhaps starting with ring-kissing vs Cornelius bowing).
Directed more at his view of extra-biblical sources like the Talmud and the like. He seems to elevate them quite highly, though he would claim otherwise I’m sure.
If a person was given a Bible and gleaned truth without history he would never come up with the concept of a pope. Paul never mentions Peter as a pope.
Act 15 6-12 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, PETER stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test
… we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
AND ALL THE ASSEMBLY FELL SILENT
POPERY! There you have it right in the middle of my New Testament.
All the more reason, to study history CAREFULLY before claiming we know every damn thing there is to know.
But you’re missing the point. You won’t find any verses that prove he wasn’t either. The whole ring kissing thing may be part of the difference that they acknowledge.
See, you are asking me to use my mind to disprove something that at least they have a verse to support, which is more than you have to not support it. You could very easily be accused of not having an honest reading because you won’t admit that it is at least possible based purely on Scripture (not saying that I’m accusing you of that but my friend probably would). It’s not one verse. There is also the verses where Peter is obviously shown to be one of the leaders of the church.
Here’s the thing Paul, I don’t even believe in Peter being the first Pope and based purely on Scripture sans historical understanding I have a better footing than you do.
Comparing the Talmud to the gospel of Mary Magdalene is making a comparison where there isn’t one.
#393.
I’m not sure what that proves. he also never calls him a pastor.
#394 – A wonderful example of misusing Scripture to support a docrtine. History can and often is wrong.
Yes we very much believe he was the 1st pope; even though it wasn’t announce by the white smoke coming out of “St. Peter’s Basillica”.
The big live-oak in my backyard was the same reality as it was 40 years ago. Acorns are not “ideas”.
Go ask a squirrel if you don’t believe me
Brett I understand that Catholics believe he was the first Pope but they also believe he was not a Pope exactly like we have today, no?
I mean he was married etc.
If there was such a thing as a pope Paul would be that pope. He taught things that no otherapostle taught, and in fact, he had to rebuke Peter to his face. (history)
The doctrine of the papacy and Maryology have no support from the epistles, and in fact Mary is not evenmentioned by Paul, Jude, John, or Peter.
#399
Not exactly, exactly. There is a distiction between the apostles and there successors (the bishops)
Being married has nothing to do with the reality of bishops, and popes.
Celibacy of the clergy is not a dogmatic matter from Sacred Tradition (the faith once delivered to the saints).
Celibacy of the clergy is a small “t” tradition and a matter of church disciple.
Truth be told there were a few squirrely popes (speaking of actual history here
) that were married more that once. (and even had a few mistresses to boot).
There, but for the grace of God, eh
See – now you end up with small “t” and large “T” traditions that are considered church doctrine. “Unless you can convince me by Scripture…”.
It’s not like one way holier, or smarter, or better that the other. We all have our calling right.
The church (almost since the beginning) has celebrated their martyrdom on the same feast day.
Sometime in June, I think.
#403
No trying to convince you of anything Rick, just trying to keep the discussion honest.
I forget sometimes that Baptists have complete immunity from any “t”raditions whatsoever.
Brett – thanks for bearing out my point. Do you want to stop of Popery or go down the line with Mary veneration/assumption, indulgences, hell, purgatory?
I think there will be a bunch of pissed off Protestants in heaven when they see who they have to bow beside.
How did this become another “I Hate Catholics” discussion?
Chad, as an object example (tying back to my discussion with Joe) on how you can make history basically say what you will, I brought up the issue of the Pope and how the RCC claims this office goes back to Peter.
I have no hatred or dislike at all for Catholics.
Hey Brett, fun fact –
I am taking a class this semester on The Lord’s Prayer. The prof teaching it is Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright who is a personal friend of your Pope. We will be reading some stuff he wrote on the Lord’s Prayer before he became Pope (amongst a million other things from Tertullian forward).
Should be fun.
Far from it Brett. But when the Bible is wholesales rejected in favor of man-made teaching, I see no harm in pointing it out.
My point was to illustrate that history can be very biased. Since the RCC had a near-monopoly on church history for a long time, it was able to make any assertion it wanted.
Some of the more absurd we’ve covered before, but the Papacy is an obvious example relevant to what Joe and I were discussing.
I have nothing against Catholics. I do believe they should be witnessed to/evangelized.
Chad,
Sounds a little deep for me, but come back and tell us if you learn anything
Peace
Paul,
You are the king of irony!
Hey, Brett. How do you know you have the right pope after the split and all and they excommunicated each other.
And Paul I’m mad you left MY patron saint off your list of influential 21st Centrury church leaders.
I thought PB was. Are we going to have another schism?
The human suffering in Haiti is mindboggling. Keep praying – the situation is beyond desperate.
The Talmud (not the entire thing, but specifically the pre-Christian portions) has absolutely nothing in common with the post-Christian “gospels” and writings. The value that sources like Talmud, the apocrypha, and Josephus have is in providing interpretive context to the OT and original interpretations of the OT.
Apparently you’ve not been listening.
While resurrection is a concept that is supported by the OT, the developed view of the spiritual dimensions outside of our physical world in first century Judaism were not based on Scriptural interpretation, but upon the cosmology of the ancient Near East – specifically Sumeria, Babylon and (a little bit of) Greece. That’s not conjecture, but fact observed from the written sources surrounding Palestine. Jesus, Peter and Paul do nothing to disabuse this view (which may be correct, or may be pretty rudimentary), and each of them (in one way or another) reference it – with Peter specifically referencing Tartarus – a purely Greek created view of an aspect of the afterlife. This cannot be reasonably denied without significant naivete.
Scriptures are sufficient as our guide. The problem, though, arrives in the context of the Scriptures, which – without understanding their original context – we supply based upon our own culture, which is vastly different that the culture in which they were written.
I distrust the “scholars” that show up on the History Channel/National Geographic Channel/etc. inherently.
The folks I tend to read have one common thread – understanding the original context of Scriptures with an understanding that Scripture is ultimate truth. The Jesus Seminar scholars and other quacks that show up on the History Channel (and most of the folks on the Big Hair Channel, like Hagee) have nothing in common with solid scholarship.
Who do I generally trust, scholarship-wise? Dr. Tim Brown (president of Western Theological Seminary in Holland, MI), Dr. Brad Young, Dr. Marvin Wilson, Richard Moseley, The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, Ray VanderLaan, David Bivin, Roy Blizzard, Ann Spangler, Lois Tverberg, Dwight Pryor. All of these are conservative (some Reformed) scholars who hold Scripture as primary truth, and historical contemporary writing & archaeology as supportive and not contradictory. Brad Young’s material, in particular, is college textbook stuff which delves deep into all of the accepted hermeneutical methodologies and interpretations.
You won’t find any of these folks on late night TV.
Part of the problem is – you hear something you haven’t heard before and automatically assume that it is “new” and off-base, but you’re too lazy to actually research it, because taking pot-shots from the peanut gallery is far easier.
None of these are primary sources of Scripture, nor are they in the stream of source material for Scripture writers. In the case of Oral Torah and Talmudic works (like Genesis Rabbah), if Jesus was recognized as a Rabbi by the people (which Scripture indicates that he was, and not just to his followers), then he would be intimately familiar with them. There was not a publishing industry in the first century plugging out books for the masses. Teachings accepted by communities (along with who agreed/disagreed with them) were fairly well defined and narrow. Jesus quotes from a number of these, primarily ones that jibe with the House of Hillel and contradict the House of Shammai.
Yes.
I have no illusions at the small percent of genetic Jews who are orthodox.
I do not see Israel (the secular nation) as the remnant of Israel, but rather the orthodox Jewish believers as that remnant. I also do not see the views of ancient Israel as monolithic (and I do try to point out where there were significant disagreements). The views of the sages were somewhat consistent, and a significant minority to the Temple practices of the Judeans, and it is the sages whom Jesus most resembles, culturally. The Temple Judeans rejected the Oral Law and the pre-Talmudic sources completely (pretty much in the same way Rick and Paul do), yet Jesus sides against the Judeans on nearly every occasion he is given a chance. If Jesus was orthodox (in the ancient, not modern, sense), which Scripture indicates that he was, then he was not independent from the belief and practice of this orthodox faith.
Chad,
A whole semester class on the Lord’s Prayer? Seriously?
jerry
#422
Traditionally speaking it always has been one of the 4 main categories of catechesis:
1. The Creed (faith)
2. The Sacraments
3. The 10 Commandments
4. The Lord’s Prayer
Jerry –
Yes.
Since we pray it corporately every week in worship I thought it would be worth taking.
If nothing else, I should at least have it memorized by May
Chad,
I have to admit that I am beyond curious. What text are you using? Will you be able to share any of the notes? A whole semester? That’s freaking awesome! Maybe I should fly down and audit that class…seriously.
jerry
Jerry,
I wouldn’t mind sharing notes as they come up. It’s a seminar class (smaller group geared towards discussion) where each of us bring to the table stuff we glean from the prayer itself along with the texts we read. I copied this from the syllabus:
Topics:
1. The Lord’s Prayer in its Biblical Setting.
2. Patristic and Liturgical Uses of Prayer.
3. Some texts from the Classic Tradition: *Tertullian, On Prayer; *Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer;
*Origen, On Prayer (especially *chapters 18-34); *Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis 5:11-18;
*Gregory of Nyssa, Five Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer; *John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on the Sermon
on the Mount; *Theodore of Mopsuestia, On the Lord’s Prayer; *Augustine, Sermons 56-59 (to
catechumens), and Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2:4-11; *Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the
Lord’s Prayer; *Luther, Small Catechism and Large Catechism (third parts of each), and A Simple Way
to Pray; *Calvin, Institutes 3.20.34-49; *Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection, 25-42; Lancelot
Andrewes, *paraphrases of the Lord’s Prayer, from the Preces Privatae; *John Wesley, Sermon 21
(Sermon on the Mount, discourse 6); *Mrs. C.F. Alexander, Hymns for Little Children, 32-40; *Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 15 (pp. 145-150); *Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/4, sections
76-78; *Alexander Schmemann, Our Father; *Jean Daniélou, Prayer, chapter 3; *Catechism of the
Catholic Church, paragraphs 2759-2865; *Joseph Ratzinger – Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth,
chapter 5, pp. 128-168 (cf. *G. Wainwright, “Gospel Hermeneutics in Joseph Ratzinger’s Jesus of
Nazareth” in Nova et Vetera 7/1 [Summer 2009], pp. 7-17); *G. Wainwright, “The Lord’s Prayer” (ch. 7
in Embracing Purpose: Essays on God, the World and the Church).
4. Contemporary Approaches to the Lord’s Prayer: Some possibilities: W.H. Willimon and S.
Hauerwas, Lord, Teach Us: The Lord’s Prayer and the Christian Life; Roberta Bondi, A Place to Pray.
According to time available, students may bring other contemporary texts and introduce them to the class.
Each of us pick one of the thinkers under #3 and offer a presentation to the group. I’ll give you 3 guesses who I chose – the first 2 don’t count.
Oh, but I should fully disclose this: I am at Duke Divinity which means at any time the class could be taken over by a Muslim Imam
Have a good morning, everyone. I will be busy the next few hours crafting an opinion on Luke 4 to share with God’s people tomorrow.
Eugene,
Perhaps subconsciously this thread is speaking to me as I work on tomorrow’s sermon. The lection for tomorrow includes Neh. 8:1-10 for the OT and Luke 4:14-21 (i’m including vs. 28) for the gospel.
It struck me that various emotions accompanied the people’s worship as they gathered to hear the reading of God’s holy word: Tears, Joy, Amazement and Rage.
Which led me to write the following which I think will be the driving theme of the message tomorrow:
anyone’s thoughts on that are welcome.
“I would argue that any one of these emotions – tears, joy, amazement and even rage – are better than the emotion many of us feel, perhaps some of you here today, much of the time when we gather around God’s Holy Word – apathy.”
Amen and amen.
426, I wonder how much of this can be found online? I think you have my email, so anytime you wish to share with me, please do. Thanks.
But although He fulfilled the law perfectly Jesus was “from above” and transcended (no never contradicted the law). He interpreted it perfectly, speaking only what He heard the Father speak and so in this sense He was independent of the current thought of the day.
By no means at all!!! That’s no more than standard historical antisemitism within the church. Jesus was fully a Jew, and there is no indication that he was completely independent from the theological thought of the day. In fact EVERY indication within Scripture is that he was part of and conversant in his religion. To separate Jesus from his culture, as something wholly independent in thought from it, is to deny his humanity.
Huh. I always thought Jesus was a white dude from the suburbs of Chicago.
To completely barricade the Eternal Word inside a Jewish cultural and religious construct is to severely limit, and many times misunderstand, the universal and spiritual implications of everything He said and did. The Jewish aspects can sometimes give a contextual understanding at that particular time, but that should never chain it to those, or any, cultural interpretations and limitations.
The body of Jesus was Jewish, the Logos is without earthly origin.
Rick and John H-
While I think we can all agree with the main sentiment of your concerns (well, I think we all can), it is not saying enough to just say “the body of Jesus was Jewish,” as if God simply needed to find some flesh to put on and any flesh would do.
God was intentionally Jewish. We would do well to strive to understand why God chose to be so particular in this particular way.
To try and extract Jesus from his culture, as if here were a cross-cultural cipher is about the dumbest thing we could do, and pretty much guarantees we will misunderstand the universal and spiritual implications of everything He said and did.
Chris L: pick a parable.
Now tell me which one might not be able to be understood without the in-depth Jewish knowledge you are lobbying for.
I think a lot of the info on Jewish history is interesting. Josephus and the like, as well as the timeframe leading up to the advent of Christ. But it has its place.
There have always been scholars. But it appears they are largely blind to what God is actually doing in their time because they’ve pretty much got God in a box of their own creation (ie: the scholars of Jesus’ day).
Some Jewish custom and understanding gives some perspective, but the eternal and redemptive truths are not held prisoner by any Jewish education.
A Gentile believer in Brazil who has no Jewish training and has never read the rabbis or early believers can come to the same truth as a converted rabbi by studying the Scriptures and living a prayer life of commited devotion to Jesus.
Of course, “of their own creation” can mean deciding that Jesus’ Jewishness has little to nothing to do with the story, choosing to ignore the way God has chosen to reveal God’s self.
I’d rather assume it is important that God has chosen to reveal God’s self to us in a particular way in a particular time and through a particular people. It’s funny (yet arrogant) how we Gentiles have seemingly commandeered a story for ourselves that we were at one time not even invited to hear.
The same can be said for original language training. The more I age the more I am convinced that the core understanding of redemptive truth as put forward by the gospel of Jesus Christ can so easily be compromised, if not nullified, by a preoccupation and/or obsession with a wide range of systematic theology issues.
“It’s funny (yet arrogant) how we Gentiles have seemingly commandeered a story for ourselves that we were at one time not even invited to hear.”
Tow things. Gentiles were invited to hear by God, and I am no longer a Gentile – I am a believer.
Rick, that may very well be the case, so long as one is merely (and only) concerned with “the core understanding,” as you put it.
But loving God with all my heart, soul, MIND and strength requires I not be satisfied with just the “core understanding.”
In the same way I don’t want to only know “just the facts, ma’am” about my wife but desire to know her intimately and profoundly, I too want to know the God I worship. Yeah, anyone could have a “core understanding” of my wife after spending an hour with her but you’d miss out on a lot if you didn’t stick around and seek to learn more.
Rick, yes, we were invited but not until the time was right.
And yes, you are a Gentile. A believer, but a Gentile no less.
#440: at no time are we to boast against the root. Please don’t get confused.
What I am stating is that some here literally make it pre-requisite that a person who wants to understand Christ must first be fully trained and versed in Jewish religion and custom.
Reality bears out that this is not the case at all.
Not only this, but for all your reading and course-taking, you lean towards Universalism – as foreign a concept in Judaism than anything else.
Chris L, for all his Talmudic studies, claims that Eternal Life and the resurrection was not really a key concept in the OT, despite the accounts of Hebrews 11, numerous Psalms (49 & 73 off the top of my head), Isaiah, Daniel, Amos, Micah, etc…
So it appears all this study can sometimes lead you astray, no?
“So it appears all this study can sometimes lead you astray, no?”
Ya think? It can also lead you to believe you have a greater insight to the Scriptures. Education must always complement but never be the Rosetta Stone.
The only one confused (again) appears to be you, Paul C. Why not prove this outlandish statement rather than just make this claim as though it were fact?
No one has said that Judaism was RIGHT in all respects. Certainly not me. There was, after all, a need for Jesus.
“No one has said that Judaism was RIGHT in all respects.”
Of course. They were wrong about the things with which I disagree with them.
#446: exactly Rick.
Chris L and Chad see any caution flags thrown up as a call to book burning.
When either one of them comes up with a parable that does not allow for understanding unless I first grasp Jewish culture and time-period history, then they may have a case.
The reason something like the Book of Proverbs is still relevant today is because it is Wisdom: applicable to ALL people, at ALL times, irrespective of culture or era.
Likewise Christ.
If all this learning actually draws someone closer to the person of Christ and improves their likeness to His nature, then I’m all ears. Until then, these are nice-to-haves, but not essential. And in the case of some, downright misleading.
Rick and Paul C-
I have no doubt that you are both fully satisfied with what you presently know.
Paul, shall I just assume you have no intention of proving this:
The Apostle Paul gave a resume of his Jewish roots and Hebrew education, however he suggested they were all dung compared to knowing Christ. He did not say that all those things added to his ability to know Christ, and in fact many early Jewish converts had to be reprogrammed AWAY from their Jewish understandings and traditions.
Seriously, Paul? Nobody here has said nor believes that.
You asked earlier for an example parable. There are actually quite a few. In fact, if you look at the history of interpretation of parables, you see quite the variety in the ages schools of thought. Current studies in the historical context have tremendously opened up our understanding and thus interpretation of the parables. (Btw, they are parables, they are not meant for everybody to easily understand. The good news about the Kingdom of God is meant to be easy to understand if you can accept the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Of course, Paul says that that message is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.) I recommend you look at the book Stories With Intent by Snodgrass
In addition to Chris L. previously (I don’t remember where, he might be able to tell you) talking about understanding the context of the Priest and Levite in the Parable of the good Samaritan, there are others where understanding the cultural context influences our understanding of the point of the parable. One of the biggest issues that we often miss is the role of shame and honor in a variety of parables. (I also recommend looking at Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by Bailey for some insight into the cultural issues and he does a great job of bringing out the issues of shame and honor.) The Parable of the Talents is a big one (that is often abused). One major point that we miss because of the cultural differences is that the servant who hid his talent in the ground was doing the culturally acceptable, normal, and safe thing. Jesus original audience would have been shocked that he was judged harshly for doing what he did. Other cultural elements that impact our understanding of that parable are that the servants who went out and put the talents to work would have been showing public allegiance to their master/King whereas the 3rd servant would have shown fear.
Chad – There is no way Paul can “prove” what you ask, but many times Chris L. presents a litany of Jewish understandings and Jewish rabbis in order to buttress his Biblical perspectives. That is what Paul is referring to.
Rick, the Apostle Paul used quite a few linguistic tools to make his points. Saying that something is crap compared to knowing Christ does not mean that that thing is crap.
Exactly, Rick. Then he shouldn’t say something so ridiculous.
In fact, we see throughout the N.T. that God used many of those things (those things which shaped who Paul was) through Paul to effectively spread the Kingdom.
Christian – I love many Jewish aspects that open up certain understandings, but ( as an example) when you use the Jewish understandings of eternal life or capital punishment or just war as New Testament proofs you are misusuing them.
Paul, I can testify to the fact that having taken seminary courses has dramatically and positively impacted my relationship with Christ.
Rick, it is one thing to say that someone places value on context and Jesus’ Jewish background but another thing entirely to say that they “literally” make such knowledge a “prerequisite” to “understanding Christ” and that one must be “fully” trained to do so.
That is just false, you and he both know it.
“Paul, I can testify to the fact that having taken seminary courses has dramatically and positively impacted my relationship with Christ.”
I agree. However I have met uneducated Kenyans who have no edcuation and know Christ more deeply and more intimately than do I.
Rick,
First of all, that’s not what was said, nor what I was responding to. You seem to be melding different thoughts into one big topic. That will always cause problems, especially in written discussions.
Secondly, I was responding to a specific request by Paul, are you saying that I adequately answered his questions/problems?
Third, I’m not defending Chris L.’s arguments, I’m defending against statements that I believe are incorrect. Therefore, I don’t see how your comment is relevant to what I said.
462 was in response to 458
OK, my bad.
#461 – I did not say that a person HAS to be formally educated to grow in Christ. Paul said earlier that
I was responding to that. All this learning has drawn me closer to Christ. This doesn’t have to be an either/or thing guys. Why is that so hard to understand?
I am just adding a further perspective. I speak for the little people!
Yeah – what did those Jews know? Jesus wanted nothing to do with them, and he was actually a 20th/21st Century American pretending to be Jewish.
What idiocy.
Translation: Let’s just all be completely stupid and ignorant, supply our own context to whatever the hell we want (literally), and praise those folks who completely eschew study and allow our emotional view of their “connection” with God guide us as our model of belief.
Paging Oprah…
Agreed, Christian.
I believe that understanding the first century Jewish religion and custom, of which Jesus was a part, can augment our understanding of him and his teachings – not that it is somehow a prerequisite for following Christ. If you believe that study should be a part of your Christian growth in knowledge, at some point you should expand your reading beyond Scripture to include commentaries and historical documentation which provides context that you have likely provided from your 21st Century Western viewpoint, which might not translate to the first century Near East.
Which is an interesting statement, since I just went through a few commentaries on Proverbs which notes that Proverbs (which often contradict one another) require a good deal of wisdom in your own context to understand when they apply, and that they are not applicable at ALL times…
I find it bizarre how some Christians, when supplied with something different to them (but not really “new”), immediately go into turtle mode and start making beautifully worded arguments in praise of ignorance, stupidity and lack of scholarship.
See. This is what I mean.
Who is actually saying this at all?
What I have said is that some here have a clear and consistent tendency to elevate their research (as narrow as it may be) to trump everything else.
The moment I argue that caution should be taken with all the extra-Biblical texts available (some of which are clearly off-base), some get up-in-arms and throw a tantrum.
What I was asking about was “likeness to Christ”. I think we would all agree that this is one of our prime goals. Christian P claims that all his studies have helped in this area, which is good to hear.
I read #453 and didn’t see where an understanding of the present timeframe would have been required for the parables referenced (ie: the Priest/Levite duties are outlined in the Bible elsewhere).
I have to second what Chris L says in #468. Due to some of the articles I read here about a year ago, I have begun studying the Jewish context for Jesus’ teachings.
It has opened a huge panorama of new understanding of some of the nuances in scripture. Amazing stuff. More importantly, it has deepened my relationship with God and understanding of Him.
Was this understanding necessary for my salvation? Of course not. But was it necessary for me as a Christian to grow… well for me it was… your mileage may vary.
Does anyone recognize the first-class irony in this statement?
#469: regarding the Proverbs, what I mean is that a young person living 3000 years ago would be able to walk away with some clear directives. Likewise, when I first start going to church, I would read the Proverbs and get great value from it.
The reason I believe this to be so is because their wisdom is really timeless. I am not arguing that every single proverb mentioned in 31 chapters was edifying or relevant to me personally. But on the whole.
Any more straw men to burn?
Life after death was not a focus of the OT (which is not to say that it did not exist in the OT). The “writings” (Psalms, Job, Proverbs) and the books of the prophets were not considered “core” to following God, and the focus of following God was on the Torah (the Pentateuch), which does not lay out a case for eternal life.
It was not until the persecution of the Jews by the Ptolemaic Greeks in the intertestemental period that the Jewish religion started focusing on Eternal Life and the coming of a Messiah. It was at this point that eternal life shifted from primarily a legacy-view (of children, land, and personal legacy) to a kingdom-view (of a kingdom of God and a community resurrection experience). Jesus arrived “at the right time”, as Paul tells us. And that time was when the kingdom of Israel was looking for a Messiah who would establish a Kingdom of God, and that its people would live forever.
Additionally, most of the understanding about the afterlife (spiritual realms, etc.) by the first century was undeniably mixed with Babylonian, Sumerian and Greek views. This
“What idiocy. Paging Oprah.”
As usual a discussion opens up your always Christlike mode of interaction. Your Jewish research has not elevated your demeaning tone.
It’s why I stopped reading the thread.
The Good Samaritan, for one (see the link for details). The primary western lesson drawn from this parable is about helping those in need. But that wasn’t the point of the story, and it didn’t answer the question Jesus was asked, which prompted the telling of the story.
The Parable of the Shrewd Manager is another.
Also, non-parable midrashim that Jesus used fall into this as well. For instance, Jesus taught:
I’ve heard a host of (garbage) Western interpretations of this verse.
In reality, in the Ancient Near East (and even in parts of the Middle East today), having a “good eye” is a colloquialism for being generous, and having a “bad eye” means that you are stingy. So, this teaching is about being generous with your money.
Don’t believe me? Look at this verse in its entire context (with the verses before and after it):
Or, we could look at Jesus’ Cleansing the Temple, a story used in all sorts of anti-contextual ways to justify unjustifiable uses of anger on the part of ODM’s & their flesh-and-blood connoisseurs. In fact, ironically, this incident teaches about the opposite of its normal use…
Or we could look at the crowds that turned away from Jesus, which are often used as an example of how “true” Christianity should drive people away and would prevent megachurches from existing, etc., etc.
And we’ve not even talked about remez yet…
Obviousdly you haven’t stopped reading, but you never understood. If only we could reach the erudite elevation of you and Chris.
Versus
Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses… the time would fail the author of Hebrews to mention all:
Seems pretty core to me. And this is borne out in the books of the prophets, not just Job/Psalms/Proverbs.
No straw man at all.
If you say so. There are 2 destinations clearly outlined: Life and Death (sheol).
None of these stories was focused on life after death.
You’ve forgotten “hell” (which is not Death). Much of the “common” view of hell is not OT-based, and is primarily what I’m referring to as Babylonian/Greek…
It shows what their personal focus was. Where they were driving towards – eternity with God.
95% of what Jesus said in the gospels was in Aramaic originally.
Compared to
Why so combative Rick? Are you having a bad day?
I forgot to mention the irony of those two quotes
Huh? Chapter(s) and verse(s) please, starting with Abel…
Actually, a number of current scholars see that it was more likely Hebrew than Aramaic (which are similar). See (for example) Bivins & Blizzard. Even so, Gehenna is not analogous to Sheol.
Start with Hebrews 11. Is that chapter somehow unbalanced in its portrayal of these individuals?
Yet, there are about 10 times that the Aramaic is used in the gospels directly. And when Jesus arrested Paul on the road to Damascus, he spoke in “the Aramaic tongue.” Should I take the scholars’ account or that of the Bible?
Nevertheless, my point is that whether Aramaic or Hebrew, “sheol” (not hell) is the destination of mankind until the resurrection. Jesus was consistent on this (see John 6 where there are 3 references alone to “the last day”.)
I know. Never said it was.
Well, other than it not being in the OT, which you were somehow trying to show had a primary focus on the afterlife…
Which, if their primary language was Aramaic, singling out incidents when they they spoke it would be rather odd.
Yes. But the OT doesn’t dwell on (or focus on) what comes after the grave. Yes, it is mentioned by the Psalmist, and alluded to in the minor prophets, but it is not a dominant theme.
FYI – a false choice, since the scholars I’ve read on the subject would not disagree with that. The dominant languages of Palestine were Greek and Hebrew. Aramaic was primarily used in addressing the Samaritans, which would make Jesus’ use of Aramaic when confronting Paul on the Road to Damascus an interesting message in itself…
Actually Chris, in the case of Paul’s Damascus Road re-enactment (Acts 26) he was speaking to a king and his court.
All the other cases don’t say he spoke in the Aramaic tongue specifically, but just recount what he said (like when he was dying on the cross, for example). It shows consistently that this was the language He spoke.
Regardless, I doubt He ever used the word “Hades”. Neither does Paul or the other apostles. There are 2 final destinations from the beginning of the OT until the end of the NT:
eternal life or death.
Not heaven or hell.
As for the other side of our debate, I agree that extra-biblical reading can be very helpful and I do that myself. I think where we disagree is as to how important it is in relation to the Bible.
You have brought up some valid points with the parables you mentioned.
No, you’ve just applied that as your assumed context. I would suggest you pick up the book I linked above (or other similar sources), which go into a great bit of detail on the linguistic analysis of the NT (including addressing each of the Aramaic references, which were noted as exceptions, not norms). Aramaic is a “poorer” language than Hebrew (it has much fewer words), and has a large number of overlap words to Hebrew. When Jesus is in Judea, he most often quotes from the Septuagint when quoting Scripture, but when he is in Galilee, his quotes match the Hebrew OT passages found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A number of the examples he uses in his teaching are obvious Hebraisms that have been literally translated to Greek, for which there is no Aramaic equivalent.
Actually, Jesus most likely DID use the word Hades in Caesarea Philippi, since it is built right up against a rock feature (still there today) called “the Gates of Hades”. Also, when in Jerusalem, he most likely spoke Greek in public, which would make the usage of Hades more probable.
Also, Peter specifically used the word Tartarus (another Greek underworld concept without a Hebrew parallel).
I would agree that the average Christian (”layperson” for some, though I see no reason for a lay/clergy distinction) probably does not need much schooling in history. In fact, I would say that for any Christian the first order of business would be to read the Bible front-to-back, and the Gospels multiple times. You should know the Scriptures well before you start reading all sorts of additional commentary on them. A study bible can be useful (for the notes on particularly hard to understand passages), but the order of business is learning what is in the Bible.
AFTER you’ve got that, you should continue reading through it (or listening through it, if you listen to it on tape/podcast) while looking at sources which help give context to it – particularly the new testament passages. My wonderful wife purchased ZIBBCOT (vol 2-4, since I have 1 and 5) and ZIBBCNT for me for Christmas, and they are excellent for a wide band of readers (from novice to serious) in providing historical setting to the entire Bible, while respecting Scripture as primary.
“I would agree that the average Christian…” (The average rich, western Christian).
“AFTER you’ve got that…”
I have yet to see an observable Christlike elevation in speech or behavior that can be reasonably linked to further education. As a matter of fact, if we suggested everyone get a real handle on obeying the English translations of Scripture before progressing into other extra-biblical recourses, we probably would only need the Bible.
Here is a challenge to all of us – inlcuding and especially me – before we rebuke another ODM, before we lable other’s views as idiotic, before we label another eschatology as tin foil hat, before we quote another preacher or rabbi, before we delve into the original lnguages, before we go any further, let us obey this ONE Scripture:
“…being clothed with humility…”
(You go first. I’ll wait at first base.
)
If one assumes that reading, understanding and obeying are synonymous…