Nathan Cox had recommended a video. It's a good lesson, but with bad audio that made it very hard for me to follow. However, I made notes that I believe got the gist of the presentation, and share them here.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SJ4h8qy5mg

A lot of guys preach to have a job.

 

My job's to stir up the ant hill. And leave town.

 

Before becoming a Christian, I was an atheist.

 

A concept I was impressed with was "Calling Bible things by Bible Names", which comes out of 1 Cor 2, "words taught by the Holy Spirit".

[

13 We also speak these things, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.

]

 

He calls it an "immersistry" instead of a"baptistry".

 

He was asked if he used a piano. Saying "yes", he was challenged to look into the scriptures. They quit using the piano until they could do some research. He studied the Greek, etc, and came to conclude that when somebody says, "The Greek says", you better be wary.

 

Talking to a CoC preacher, he wondered why it was okay for the preacher's young girls to listen to instrumental "Crocodile Rock", but a stringed instrumental version of "The Old Rugged Cross" was not okay; it didn't make sense to him.

 

That led to Heb 13:15....

[

15 Through him, then, let’s offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which proclaim allegiance to his name.

]

 

And 1 Cor 16...

 [

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I commanded the assemblies of Galatia, you do likewise. 2 On the first day of every week, let each one of you save, as he may prosper, that no collections are made when I come. 3 When I arrive, I will send whoever you approve with letters to carry your gracious gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it is appropriate for me to go also, they will go with me.

]

 

He asked if there was any scripture that supported the idea of a collection in worship for the local church; this passage concerns a special collection for a distant church.

 

Everyone's asking the question about instrumental music in worship; maybe we should ask for the New Testament definition of "worship".

 

"That'd probably be a good question, wouldn't it? If we're gonna call Bible things by Bible names, well then let's, let's get this definition figured out. ... Let the Bible define it."

 

The particular Greek word is proskenueo. Alexander the Great, as Emperor; the Persians bowed their faces to the ground, and Alexander kindda liked that. He tried to get his loyal Macedonian cavalry to do the same thing, and they wouldn't do it, because they thought proskenueo was reserved for the gods, and they knew Alexander was just a man.

 

Heb 11:

[

21 By faith, Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped [proskeneuo], leaning on the top of his staff.

]

 

Patriarchs - Adam-Moses - Worship 1.0

 

Law of Moses - Moses to death of Christ - Worship 2.0

 

Death of Christ forward - New Covenant - Worship 3.0

 

proskeneuo is a physical act, of bowing. This was Worship 1.0

 

Worship 2.0 is an upgrade to become a spiritual act.

 

A Principle of scripture: first the physical, then the spiritual.

 

Worship 2.0 - John 4:24 - The only place a Jew can worship is in the temple, and the only time a Jew can worship is on the feast days. The synagogue meeting on the Sabbath was not for worship, but for reading of the law and the prophets (Acts 13 - 15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, speak.”).

 

"And you see that terminology all the way through."

Ex: John 12:20 "They are going up to worship at the feast."

Ex: Acts 8 "[The Ethiopian" had come to Jerusalem to worship."

 

That's why the woman at the well said , "You Jews say we must worship at Jerusalem."

 

Worship 2.0 = at the temple, during feasts; go up and participate in all the doings. The priests serve; the people bow in the presence of the Lord, in the temple, singing the Songs of Ascent as they wind their way up the stairs to the courtyard on the temple mount - "I was glad when they said to me, 'Let’s go to Yahweh’s house!'” - Psalm 122:1).

 

Worship 3.0

 

Worship is the most important thing in life. The "covering cherub"? wanted worship so badly he began a rebellion that is going on still today.

 

The only place that talks about "new covenant worship" is John 4:23-24.

"in spirit and in truth"

 

There's an outer-man and an inner-man. We live according to the inner-man. This is the spirit - the inner-man.

 

What are you going to put your emphasis on? That which is decaying, or that which isn't?

 

We pay a lot of attention to the outer-man, but it's decaying.

 

What are you going to put your emphasis on? What's God gonna put his emphasizes on?

 

The spirit of God lives in our carcass, having cleaned up the inside in order to move in.

 

The veil of the temple was torn, making the temple one room.

 

The Bible reveals to us the realm we can't see, the spiritual realm.

 

We're ushered into the one room of the temple by the blood of Jesus.

 

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brothers, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, 21 and having a great priest over God’s house, 22 let’s draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having our body washed with pure water, 23 let’s hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering; for he who promised is faithful.

 

When our bodies are washed, our hearts are sprinkled. We are given immediate, instant, and present access, because we're in the presence of God.

 

Any mental image you have, Ezekiel or whatever, of someone being in the presence of God, what is it? Proskeneuo.

 

"The point is... our inner-person is in perpetual proskuneo in the presence of him who is and was and is to come. And that's Worship 3.0."

 

Can you show me any place in the New Testament where the church game together to worship?

 

I can understand how the Lord's Supper might be considered worship.

 

But there's another word, latreo, and that has to do with "service".

 

In the Old Testament, the priests served, and the people worshiped. So collectively, the people of Israel worshiped and served.

 

King Uzziah gets too big for his britches, and says, "I want to waltz into the temple, and I want to burn incense to the Lord." The priests resisted, but he took the censor in hand and walked across the threshold, and leprosy broke out all over him. The priests hustled him out into isolation, where he remained the rest of his life. [Not quite an accurate retelling, but the gist is correct. 2 Chron 26]

 

The message is that only the priests offer service.

 

Sacrifice is service.

 

<mumble mumble Christians mumble people <mumble> priests mumble>

 

Rom 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service.

 

<Thanuel's Big Boys? added "worship" ... could do that?> But they did it.

 

"Old King James does the best" at rendering the word for "service".

 

The New Testament priest offers his body in service to God. Everything external is service. Internal is "worship". External is "service". On the inside are "the people"; on the outside are "the priests".

 

<So let me kinks then mumble?> about singing, praying, giving, and Lord's Supper. When we start doing those things, is that going to be "service"? Or is it going to be "worship"?

 

My guess would be, "service". Let's check it out.

 

Heb 13:15 ("which we quoted earlier") 15 Through him, then, let’s offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which proclaim allegiance to his name.

 

"Sacrifice"; that's what a priest does; that's "service".

 

16 But don’t forget to be doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

 

"Doing the Lord's work" and everything that goes along with it: "service".

 

How about "preaching"? That's one of the so-called five channels of public worship. <mumble where words come from some time.> They come from the same place as "rapture" and "accept Jesus into your heart", is where they come from.

 

Rom 15:15 But I write the more boldly to you in part, as reminding you, because of the grace that was given to me by God, 16 that I should be a servant of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving as a priest of the Good News of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

 

See, "preaching" is "service".

 

1 Cor 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men. Judge what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, isn’t it a sharing of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, isn’t it a sharing of the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf of bread, we, who are many, are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf of bread. 18 Consider Israel according to the flesh. Don’t those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?

 

Whazzat? <mumble> priest.

 

Eating food sacrificed is a participation in the sacrifice. Personal anecdote about altar in Russia.

 

Heb 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the holy tabernacle have no right to eat.

 

My point is that the Lord's Supper is "service". It's a sacrifice participated in by new covenant priests. The old covenant priests are out; they don't get in.

 

We "know"...

- prayer

- singing

- collection

- preaching

- the Lord's Supper

... is worship, don't we?

 How do we "know" that? There's not a verse in scripture that says any of that is "worship".

 

<False formility is a false dot.> False terminology creates false <concepts?>.

The following is written by Brian Zahnd.

I have a problem with the Bible. Here’s my problem…

I’m an ancient Egyptian. I’m a comfortable Babylonian. I’m a Roman in his villa.

That’s my problem. See, I’m trying to read the Bible for all it’s worth, but I’m not a Hebrew slave suffering in Egypt. I’m not a conquered Judean deported to Babylon. I’m not a first century Jew living under Roman occupation.

I’m a citizen of a superpower. I was born among the conquerors. I live in the empire. But I want to read the Bible and think it’s talking to me. This is a problem.

One of the most remarkable things about the Bible is that in it we find the narrative told from the perspective of the poor, the oppressed, the enslaved, the conquered, the occupied, the defeated. This is what makes it prophetic. We know that history is written by the winners. This is true — except in the case of the Bible it’s the opposite! This is the subversive genius of the Hebrew prophets. They wrote from a bottom-up perspective.

Imagine a history of colonial America written by Cherokee Indians and African slaves. That would be a different way of telling the story! And that’s what the Bible does. It’s the story of Egypt told by the slaves. The story of Babylon told by the exiles. The story of Rome told by the occupied. What about those brief moments when Israel appeared to be on top? In those cases the prophets told Israel’s story from the perspective of the peasant poor as a critique of the royal elite. Like when Amos denounced the wives of the Israelite aristocracy as “the fat cows of Bashan.”

Every story is told from a vantage point; it has a bias. The bias of the Bible is from the vantage point of the underclass. But what happens if we lose sight of the prophetically subversive vantage point of the Bible? What happens if those on top read themselves into the story, not as imperial Egyptians, Babylonians, and Romans, but as the Israelites? That’s when you get the bizarre phenomenon of the elite and entitled using the Bible to endorse their dominance as God’s will. This is Roman Christianity after Constantine. This is Christendom on crusade. This is colonists seeing America as their promised land and the native inhabitants as Canaanites to be conquered. This is the whole history of European colonialism. This is Jim Crow. This is the American prosperity gospel. This is the domestication of Scripture. This is making the Bible dance a jig for our own amusement.

As Jesus preached the arrival of the kingdom of God he would frequently emphasize the revolutionary character of God’s reign by saying things like, “the last will be first and the first last.” How does Jesus’ first-last aphorism strike you? I don’t know about you, but it makes this modern day Roman a bit nervous.

Imagine this: A powerful charismatic figure arrives on the world scene and amasses a great following by announcing the arrival of a new arrangement of the world where those at the bottom are to be promoted and those on top are to have their lifestyle “restructured.” How do people receive this? I can imagine the Bangladeshis saying, “When do we start?!” and the Americans saying, “Hold on now, let’s not get carried away!”

Now think about Jesus announcing the arrival of God’s kingdom with the proclamation of his counterintuitive Beatitudes. When Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” how was that received? Well, it depends on who is hearing it. The poor Galilean peasant would hear it as good news (gospel), while the Roman in his villa would hear it with deep suspicion. (I know it’s an anachronism, but I can imagine Claudius saying something like, “sounds like socialism to me!”)

And that’s the challenge I face in reading the Bible. I’m not the Galilean peasant. Who am I kidding! I’m the Roman in his villa and I need to be honest about it. I too can hear the gospel of the kingdom as good news (because it is!), but first I need to admit its radical nature and not try to tame it to endorse my inherited entitlement.

I am a (relatively) wealthy white American male. Which is fine, but it means I have to work hard at reading the Bible right. I have to see myself basically as aligned with Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Caesar. In that case, what does the Bible ask of me? Voluntary poverty? Not necessarily. But certainly the Bible calls me to deep humility — a humility demonstrated in hospitality and generosity. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with being a relatively well-off white American male, but I better be humble, hospitable, and generous!

If I read the Bible with the appropriate perspective and humility I don’t use the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus as a proof-text to condemn others to hell. I use it as a reminder that I’m a rich man and Lazarus lies at my door. I don’t use the conquest narratives of Joshua to justify Manifest Destiny. Instead I see myself as a Rahab who needs to welcome newcomers. I don’t fancy myself as Elijah calling down fire from heaven. I’m more like Nebuchadnezzar who needs to humble himself lest I go insane.

I have a problem with the Bible, but all is not lost. I just need to read it standing on my head. I need to change my perspective. If I can accept that the Bible is trying to lift up those who are unlike me, then perhaps I can read the Bible right.”