WORSHIP. The Eng. word “worship” derives from the Old Eng. “weordhscipe” and means “worthship,” i.e. worthiness, dignity, or merit, the recognition accorded or due to these, the paying of homage or respect. In the religious world the term is used for the reverent devotion, service, or honor paid to God, whether public or individual. The church building is a place of worship and the forms of divine service followed by various Christian groups or congregations are forms of worship. The verb “to worship” may be used both transitively, to worship God, and intransitively, to worship, to attend or to participate in worship.
Since worship includes all its constituent parts, e.g. praise, prayer, and preaching, and since it also embraces various associated features, e.g. temple, music, or hymns, the number of Heb. and Gr. words which might be mentioned in this connection is extraordinarily large and diverse. Rather than attempting to list these, or to seek a single comprehensive term, we shall devote special attention in the body of the article to five significant Gr. words.
Outline
I. Important terms
A. Γόνυ and γονυπετέω, G1206, are used in the Bible to denote bending the knee (gónu) or falling on the knees in genuflection or even full prostration. These words are important because they describe a gesture of worship which also symbolizes the inner attitude.
In the Graeco-Rom. world the terms could have a secular reference too, for the slave would genuflect before his master. Bowing the knee did not occur in the official cult, but it had an established place in the worship of the chthonic deities, esp. in cults which had stood under oriental influence.
Genuflection is common in the OT. It may sometimes be practiced before men, e.g. the man of God (2 Kings 1:13) and the king (1 Chron 29:20). On the other hand, even though standing is the normal attitude in prayer (Gen 18:22; 1 Sam 1:26), there is also kneeling before God (1 Kings 8:54; Dan 6:10). Bending the knee or kneeling is a sign of humility, self-abasement, and homage (Isa 45:23). The rabbis later made a distinction between brief genuflection and full prostration with outstretched hands and feet.
In the NT the reference is almost exclusively to bowing the knee. The main uses are in connection with prayer to God (Luke 22:41), petitions to the Lord (Matt 17:14), greeting of the teacher (Mark 10:17), and homage, whether to the king (cf. Matt 27:29), to Baal (Rom 11:4), to the divine Judge (Rom 14:10f.), or to Jesus at His public manifestation as the Lord (Phil 2:10). The gesture is expressive of humility, need, respect, submission, and adoration. It passed into the Early Church as an established practice in both individual and common prayer.
B. Προσκυνεῖν. Closely related to gónu phrases and gonupetéō is the more general word proskuneîn, which is in some ways the closest general expression to the Eng. worship. The etymology and early history of proskuneîn are obscure, though an etymological connection with the word “kiss” is favored. It is conjectured that in the ancient Gr. world kissing the earth was practiced as a means of honoring the earth deities. This in turn involved an element of bending or prostration which was originally alien to the Greeks in other spheres. Hence, proskuneîn came to mean “to prostrate oneself in token of reverence,” “to do obeisance.” Since worship seems to have been implied by the act or gesture from the very first, it was natural that the word should also be used quite early for the inner attitude of worship.
Since obeisance was already a common gesture in OT worship, it is not surprising that proskuneîn occurs frequently in the LXX. It can still carry with it the thought of kissing (cf. the parallelism in Exod 18:7), but the predominant sense is that of bowing (to the earth) in obesiance, i.e. doing reverence, honoring, worshiping. In some instances obeisance is done to men, e.g. to the prophet or to the king. This may be a courtly gesture (cf. Abraham in Gen 23:7, 12), but in other cases the obeisance seems to be paid to the man only as a representative of God (cf. 1 Sam 20:41). Protest against obeisance to a man is expressed by Mordecai, who refused to bow down to Haman (Esth 3:2). Angels, as the messengers of God, may be the object of obeisance. In the main, however, the LXX reserves the word for the worship of deity, whether it be the false idol (Exod 20:5, et al.) or the true God (Gen 22:5, et al.). Hence, the term carries with it the same sense as the Eng. “worship.” The predominant use is for the worship of God, though a subsidiary generalized sense remains. The main difference is that the Gr. word is by origin more closely connected with the gesture of prostration or obeisance.
In the NT the use of proskuneîn is almost completely confined to the gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Apart from two OT quotations in Hebrews, the only instance in the epistles is in 1 Corinthians 12:45. Even here the word is used of the man who comes in as an unbeliever. In Acts the term is never used for Christian worship apart from the earliest worship in the Temple. Even when the primitive Church bows the knees in prayer, a phrase with gónu is used rather than proskuneîn. The implication seems to be that proskuneîn was deliberately avoided as a term for primitive Christian worship, possibly because of its pronounced association with the visible worship of a visible god in paganism.
In the synoptic gospels the word is reserved for obeisance to God or to Jesus. The apparent exception (Matt 18:26) is controlled by the fact that God obviously stands behind the lord of the parable. Perhaps the most interesting feature in Matthew and Mark is that obeisance is done to Jesus. This is esp. true in Matthew; cf. the leper (8:2), Jairus (9:18), etc. In the light of the worship of the wise men (2:2, 11) and the rejection of the devil’s claim to worship (4:9f.), there can be little doubt that Matthew is not using the term merely to denote a conventional gesture of respect paid to Jesus. Wittingly or unwittingly, those who worship Jesus are recognizing His deity. This is the irony behind the mocking obeisance of the soldiers in Mark 15:19. The disciples do obeisance only when they begin to apprehend the divine sonship (Matt 14:33) or when they are in the presence of the risen Lord (28:9, 17). In Acts Peter refuses to let Cornelius worship him (Acts 10:25f.), and the angel issues a similar prohibition in Revelation (19:10).
In John’s gospel there is an important use of proskuneîn in 4:20-24. In contrast to the localized worship which underlay the woman’s question, Jesus refers here to the worship which is in spirit and in truth. The restriction of worship to a single locality is thus set aside. Whether or not worship itself is to be a purely inward matter with no outward expression is, however, much more doubtful in view of the use of proskuneîn. True worship is certainly an inner act of the spirit. External obeisance is neither a prerequisite nor a guarantee. Nevertheless, there is the same ambivalence as in the prophetic message, for inner worship is by no means incompatible with outward expression, and can even demand this. The most that one can say, then, is that Jesus dissociates true worship from the fulfillment of a given gesture at a given place. The testimony of the epistles seems to support this, for here proskuneîn is no longer essential to worship. In practice, the Primitive Church apparently did not find it possible to keep the word without also keeping the outward gesture; it thus abandoned the word.
Proskuneîn is, however, an important term in Revelation. A distinction is here made between worship of the beast on the one side and the worship of God in the heavenly sanctuary on the other. The act is obviously in view, though it surely has symbolical significance in the great scenes depicted in Revelation 4 and 5. The point is that behind proskuneîn lies the utlimate acknowledgement of conflicting total claims. In the end, however, the nations of the world will all worship God (Rev 15:4).
The fact that proskuneîn can be used again for the final homage at the parousia lends support to the thesis of Greeven in TWNT, VI, p. 766. As he sees it, proskuneîn in the NT demands in the main a visible act or concrete gesture of obeisance to visible deity. This is possible during the incarnation and during the forty days between Easter and Ascension; hence the synoptic use. It will be possible again at the Second Coming; hence the use in Revelation 15:4. In the intervening period, however, proskuneîn is not the proper term for Christian worship; hence its avoidance in Acts (apart from temple worship) and the epistles (apart from the unbeliever of 1 Cor 14). Nevertheless confined to no specific place or gesture, the church may still engage in true worship, not just spiritually, but in the Spirit, by whom Christ is continually present with His people.
C. Λατρεία. The verb latreúō and the noun latreía introduce us to a different sphere from that of gonupetéō or proskuneîn. The basic meaning here is that of wages, or more generally service, eventually with no necessary thought of reward and in a far more comprehensive sense than that of slavery. Bodily service is first denoted, e.g. on the land, or in the specific sense of a cupbearer, etc. The word can also be used for care of the body, the cherishing of life. In the classical word it is not a highly significant religious term, but there are instances of its use in connection with the worship or service of the gods. The performance of acts associated with the cultus seems to be the main connotation, e.g. the making of the necessary preparations.
In the LXX the verb occurs predominantly in Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges. It has the sense of service, but in these books, and indeed throughout the OT, the reference is always religious. In each case, however, the service denoted consists not merely in the general serving of God but in the cultic act of sacrifice. The word is freely used for the service of other gods (Exod 20:5, et al.), but the consistent demand of the OT is that Israel should serve the true and living God. This imparts a deeper element to the cultic act. Serving the Lord in offerings is based on an ultimate decision or committal of the heart. This is magnificently brought out in Deuteronomy 10:12ff., which speaks of loving and serving God with the whole heart and soul. This service requires an ethical as well as a cultic outlet, for the man who loves and serves God in this way will keep God’s commandments and statutes. The call of Joshua for a choice between serving other gods and serving the Lord has the same emphasis (Josh 24:14ff.), esp. in v. 19 with its stringent insistence that keeping the commandments is an essential part of the required service.
The noun latreía is much less common than the verb. It is used almost exclusively for cultic worship, whether general or specific (e.g. the Passover in Exod 12:25f.). A remarkable feature in contrast to general Gr. usage is that the non-religious use has been virtually abandoned. Latreía, however, is neither a very general term on the one side (serving God) nor a very specific one on the other (the priestly ministry). It simply denotes the cultic worship of God. As is learned from the verb, this rests ultimately on a profound self-commitment to God in love and fear.
As in LXX, so also in the NT the verb is more common than the noun. Latreúō occurs most frequently in Luke/Acts and, as one might expect, Hebrews. Under OT influence it always bears a religious reference. The service denoted by it is the service of God (or the gods). In Hebrews the sacrificial ministry of the OT (as distinct from that of false gods) is in view. An important difference from OT usage is that in Hebrews 8:5 and 13:10 the author seems to break down the rigid LXX distinction between latreúō for cultic service and leitourgéō for the specific ministry of the priests; cf. also 9:9. Nevertheless, the general impulse of the NT is to extend rather than to narrow down the range of religious meaning. Apart from the use in Matthew 4:10, where latreúō denotes the worship one must offer God in contrast to the obeisance demanded by the devil, this extension takes place in the three main areas of prayer, work, and life.
(a) The use for the ministry of prayer occurs in Luke’s writings. When Anna is said to serve God with fasting and prayers night and day (Luke 2:37), the fasting and prayers seem to constitute an important part of the service rather than adjuncts to it. There is a similar reference in Acts 26:7, for here the service which the tribes render in hope of fulfillment of the promise surely includes prayer. This is important, for while prayer was undoubtedly implied in the cultic offerings of the OT, it did not originally constitute the true content of latreía,
(b) Even more significant is the use of latreúō for the work of the NT ministry. This is the specific contribution of Paul in Romans 1:9. The apostle speaks here of serving God in the spirit in the Gospel of His Son. If he had merely said “with my spirit” one might have seen a reference to worship in spirit and in truth. The phrase “in the gospel,” however, indicates preaching the Gospel as in 2 Corinthians 8:18. It need not be supposed that Paul is simply saying that preaching is a constituent part of the worship in the congregation, though this is a reasonable implication and it might indeed underlie the thought of the apostle (cf. the place of exposition in the structure of synagogue worship). What Paul is doing is rather describing the ministry of the word itself in cultic terms (cf. his use of “sacrifice”). This ministry is not just service in general; it is worship. Paul does not, of course, mention preaching as such. Hence it is possible to see a broader reference. All his committal and endeavor on behalf of the Gospel is a service of God in this sense. Possibly there is even a hint of prayer as well as the outward activity of ministry, though at the deepest level latreúō here surely indicates Paul’s whole dedication to God, the underlying motivation, total commitment after the manner of Deuteronomy 10:12ff.
(c) The whole life of the believer can also form the content of latreúō. This may be seen already in the Benedictus, where service of God is to be in holiness and righteousness (Luke 1:74). A similar use is to be found in Acts 24:14, where Paul claims that he serves the God of his fathers in fidelity to the law even though after a way which is called heresy; cf. v. 16 (cf. also the “with pure conscience” of 2 Tim 1:3). Hebrews 12:28 has the same line of thought when it speaks of serving God with reverence and godly fear; the reference is surely to manner of life (ch. 13) rather than a pious sense of the numinous. The term is even broader, perhaps, in Philippians 3:3, where the true circumcision, service in the spirit, is contrasted with legal circumcision, life after the flesh. It is possible, of course, that the thought here might be that of spiritual worship as compared with worship according to ritual enactment, but the general context supports a contrast between two wholly different ways of life, the joyous way of the Spirit and the painful way of legal blamelessness.
Latreía occurs only five times in the NT, and in three instances it refers to the sacrificial cultus of the OT (Rom 9:4; Heb 9:1, 6). In John 16:2 also there is perhaps a hint of the sacrificial background when Jesus says that the killing of the disciples will be regarded as a doing of service to God. Similarly the logikē latreía of Romans 12:1 is set in the context of presenting the body as a living sacrifice to God. Here, however, the sacrifice is a self-consecration which embraces the renewal and transformation of life. It is also “logical,” which means that it is a reasonable thing to do, but also that it follows a logical pattern and has its ultimate basis in the Logos. Latreía thus bursts the bounds of the cultic and acquires a total reference both inward and outward. Yet in so doing it preserves the cultic association, for the very heart of this latreía is self-offering to God on the basis of God’s self-offering for us. Orientation and content are thus given to the life of service. For service is truly rendered to God only if it is in its very essence the worship which finds legitimate and necessary expression in acts of prayer and praise.
D. Λειτουργία. Leitourgia and the verb leitourgéō relate etymologically to service rendered on behalf of a people or nation, i.e. the body politic. From the very earliest examples the words have a technical sense in the Gr. world. They are used for specific services which the wealthy, either voluntarily or compulsorily, render for the city or community at their own expense. Some of these liturgies, both general and special, could be extremely costly. In the imperial period the word took on a rather wider range of meaning, embracing all compulsory official service rendered in state or community. The papyri have many references to the assignment and limitation of such services, and esp. to the burden which they imposed. Then the word acquired a very extended and loose sense from which the official element disappeared. Thus slaves rendered liturgies to their masters, mothers to their babes, friends to friends, fathers to sons, even courtesans to their clients. In the mysteries the term found a cultic use which tended to give it a new technical sense. Temple employees were said to perform liturgies and cultic acts could be described as liturgies performed to the god.
The cultic use is predominant in LXX. Of the hundred or so instances of the verb, only a very few are non-religious, and the same is true of the forty examples of the noun. No trace remains of the original classical sense, and even the general meaning has more or less disappeared. The object of liturgy is either God in person or His Tabernacle, Temple, altar, or name. In particular, both verb and noun are used for the particular services rendered by the priests and Levites. The priestly functions are liturgy or liturgies. The verb occurs either in the absolute, with “to the Lord,” or with an accusative “to render the liturgy or liturgies of the tabernacle.” The use is almost always literal. Only in the Apocrypha (Ecclus and Wisd Sol) does one find a tendency to spiritualize the concept. Incidentally, it is highly improbable that the LXX trs. used leitourgéō and leitourgía because they were already cultic terms in the mysteries. Strathmann (TDNT, IV, 22) is surely on the right track when he suggests that the official and solemn aspects determined the selection of these words for priestly functions. Though rendered primarily to God, liturgy was a national institution of benefit to the whole people. In distinction from the latreía or diakonía groups, leitourgía has the dignity associated with public service, and this is prob. the decisive factor.
The words leitourgéō and leitourgía do not have the same importance in the NT as they do in the LXX. In fact, the verb occurs only three times and the noun six times. Three of the nine instances are in Hebrews, and the other six are restricted to Luke/Acts and Paul. The noun leitourgós and the adjective leitourgikós yield another six instances, but three of these are in Hebrews and the other three in Paul. In spite of its abiding influence through the word “liturgy,” the group can hardly be regarded as significant in the NT.
In Hebrews and also in Luke 1:23 the usage falls within the framework of the OT. Thus Zacharias is said, quite naturally, to fulfill the days of his liturgy. Hebrews again finds a perfectly natural use for the concept in 9:21 (the liturgical vessels) and 10:11 (with reference to the sacrifices). More interesting is the transfer of the term to Christ Himself, who offered a better liturgy when He gave Himself definitively upon the cross (Heb 8:6). The sacrificial reference of the term explains its usage in relation to the high-priestly ministry of our Lord.
Thus far it might appear as if leitourgía were an improper term for Christian worship. Its sacrificial associations would surely imply an extension of sacerdotal ideas to the services of the Church. In Acts 13:2, however, the liturgy of the prophets and teachers suggests prayer and fasting along the lines of the spiritualizing of the word in the intertestamental period (cf. Philo). Paul goes even further and applies the word both to the collection which he organized for the church in Jerusalem (2 Cor 9:12) and also for the gift which the Philippians made to him (Phil 2:30, cf. Rom 15:27). Three explanations are possible here: (1) that the word is used quite generally for service; (2) that it echoes the thought of the official liturgies of classical times; and (3) that it identifies the collection or gift as a sacral act. In view of the role which the collection seems to have assumed in later worship, it is perhaps not overfanciful to catch a cultic note in Paul’s use. This is hardly denied in Philippians 2:17 (cf. the association with sacrifice), though the precise meaning of the v. is hard to determine. If Paul is offering both the faith of the Philippians and also himself, then his ministry (and martyrdom) are the liturgy. On the other hand, if it is the faith of the Philippians which renders the service, their Christian life would seem to be the liturgy. Either way, one finds a certain approximation to the development already noted in respect of latreía. The term is certainly not used for official functions performed by the apostles, prophets, teachers, or presbyters of the infant Church. Hence, if the word is to be used in the Church, it must not be given the sacerdotalist implications of, e.g. a special application to the Lord’s Supper.
Leitourgós is used of Christ Himself (Heb 8:2). Hebrews 1:7 (cf. leitourgikós in 1:14) denotes the angels as the instruments of God’s will. This also seems to be the bearing in Romans 13:6, where rulers are called God’s leitourgoí. Epaphroditus is a leitourgós when he brings the gift of the Philippians (Phil 2:25); he is either the agent of service, the executor of a public benefaction, or the servant of a cultic act (cf. 2:30). Finally, in a passage with more priestly overtones, Paul himself is a leitourgós of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles (Rom 15:16). This ministry is explicitly connected with the preaching of the Gospel and also with the offering up of the faith of the Gentiles (cf. Phil 2:17). It seems, then, that Paul is again using a sacrificial metaphor for the evangelical ministry. In so doing, he characterizes this ministry as the supreme worship which, on the basis of Christ’s own liturgy, the Christian can render to God.
E. ̔Ομολογία (homología). Homología and the verbal form homologeîn bear the basic sense of saying the same thing or agreeing in a statement (homo = what is common, log- = word). This leads to a varied use in law and commerce, e.g. to admit what is said, to confess a charge, to confirm the receipt of money, to agree or submit to a proposal, to promise. The noun homología can imply agreement in a discussion, the agreement of practice with theory or principle, or an agreement or compact. The concept of living harmoniously (with nature) is an important one in Stoicism. In a religious sense, which is acquired rather than original, the concept denotes either the acceptance of vows or, more commonly, the confession of sins. Under oriental influences the confession could be made to a priest with a view to the placation of deity in a time of affliction.
If confession of sins is basic in the OT, it seems to be associated here with a very different type of confession, namely, the confessing or praising of God in His mighty acts. Psalms like 22, 30, et al., bring out the connection. Acknowledging his sin, the psalmist finds salvation, and his penitence becomes praise and thanksgiving. Thus the confession changes its character. Admission of sin becomes acknowledgment of the grace and power of God. The confession of wrongdoing yields to confession of God, not so much in the sense of a confession of faith, but rather in the sense of a confession of praise, a magnifying of God.
For this confession both of sin and of praise the LXX prefers compound forms to the simple homologéō and homología, though outside the Bible a word like exomologeîsthai is not used in the sense of “to extol.” The underlying Heb., which has the force of praise as well as confession of sin, controls the LXX at this point (cf. 1 Kings 8:33, 35; Neh 9:3). The presupposition in both Heb. and Gr. is that the confession and praise take place publicly in the congregation. This means that the praise also carries with it an element of proclamation. To confess God’s gracious work is to declare it (Ps 118:17ff.). Nor should the element of prayer be overlooked, for confessing the name of the Lord can be an act of prayer corresponding to calling on the name of the Lord. The single word “homology” or confession can thus bind together in a unique way the fundamental constituents of true worship, namely, confession of sin, praise of God, the declaration of His acts, and prayer to Him. All this presupposes, of course, the confession of faith as well.
In the NT the first sense to call for notice is that of solemn declaration. This may be very general in character (cf. Herod’s promise in Matt 14:7). It can also merge into the more specific Biblical act of confession of faith. Thus the men who in Hebrews 11:13 confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims were not merely confirming or admitting this; they were making a declaration of faith. From this it is an easy step to the sense of witness, which has obvious roots in the classical legal use, but which takes on a distinctive character in the NT. Witness is predominantly witness to Jesus Christ. Confession or non-confession of Jesus has eschatological significance (Matt 10:32), for to a man’s confession of the Lord corresponds the Lord’s confession of him. Denial itself can take the form of a confession of ignorance (7:23). Confession of Jesus as Messiah may bring about expulsion from the synagogue (John 9:22). Confession of Jesus also carries with it confession of a belief (Rom 10:9f.). Paul links the faith of the heart, namely, that God has raised Jesus from the dead, with the confession of the lips, namely, that Jesus is Lord. This combination gives assurance of salvation. The specific doctrine of the resurrection is the theme of confession (Acts 23:8; the Pharisees). John uses homologeîn for the Christological confession which he seeks to protect against false teachers (cf. 1 John 4:2f.; 2 John 7). True teachers can be distinguished from false by confession.
Jesus Himself witnessed a good confession before Pilate. In so doing, He set an example for all Christians to follow (1 Tim 6:13). Baptism provides an opportunity for the basic confession, which may take an interrogatory form (cf. Matt 16:13ff.; John 1:19ff.; Acts 8:37). If all Christians are to confess, those called to the work of the ministry have a special task of confession. The emphasis here is not so much on testimony to faith as on proclamation, witness, evangelism, or even personal teaching. Confession is the confession of Jesus, of what God has done in Him. This apostolic confession lays upon the hearers an obligation to confess their sins and join in the confession of Jesus as Savior and Lord. Since the theme of confession is the gracious reconciliation which God has wrought in Christ, confession still redounds to God’s honor and glory, and lends itself admirably to praise and thanksgiving.
The noun homología is seldom used in the NT. It has a fluidity of sense which shows how rich the concept is. The author denotes the fixed confession of faith from which the Church is not to turn aside; this possibly had a hymnic form. The confession of Timothy (1 Tim 6:12f.) might also refer to a fixed body of doctrine accepted at baptism or ordination, but the emphasis seems to be more on the element of public avowal. Paul uses the word quite freely in 2 Corinthians 9:13. The collection gives evidence of the response and obedience of the Corinthians and in this way redounds to God’s further glory. Hints of the declaration of the Gospel and the confession of faith lie behind the term here. The fact that confession and obedience go hand in hand shows that there is no fundamental rift with James, who states that words without works are hollow and worthless (James 2:14ff.).
Of the compound forms exomologeîsthai is the most important. Used with “sins” as the accusative, it denotes public confession (Rom 14:11; Acts 19:18; James 5:16). More commonly, however, it is a word of praise. Paul uses the term in this sense in Romans 15:7ff. Christ is confessed as Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11). This ultimate “homology” of creation is anticipated already in the worship of the Christian Church. The magnificent songs of Revelation might be described as homological in form and content, though the word itself does not occur.
“Homology” is not a direct equivalent of worship. Nevertheless, it is in many ways the most comprehensive and significant of all the Gr. words the Bible uses for the veneration of God. This is because it is able, as no other term, to combine the most important features in genuine Christian worship. In the NT esp., the new stress on the declaration and attestation of Christ, and of God’s saving work in Him, adds substance and depth to what is included already in the LXX use. Confession of sins is still an indispensable part of worship. The confession or praise of God in prayer also retains its role. Confession of faith, however, emerges as a central act of worship. This is twofold in content; it is confession of Jesus and it is also confession of the facts and doctrines relating to Him. It is also twofold in form; it is public profession in the congregation and it is also the declaration of the Gospel in apostolic witness and evangelism. Preaching, far from being an alternative to worship, is an intrinsic aspect of it. Confession of Jesus Christ, whether in the congregation or to the world, is to the praise of God’s glory. As in the OT, “homology” is this praise of God which culminates in the heavenly anthems and in creation’s acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Lord. An understanding of Biblical “homology” is perhaps the most important single key to an understanding of Biblical worship.
II. Worship in the OT
A. Basic principles. A study of the words associated with worship shows that, while certain concepts like bowing the knee or obeisance are concerned with the human aspect, the roots of Biblical worship are to be found, not in human emotions, but in the divinely established relationship of God to man.
This is important, for it means that the basis of worship is theological rather than anthropological. The common question as to whether the origin of worship is to be found in such emotions as fear, awe, the sense of the numinous, is thus beside the point from a Biblical standpoint. Such a question presupposes that worship is subjective, that it arises from within man himself, that it is intrinsically a reality within man, that even as a reaction it takes its substance from the reacting person, that there is not necessarily any external object corresponding to the inner emotion.
That human emotions and reactions are involved in worship is, of course, undeniable. Awe, fear, gratitude, and love may all be experienced in worship. The point is, however, that these are not the controlling factors. They do not constitute the true essence. In the Bible the beginning lies in the object of worship rather than the subject. Nor is this an indefinite object. It is not the mystery behind the universe. It is not the universe itself. It is not an unknown factor. It is not man’s own potentiality. The object of worship, at once its starting-point and controlling factor, is not a projection of man. It is God.
God is self-declared in the Bible as the living God who is from eternity to eternity, who made the world, who created man in His image, and who set Himself in relation to man. In all the dealings between God and man the initiative is with God. He is subject as well as object. He tells man what to do and what not to do. He controls man’s destiny. He judges his shortcomings and saves him from his sins. It is God, this God, whose Person and acts are both the theme and the formative principle of genuine worship. If there is awe in worship, it is awe of God; if there is love, it is love of God; if there is praise, it is the praise of God; if worship is response, it is the response of man to the living God who has made Himself known to man in His words and works.
The response of worship is not just any response. Worship is controlled by its object, who is also subject. Hence, it is worship in specific forms. There is first the form of confessional praise of God, the declaration of His grace and mighty acts. This confession combines the recitation of what God has done and the praising of God for it. In practice these may be separated into reading and proclamation on the one side and the singing of psalms and hymns on the other. Nevertheless, when worship is genuinely Biblical, there is an indissoluble relation between the two. Genuine proclamation is praise, and genuine praise is also proclamation.
There is, secondly, the form of service, which is capable of broad expansion, but which also has its narrower aspect, namely, the rendering of service to God by the performance of cultic acts. In this respect the Bible preserves an admirable balance. Religious exercises cannot be a substitute for total service of life. On the other hand, total service of life must not squeeze out the specific service toward God expressed in religious exercises. Within this Godward service the sacrificial ministry plays an important role in the OT. This ministry is not discarded in the NT; it is consummated in and by the high-priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. Already in the OT it brings to light a decisive aspect of worship. The relation between God and man is one which man has disrupted by his revolt and sin. Atonement must be made for the restoration of this relation. The priestly ministry of the OT prefigures the greatest of all God’s acts of deliverance, namely, the act by which, incarnate in His Son, He graciously bore the penalty of sin and thus provided for its remission and for the restoration of man to fellowship with Himself. The priestly ministry is no erratic block in the total structure of worship. In its fulfilled NT form, it is both the supreme theme of worship and also that which enables man to offer acceptable service and praise. In its OT form it is a part of service to God, a summons to penitence and dedication of life, and a prefiguring of the divine work which is the heart and substance of the confession of praise. Without it, there would be no true worship, only misguided idolatry and a fearful expectation of judgment.
Finally, there is the form of prayer. This is itself another aspect of God-oriented worship because (a) it includes confession of sins and (b) it is a confession of the name of God, a confident calling upon the God who intervenes for man to incline graciously to the petitioner and to meet his needs. The very fact that God has the initiative means that prayer as well as praise is of the very essence of worship, for prayer is also proclamation and praise. The prayer offered to God is a recalling of the great things that He has done. It is a magnifying of God for them. Far from being a despairing cry in the dark, it is a confident asking directed to the self-revealed God on the basis of what He has revealed about Himself. Even the urgency of crisis or complaint cannot wholly conceal this underlying confidence, which is sustained, not by selfrighteousness, but by the divine truth and faithfulness.
An additional point is that Biblical worship is not left to the caprice of man. It is not controlled by arbitrary desires or contingent needs. It does not ask what things will be most helpful, or will best express the impulse to worship, from a human standpoint. It learns how to worship from the God who is the object of worship. This is esp. clear in the OT where God tells Moses in minute detail how this people, redeemed by Him out of Egypt, is now to worship and serve Him both in the desert and later in the Promised Land. Many of these things the people had no great desire or instinct to obey. They found the rituals of alien gods far more congenial. The Biblical lesson is surely plain. In worship, as in all else, the believer is not to trust his own instincts. He himself does not know at all what is best for him. He has to learn how to worship God. This will be according to the way which God Himself has appointed. The rigid detail is no longer to be found, of course, in the NT. But the same principle applies even if in a different way. All Christian action is subject to the overruling of the Spirit and the normativeness of the word. If detailed regulations are no longer given, the basic constituents of worship are plainly presented in OT and NT alike. The forms used by Christians, even though they vary widely in detail, must be so fashioned as to express and embody these essential elements in proportion, purity, and power.
B. Family worship
1. Introduction. The oldest form of worship in the OT is that of the family. Even before Israel became a people, it was already a worshiping family, the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. After the Exodus, when the children of Israel became a nation, and national forms of worship were established, the family continued to play an important part in worship. The rise of the synagogue later made possible a more continuous form of congregational life and offered new opportunities for instruction. Even this did not oust the family as a unit of worship.
2. Praise and prayer. A difficulty in the patriarchal age is to distinguish between domestic and personal prayer. Nevertheless, it would appear that when Abraham called on the name of the Lord in various places (e.g. Gen 12), his whole household participated in this worship. The substance of this calling is not given, but there can be little doubt but that it contains the basic elements of prayer and thanksgiving. This is expressed in the prayer of Abraham’s servant (Gen 24). This prayer brings out very well the family nature of worship, for the servant invokes in v. 12 the Lord God of his master Abraham. In the days of national worship the centrality of sacrifices at the sanctuary removed from the home one of the great occasions for prayer and praise, but there is no reason to suppose that family prayer perished in consequence. Grace at meals had become a fixed habit by the end of the OT period, and prob. long before. How soon and to what extent psalms might have been used in the home it is hardly possible to say. The hymn at the Last Supper is an indication that by the time of Jesus, the psalter was in use in the home. The singing of the Hallel at the Passover is in fact attested by other sources, though information is scanty as to the wider use of the psalter, and practice undoubtedly varied considerably from family to family.
3. Sacrifices. The patriarchal sacrifices were domestic or personal. Thus Abraham built altars at the places where he called on God. Jacob at Bethel set up a pillar and poured oil on it. Incidentally, it is worth noting that this use of what was prob. a familiar practice does not mean that the patriarchs derived their religion from surrounding peoples; they simply used common forms to worship the true God. By institution the Passover was a family sacrifice, a lamb for a house. When the institution of a central tent or Temple put an end to family offerings, this rule was still observed even though the offering had to be made at the central site. Centralization by no means destroyed the family aspect, for households made the journey to Jerusalem and rendered their offerings together (just as family worship may be maintained in congregational worship through the family pew). Like the sign of deliverance, the great covenant sign of circumcision was also a family matter. It was first given to Abraham as an ordinance for his whole house (Gen 17:9ff.). Even when Israel’s worship was set on a national basis, the family character of circumcision persisted (cf. Luke 2:21ff.). In the last resort, of course, the nation as a whole made its offerings as the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
4. Instruction. A part of religious life which was very clearly committed to the family in OT days was that of instruction both in the faith of Israel and also in its worship. In patriarchal times this may be presupposed. After the Exodus it was plainly enjoined upon the people in the exhortations of Deuteronomy. The “Hear, O Israel” was to be taught diligently to the children (Deut 6:4ff.). The commandments were also to be explained to them (Deut 6:20ff.). Explanation of the commandments entailed a rehearsal of the great acts of God (6:21ff.). The duty of not hiding these things from children and grandchildren underlies a great historical psalm (Ps 78; cf. v. 3f.). The witness of Exodus 12:26 and 13:14 is to the same effect, for an explanation is here to be given, not only of the Passover ritual, but also of the great act of divine deliverance which it commemorates. As noted, much of the duty of instruction could later be delegated to the synagogue, but the family had to insure that this instruction was in fact given. At this level the family basis was to stand Israel in good stead in the days of dispersion which commenced with the exile, and the synagogue itself might not have been possible without a prior tradition of instruction in faith and worship in the home.
C. Public worship
1. The Tabernacle. The public worship of Israel might be said to have commenced with the observance of the Passover in Egypt. This was rapidly followed by the institution of a whole system of worship laid down by God Himself through revelation to Moses. This worship was centralized for the whole people in the Tabernacle or tent of meeting. A tent was obviously the only practical structure during the desert march, but it also seems to have embodied an important principle, namely, that the living God is not to be tied, as it were, to a permanent structure (Acts 7).
The details of the worship prescribed for the Tabernacle are so multifarious that it is hardly possible to cover them all in the present context. Attention may be drawn, however, to certain features which seem to have particular significance.
a. The festivals. The worship of God in Israel is to a large degree concentrated on the great festivals of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. The people had a duty to be present at these and to make the appropriate offerings in the Tabernacle. These festivals were essentially the occasions of joyful and grateful remembrance, so that they embodied the declaratory or confessional aspect of worship. Passover was the festival of liberation; Pentecost, the festival of God’s constant provision; and Tabernacles, the festival of God’s guidance of the pilgrim people through the wilderness.
b. The sacrifices. Sacrifice had had a place in Biblical worship from the very first. With the Sinaitic revelation it was given a more organized national form. Various offerings were instituted which are listed in Leviticus 1ff. The sacrifices serve different purposes, so that some support can no doubt be found for the various explanations which have been advanced, e.g. sacrifice as an offering of life, or as an occasion of fellowship with God. Nevertheless, at the heart of the sacrificial system is the truth that God hereby makes provision for the atonement without which no true worship is possible. This truth is particularly expressed in the great annual ritual of the day of atonement when shrine, priesthood, and people are all purified (Lev 16). The proleptic form of atonement in the OT required not only a Temple with sacrifices but also a priestly ministry of high priest, priests, and Levites. The ritual aspect of Israel’s worship should not obscure the fact that confession of sin has its place here (Lev 4:23f.). During the later days of the monarchy it is possible that psalms of penitence (Ps 51 et al.) were used on the occasion of propitiatory offerings.
c. The Ark. Within the Tabernacle a prominent place is occupied by the Ark of the Covenant. This is a reminder (a) that God Himself is not to be represented in wood or stone, (b) that the basis of the whole worship of the Tabernacle is the covenant which God made with His people, and (c) that the worship of the sanctuary does not exclude, replace, or weaken the requirement of a broader service of God in fulfillment of the ethical imperatives of the law. The setting of the Ark of the testimony within the tent is important, because it shows that any rift between the priestly and the prophetic ministry arises only through departure from the basic understanding of worship in Israel. The service of the sanctuary is not an autonomous sphere. Its purpose is to set forth the God of Israel, to bring the people to living fellowship with Him, and to keep before them the demand for a life consecrated to the divine service. The absence of a visible representation of God is by no means a failure in objectivity. On the contrary, God is not identified with the things He has made. His true objectivity as the God of creation who is also the God of the covenant is thus safeguarded. God is confessed as the God He truly is. His praise is set forth, His salvation typified, and His law made known.
d. The Sabbath. An institution apart is the Sabbath. This is not a ceremony, nor is it centralized in the sanctuary. One might almost group it under family or individual worship. Nevertheless, it is an observance of the whole people. By origin it is more a day of rest than a day of worship, characterized by what is not done rather than by what is done. On the other hand, the Sabbath has a positive side from the standpoint of worship. It is a standing memorial of (a) creation (Exod 19:11) and (b) the deliverance from Egypt (Deut 5:15). The sanctifying of the day to God also brings out a fundamental aspect of worship, namely, that of the sanctifying of God’s name and of all life and activity in this name. Through the centuries the Sabbath served to stamp Israel as the people set apart for the service of the true and living God, and at a later stage it provided a natural day for synagogue worship.
2. The Temple. Entry into the Promised Land brought with it a localizing of the place of worship. In the first instance Shiloh was the worship center, and it would appear that the tent of meeting, perhaps by now a semi-permanent structure, served as the house of God during the age of the Judges. The Ark came to be detached from this site as a result of the disaster at Aphek, and Shiloh was then apparently forsaken (Ps 78:60), so that the way was cleared for a more lasting centralization in Jerusalem. The Ark was brought there as a first step. David then conceived the purpose of building the Temple as a new center of worship. Nathan’s opposition to this plan had a double ground, (1) that God is not to be indebted to man for a house, and (2) that God had intentionally chosen a tent rather than a temple, possibly as a symbol that He is not confined to any place, that His true dwelling on earth is among men, and that His eternal dwelling is in the heavens (2 Sam 7:5ff.). In spite of the objection, however, David received permission to begin assembling materials, and Solomon finally built and consecrated a Temple which was to be the home of OT worship during the days of the monarchy.
In essentials the Temple worship is the same as that of the Tabernacle. The festivals are held there, the sacrifices are offered, the Ark is given a new setting. If the priesthood is now esp. invested in the Zadokites, the sacrificial ministry of high priest, priests, and Levites continues on a more highly organized basis. The Day of Atonement still occupies a prominent place. Evidence in the Psalms suggests that the Feast of the New Year acquires increased importance, though the thesis of a divine enthronement involves a reading of pagan rituals into the OT doctrine (not always clearly understood in practice) concerning the relation of the earthly king to the divine Ruler of Israel. The new feasts added after the Exile (e.g. Purim) are hardly of sufficient importance to merit individual treatment here.
The great new contribution made by Temple worship is the development of the poetic and musical side on a scale hitherto unparalleled. Psalms had been used in worship before, but they would seem to have been compositions for individual occasions (cf. the songs of Moses and Deborah). How far they had been regularly sung in Tabernacle worship one cannot determine. David, however, gave a new place to music, as may be seen already in the procession which brought up the Ark (2 Sam 6:5). When plans were made for the Temple, he set up the orders of singers and musicians which should be responsible for the praise of God in the sanctuary (1 Chron 25). Above all, he composed many of the psalms for the great collection which became the hymn book of Israel and which is still the heart and nucleus of all Biblical praise.
The psalms, though varied in character, are peculiarly adapted for public worship, whether at the regular sacrifices, during the annual festivals, or on special occasions. In the later days of the postexilic period particular psalms or groups of psalms came to be associated with particular services. Thus the songs of ascents (Pss 120-134) were sung at the feast of Tabernacles, and the Hallel psalms (113-118) at Passover. In greater detail Psalm 7 was a psalm for the feast of lots, Psalm 29 for the feast of weeks, Psalm 148 for the beginning, and Psalm 136 for the end of the Passover. The instruments used in accompaniment were harps, cymbals, cornets, and trumpets. Individual psalms had their own settings, though these prob. underwent considerable development during the long period from the building of the first Temple to the destruction of the last.
The divine indwelling of the Temple was symbolized by the Shekinah which filled the house when the Ark was brought up into it (1 Kings 8:10f.) and which Ezekiel saw departing when the Temple was so defiled by idolatry that judgment could no longer be averted (Ezek 10:18; cf. 1 Sam 4:22). The presence of the divine glory imparts peculiar sanctity to the Temple, yet not at the expense of a localization of God or a rigid distinction between the holy and the profane. God is worshiped in the sanctuary because He has set His name there. He is the God whom heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain (1 Kings 8:27). He will hear in heaven the prayer which is offered toward the Temple as well as the prayer and praise in the Temple itself. Thus the worship of Israel maintains a freedom from cultic restriction even while it is given a specific focus according to the divine command.
3. The Synagogue. The overthrow of the first Temple created a new situation. This was even more serious than the temporary dislocation caused by the capture of the Ark and the destruction of Shiloh. For the greater part of a cent. the people had no Temple. Many of them were in an exile from which they and their descendants did not return. Even when the second Temple was built, the Jews of the dispersion could not possibly use it as a place of regular offering and festal rejoicing. It was thus inevitable that a form of extra-territorial worship should develop, and since the building of a temple outside Jerusalem was prohibited (that at Elephantine was prob. regarded only as a proto-temple, and it seems to have been the only one of its type), this form could not be a duplication of the worship of Jerusalem. It had to be a new form adapted to the new circumstances.
Whether or not the new form of synagogue worship appeared in the OT period is a matter of conjecture. On the other hand, the word “synagogue” itself simply means “congregation” (it is an alternative for ecclesia=church in the LXX), and it is more than likely that even prior to the more specific organization of the synagogue, meetings were held by the dispersed Jews for functions which later came to characterize developed synagogue worship.
Thus the return of Ezra to Jerusalem brought a new stress both on the reading and also on the exposition and teaching of the law. This seems to imply (1) that the exiles came to see a need for instruction beyond the rudiments provided in the home, and (2) that groups in the dispersion had already met for study of the law which would help preserve the integrity of their faith in an alien setting. The recitation of the shema (“Hear, O Israel”) might well have served as another integrative factor, and it is difficult to suppose that common prayers did not develop on the basis of existing OT prayers (cf. the individual prayers of Daniel, Nehemiah, and Ezra). In spite of Psalm 137, one can hardly believe that there was any real or permanent refusal to make use of the poetic treasures of the psalter among the exiles. While remembrance of the great festal songs of Jerusalem would bring almost intolerable nostalgia, the expression of religion in psalm could hardly be neglected or set aside when the traditional practice of Temple worship was no longer possible.
How and when such developments took place is not recorded. What is known is that prayer, the reading (and exposition) of the OT (esp. the law), the recitation of the shema, and the singing of psalms did become the constituent elements of synagogue worship, and that impulses in this direction are to be seen from the exilic or early postexilic period onward. Synagogues as such are known from the 3rd cent., even though it is unlikely that a fixed form of worship had as yet established itself. The requirements of the situation and the restriction of the priestly ministry to Jerusalem were already forcing the movement in the direction actually taken, and it is significant that authentic forms of Biblical worship resulted.
D. Individual worship. Family worship on the one side and public worship on the other did not exclude a very rich practice of personal religion in Israel. The patriarchs are early examples, for many of the prayers and acts of devotion recorded in Genesis are at the individual level. Moses, too, is a man who enjoyed a deep personal relation with God. The enactments of the law provide for many individual acts of religion even within the context of public worship. In the days of the later judges Hannah offers an outstanding example of personal supplication and thanksgiving offered on the occasion of a visit to the shrine at Shiloh. The age of the monarchy and the exilic and postexilic periods present a whole series of men of prayer, confession, praise, and consecration, from David, through kings like Hezekiah and prophets like Jeremiah, to the great figures of Daniel and Nehemiah. How far the intense personal devotion of these men is representative of the whole people one can no more say than in the case of outstanding Christians, but the general presentation of the OT gives no grounds for supposing that, for all their eminence, these were isolated individuals.
In this sphere, as in the worship in the Temple and later in the synagogue, the Psalms played a highly important role. Many of the psalms are written in “I”