Was Synagogue Worship Prescribed in Scripture?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bradofshaw

Puritan Board Freshman
I've been wondering about this and didn't know how to find the answer. I've often heard that the New Testament sabbath service is based on synagogue worship. Obviously the temple worship is described in great detail in the OT, but what about synagogues? If our present day worship is to be structured by scripture, how did scripture structure OT synagogue worship? This isn't strictly a criticism of RPW, I'm actually more interested in why the NT church, specifically Reformed, worships the way it does. So my initial questions are:

1. Where and when was the pattern for synagogue worship developed? Am I right that this developed during the exile?

2. Are there any scriptures that speak to this? Specifically, what was expected of the Israelites as far as worship on the Sabbath?

I searched my Nave's topical Bible for Synagogue and Church, and didn't come up with any specific texts dealing with synagogue worship. Anyone have any insight into this?

edit: I'm not so sure about my third question...
 
Last edited:

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
The fact that Christ attended the Synagogue shows us that it was divinely commanded - even if that command was not recorded in Scripture.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
If the regulative principle is the teaching of the second commandment, and Christ perfectly kept the second commandment, then attending the synagogue was consistent with the RPW. Consequently, the synagogue was divinely established, otherwise Christ would not have attended it.
 

Kevin

Puritan Board Doctor
If the regulative principle is the teaching of the second commandment, and Christ perfectly kept the second commandment, then attending the synagogue was consistent with the RPW. Consequently, the synagogue was divinely established, otherwise Christ would not have attended it.

Would you hold that every place Christ (or the Apostles) shared the gospel a divinly ordained place of worship?
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
If the regulative principle is the teaching of the second commandment, and Christ perfectly kept the second commandment, then attending the synagogue was consistent with the RPW. Consequently, the synagogue was divinely established, otherwise Christ would not have attended it.

Would you hold that every place Christ (or the Apostles) shared the gospel a divinely ordained place of worship?

No, what I am saying is that the system of worship in the synagogue was divinely authorized. This has nothing to do with holy places.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
The fact that Christ attended the Synagogue shows us that it was divinely commanded - even if that command was not recorded in Scripture.

No it doesn't. That's an assumption.

Yes it does. The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands, but also takes on board legitimate historical examples - such as public worship on the first day of the week.

The bottom line is, in the OT it is abundantly clear that God is only to be worshiped in His own divinely established way - to do otherwise is to commit sin - since Christ never committed sin, he did not break the RPW by attending the synagogue, therefore, the synagogue was divinely commanded, even if the command was not written down.
 

Stephen

Puritan Board Junior
I would perhaps not hold to the strict regulative principle that Daniel holds, but I do agree with him that worship in the New Testament was patterned after the synagogue. Christian worship is not based on the temple worship of the Old Testament, which is the form that Rome and and Anglo-Catholics would prescribe, but it is based on the pattern of the synagogue, where the word of God is the central element of worship. This pattern of worship is seen in historic Christian liturgy and certainly the pattern in Presbyterian worship.
 

moral necessity

Puritan Board Junior
I would add that, when the hour arrived for the change, Jesus encouraged and sanctioned worship in the mountains of Samaria, as well as in every other place on earth, which was very early in his ministry. For in Jn.4:23, he said that the "hour is now here, when true worshippers will worship in spirit and in truth." He did not encourage the Samaritans to get to a synagogue for appropriate worship of God (see Jn.4:39-44). Christ had established, with his ministry, the new way of worshipping God; and it was apart from all of what went on before in Judaism, synagogues and temple included. The hour of new worship had come, and it came before 70AD. And, under that umbrella, all could worship God apart from the synagogue or within the synagogue, including himself. When he was a youth or a young man, if he attended a synagogue for worship purposes, it would validate the legitimacy of it. When he attended a synagogue during his ministry, the hour had already come to worship in spirit and in truth; and so, worship could be performed anywhere, and in such a manner as "spirit and truth" implies. The sacrifices we offer are not those of bulls and goats, but those of "praise to God,...the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name." (Heb.13:15)
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
I've been wondering about this and didn't know how to find the answer. I've often heard that the New Testament sabbath service is based on synagogue worship. Obviously the temple worship is described in great detail in the OT, but what about synagogues? If our present day worship is to be structured by scripture, how did scripture structure OT synagogue worship? This isn't strictly a criticism of RPW, I'm actually more interested in why the NT church, specifically Reformed, worships the way it does. So my initial questions are:

1. Where and when was the pattern for synagogue worship developed? Am I right that this developed during the exile?

2. Are there any scriptures that speak to this? Specifically, what was expected of the Israelites as far as worship on the Sabbath?

I searched my Nave's topical Bible for Synagogue and Church, and didn't come up with any specific texts dealing with synagogue worship. Anyone have any insight into this?

edit: I'm not so sure about my third question...



Here is a good link...

Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question ... - Google Book Search
 

BlackCalvinist

Puritan Board Senior
The fact that Christ attended the Synagogue shows us that it was divinely commanded - even if that command was not recorded in Scripture.

No it doesn't. That's an assumption.

Yes it does. The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands, but also takes on board legitimate historical examples - such as public worship on the first day of the week.

I'm assuming by legitimate historical examples, you mean those found in scripture, correct ?

Would you agree equally that, for example, Christ celebrated the Festival of Lights (John 10), though it was not explicitly commanded in scripture, that it was divinely commaned ?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Lachman on John 10 vs RJ Gore

RE: John 10, David Lachman gives the common Puritan response in his review of R.J. Gore's doctrinal thesis, The Pursuit of Plainness: Rethinking the Regulative Principle of Worship.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1988.
Text from "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views ofJohn M. Frame and R. J. Gore," The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005) 138-139.
Voluntary Jewish Feasts
Gore passes on to a discussion of Jesus’s observance of the Voluntary Jewish Feasts, proving to his satisfaction from the witness of a variety of modern commentators that when Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of the Dedication (John 10:22) it implies that he was there in order to participate in its observation. He interprets John 5:1 (“After these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem”) in similar fashion. But he does not bother to consider that the presence of Jesus in Jerusalem at such times might have been timed in order to enable him to speak to the much larger numbers of people then present there. Certainly there is nothing inherent in either passage which implies his participation in either feast. That it is quite possible to interpret these passages as merely alluding to the time of year Jesus was in Jerusalem does not come under Gore’s consideration. This is a serious flaw in that if he had bothered to look into Puritan commentaries on the passages in question he would have found that this is what they argued is the correct interpretation. It is particularly reprehensible that he does not even refer to George Gillespie’s discussion of the subject in his English Popish Ceremonies (EPC, 3.6.8-11, 264-270): admittedly this is not an easy work to read, but granted the subject matter of Gore’s dissertation it should not be too much to expect a familiarity with the whole of the work and an interaction with it when it impinges on the points he is trying to make. Generally, a responsible scholarly discussion of the matter would at least take into account Puritan exegesis of the passages in question. Lacking even the rudiments of this, Gore’s treatment of the matter is wholly without merit.32
------------
32. We note here that Dean Gore made some significant changes to this section dealing with voluntary Jewish feasts in Covenantal Worship, including adding references to Gillespie’s arguments, one dealing with John 10:22 and the other with Purim. We refer the reader to the following section in this survey dealing with that work.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Would it be safe to say that Jesus' participation in Synagogue worship implies that there is no inherant violation of the RPW in that format? After all, he didn't turn over the tables in the Synagogue.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
No it doesn't. That's an assumption.

Yes it does. The RPW does not only refer to explicit commands, but also takes on board legitimate historical examples - such as public worship on the first day of the week.

I'm assuming by legitimate historical examples, you mean those found in scripture, correct ?

Would you agree equally that, for example, Christ celebrated the Festival of Lights (John 10), though it was not explicitly commanded in scripture, that it was divinely commaned ?

Correct on the first point.

I would concur with what Chris has said on the second question; there is no evidence that Christ did celebrate the Feast of Dedication. For instance, if you read in a biography "John Knox was in Edinburgh when Mary Queen of Scots received Mass", would you jump to the conclusion that Knox partook of the popish Mass just because he happened to be in Edinburgh at the time?
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
The fact that Christ attended the Synagogue shows us that it was divinely commanded - even if that command was not recorded in Scripture.

This seems to me a strange assertion, and begs the question (in my opinion). It implicitly assumes a strict RPW - rather than serving as evidence that perhaps the strictest form of RPW is a misreading of Scripture? Now I'm not getting into an RPW debate here... just noting what seems to be an inconsistency, and which then begets some ugly consequences. You're asserting the existence of some divine command for the regular worship of the people of God that never ended up recorded in Scripture?
 

AV1611

Puritan Board Senior
1. Where and when was the pattern for synagogue worship developed? Am I right that this developed during the exile?

2. Are there any scriptures that speak to this? Specifically, what was expected of the Israelites as far as worship on the Sabbath?

If I may make some comments; we find the institution of the synagogue in Leviticus 23 and the second commandment regulated what would happen. We know that very early on families worshipped God and they did so through prayer and Word. In the synagoge one would have found all that occurred in the Temple save that which was restricted to the Temple. :2cents:
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
Synagogue Worship - Alfred Edersheim

another article speaking on this.. Very interesting.

From the article:

The church #1577 ekklesia - assembly, called out ones, set apart ones, congregation; in Hebrew this word is #6951 qahal (kahal) - a "synagogue" (E. W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation, p. 165-166), an assemblage, congregation, company from the root #6950 qahal meaning specifically a coming together, an assembling, a convocation, congregation; this word is used mostly for religious purposes (see William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, p. 92)

The LXX uses the word ekklesia to translate the Hebrew qahal. Qahal means to call, to assemble, and the noun form means a congregation or assembly. Solomon is called koheleth the Preacher, translated by the LXX ekklesiastes. The earliest known occurrence of the word is found in Job 30:28, ‘I cried in the congregation’. In the books of the law, qahal is rendered by the Greek word sunagoge, showing that the synagogue is the beginning of the New Testament church. Stephen in his speech which ended in his martyrdom referred to the history of Israel, and dwells for considerable length upon the one great leader Moses, saying in Acts 7:38:

‘This is he, that was in the CHURCH in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai’.

The people of Israel, looked upon as ‘a called-out assembly’ were ‘the Church’ of that period.
 

Gesetveemet

Puritan Board Sophomore
2. Are there any scriptures that speak to this? Specifically, what was expected of the Israelites as far as worship on the Sabbath?

This is the third paragraph under the heading “IV. The Ministry of the Word in the Synagogue” pg 94

The Reading & Preaching of the Scriptures Series: The Biblical Period, Volume 1 By: Hughes Oliphant Old
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. / 1998 / Paperback

Product Description
"The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church" is a multivolume study by Hughes Oliphant Old that canvasses the history of preaching from the words of Moses at Mount Sinai through modern times. In Volume 1, "The Biblical Period," Old begins his survey by discussing the roots of the Christian ministry of the Word in the Worship of Israel. He then examines the preaching of Christ and the Apostles. Finally, Old looks at the development and practice of Christian preaching in the second and third centuries, concluding with the ministry of Origen.

IV. The Ministry of the Word in the Synagogue

Perhaps it should be argued that the synagogue goes back to the survival of the local Sabbath day assemblies, which had existed for generations before the Deuteronomic reform had demanded the discontinuance of such sacrifices. One of the psalms mentions the “meeting places of God” throughout the land (Ps. 74:8). One hesitates to construct too large an edifice on such a small piece of evidence, but there must have been some place for sacred assemblies in the smaller cities and towns. There must have been houses of prayer and meeting places where the Scriptures were read and the guardians of sacred tradition recounted there stories and interpreted their laws and customs. If all this oral tradition was passed on for centuries where was it passed on? When was it told and retold? Was it something carried on privately within the priestly caste? Probably not. Much more likely it was something done at the Sabbath assembly, where people eagerly listened to there story tellers and there preachers.

The Authorized Version says:

Psalm 74:8 They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.

My :2cents:
 
Last edited:

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
The fact that Christ attended the Synagogue shows us that it was divinely commanded - even if that command was not recorded in Scripture.

This seems to me a strange assertion, and begs the question (in my opinion). It implicitly assumes a strict RPW - rather than serving as evidence that perhaps the strictest form of RPW is a misreading of Scripture? Now I'm not getting into an RPW debate here... just noting what seems to be an inconsistency, and which then begets some ugly consequences. You're asserting the existence of some divine command for the regular worship of the people of God that never ended up recorded in Scripture?

As I have explained elsewhere on this thread the RPW does not just refer to explicit commands recorded in Scripture, but to valid historical examples. When there is a valid historical example of something being employed in the worship of God, then we can deduce, by good and necessary consequence that such a thing is divinely authorized. There were loads of things revealed to the prophets, which where not recorded in Scripture; why is this a problem?

Also if the strict interpretation of the RPW is wrong, then precisely what is the "unstrict" interpretation of the RPW? To me it sounds like human autonomy and imposing man-made rites on the Lord's people.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
The fact that Christ attended the Synagogue shows us that it was divinely commanded - even if that command was not recorded in Scripture.

This seems to me a strange assertion, and begs the question (in my opinion). It implicitly assumes a strict RPW - rather than serving as evidence that perhaps the strictest form of RPW is a misreading of Scripture? Now I'm not getting into an RPW debate here... just noting what seems to be an inconsistency, and which then begets some ugly consequences. You're asserting the existence of some divine command for the regular worship of the people of God that never ended up recorded in Scripture?

As I have explained elsewhere on this thread the RPW does not just refer to explicit commands recorded in Scripture, but to valid historical examples. When there is a valid historical example of something being employed in the worship of God, then we can deduce, by good and necessary consequence that such a thing is divinely authorized. There were loads of things revealed to the prophets, which where not recorded in Scripture; why is this a problem?

Also if the strict interpretation of the RPW is wrong, then precisely what is the "unstrict" interpretation of the RPW? To me it sounds like human autonomy and imposing man-made rites on the Lord's people.

Daniel, is this what you are saying?

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship all worship must follow the format of the Synagogue.

Or...

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship may follow the format of the Synagogue.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
This seems to me a strange assertion, and begs the question (in my opinion). It implicitly assumes a strict RPW - rather than serving as evidence that perhaps the strictest form of RPW is a misreading of Scripture? Now I'm not getting into an RPW debate here... just noting what seems to be an inconsistency, and which then begets some ugly consequences. You're asserting the existence of some divine command for the regular worship of the people of God that never ended up recorded in Scripture?

As I have explained elsewhere on this thread the RPW does not just refer to explicit commands recorded in Scripture, but to valid historical examples. When there is a valid historical example of something being employed in the worship of God, then we can deduce, by good and necessary consequence that such a thing is divinely authorized. There were loads of things revealed to the prophets, which where not recorded in Scripture; why is this a problem?

Also if the strict interpretation of the RPW is wrong, then precisely what is the "unstrict" interpretation of the RPW? To me it sounds like human autonomy and imposing man-made rites on the Lord's people.

Daniel, is this what you are saying?

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship all worship must follow the format of the Synagogue.

Or...

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship may follow the format of the Synagogue.

I go for the first option. The second option is definitely out, as that makes worship ordinances an optional extra. If God is sovereign only He can determine how He is to be worshipped. Otherwise the creature dictates to the Creator how He is to be worshipped.

NT worship must follow the synagogue - scripture reading, preaching, psalm-singing without musical accompaniment, prayer etc - in addition we have the NT ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
The fact that Christ attended the Synagogue shows us that it was divinely commanded - even if that command was not recorded in Scripture.

This seems to me a strange assertion, and begs the question (in my opinion). It implicitly assumes a strict RPW - rather than serving as evidence that perhaps the strictest form of RPW is a misreading of Scripture? Now I'm not getting into an RPW debate here... just noting what seems to be an inconsistency, and which then begets some ugly consequences. You're asserting the existence of some divine command for the regular worship of the people of God that never ended up recorded in Scripture?

If the "strict" (i.e. Confessional) view of the RPW is a misreading of Scripture then why does Leviticus 10:1 say:

"Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them."

Considering that Christ did not commit the sin of engaging in worship which God had not commanded, then His attendance at the synagogue shows us that the worship of the synagogue was divinely ordained.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
As I have explained elsewhere on this thread the RPW does not just refer to explicit commands recorded in Scripture, but to valid historical examples. When there is a valid historical example of something being employed in the worship of God, then we can deduce, by good and necessary consequence that such a thing is divinely authorized. There were loads of things revealed to the prophets, which where not recorded in Scripture; why is this a problem?

Also if the strict interpretation of the RPW is wrong, then precisely what is the "unstrict" interpretation of the RPW? To me it sounds like human autonomy and imposing man-made rites on the Lord's people.

Daniel, is this what you are saying?

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship all worship must follow the format of the Synagogue.

Or...

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship may follow the format of the Synagogue.

I go for the first option. The second option is definitely out, as that makes worship ordinances an optional extra. If God is sovereign only He can determine how He is to be worshipped. Otherwise the creature dictates to the Creator how He is to be worshipped.

NT worship must follow the synagogue - scripture reading, preaching, psalm-singing without musical accompaniment, prayer etc - in addition we have the NT ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

1) You mean only elements of worship in the Synagogue that were actually prescribed by God in His Word, correct? If it was found that there were Synagogues who practiced 'altar calls' would that bind us to do the same?

2) Is there really a need for the Synagogue to even come up in discussions of the RPW since all of the elements you mentioned are prescribed in other places? In other words,, what does synagogue worship teach us about NT worship that the Bible doesn't teach in other places?

Or is this going to just turn into another EP/musical instruments debate? :worms:
 

Gesetveemet

Puritan Board Sophomore
1. Where and when was the pattern for synagogue worship developed? Am I right that this developed during the exile?

2. Are there any scriptures that speak to this? Specifically, what was expected of the Israelites as far as worship on the Sabbath?


I am just amazed that the KJV uses the word synagogues. Praise the Lord for His infallible word! :applause:


Ps 74:8 They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.




.
 

BlackCalvinist

Puritan Board Senior
RE: John 10, David Lachman gives the common Puritan response in his review of R.J. Gore's doctrinal thesis, The Pursuit of Plainness: Rethinking the Regulative Principle of Worship.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1988.
Text from "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views ofJohn M. Frame and R. J. Gore," The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005) 138-139.
Voluntary Jewish Feasts
Gore passes on to a discussion of Jesus’s observance of the Voluntary Jewish Feasts, proving to his satisfaction from the witness of a variety of modern commentators that when Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of the Dedication (John 10:22) it implies that he was there in order to participate in its observation. He interprets John 5:1 (“After these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem”) in similar fashion. But he does not bother to consider that the presence of Jesus in Jerusalem at such times might have been timed in order to enable him to speak to the much larger numbers of people then present there. Certainly there is nothing inherent in either passage which implies his participation in either feast. That it is quite possible to interpret these passages as merely alluding to the time of year Jesus was in Jerusalem does not come under Gore’s consideration. This is a serious flaw in that if he had bothered to look into Puritan commentaries on the passages in question he would have found that this is what they argued is the correct interpretation. It is particularly reprehensible that he does not even refer to George Gillespie’s discussion of the subject in his English Popish Ceremonies (EPC, 3.6.8-11, 264-270): admittedly this is not an easy work to read, but granted the subject matter of Gore’s dissertation it should not be too much to expect a familiarity with the whole of the work and an interaction with it when it impinges on the points he is trying to make. Generally, a responsible scholarly discussion of the matter would at least take into account Puritan exegesis of the passages in question. Lacking even the rudiments of this, Gore’s treatment of the matter is wholly without merit.32
------------
32. We note here that Dean Gore made some significant changes to this section dealing with voluntary Jewish feasts in Covenantal Worship, including adding references to Gillespie’s arguments, one dealing with John 10:22 and the other with Purim. We refer the reader to the following section in this survey dealing with that work.

So.....what if Puritan exegesis of the passage is wrong ? It wouldn't be the first time a group of individuals have all consistently read a passage of scripture or passages of scripture wrong or adopted a tradition that was unbiblical and simply passed it on as biblical.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Daniel, is this what you are saying?

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship all worship must follow the format of the Synagogue.

Or...

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship may follow the format of the Synagogue.

I go for the first option. The second option is definitely out, as that makes worship ordinances an optional extra. If God is sovereign only He can determine how He is to be worshipped. Otherwise the creature dictates to the Creator how He is to be worshipped.

NT worship must follow the synagogue - scripture reading, preaching, psalm-singing without musical accompaniment, prayer etc - in addition we have the NT ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

1) You mean only elements of worship in the Synagogue that were actually prescribed by God in His Word, correct? If it was found that there were Synagogues who practiced 'altar calls' would that bind us to do the same?

2) Is there really a need for the Synagogue to even come up in discussions of the RPW since all of the elements you mentioned are prescribed in other places? In other words,, what does synagogue worship teach us about NT worship that the Bible doesn't teach in other places?

Or is this going to just turn into another EP/musical instruments debate? :worms:

1. Since Christ participated in the worship of the synagogue we know that its worship was divinely prescribed. If you could prove from Scripture that altar calls were used in the synagogue that would be legitimate, but since this has never been done, then we know that altar calls are not divinely prescribed.

2. Maybe, but it is usually people who are opposed to the RPW who bring this up.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
I go for the first option. The second option is definitely out, as that makes worship ordinances an optional extra. If God is sovereign only He can determine how He is to be worshipped. Otherwise the creature dictates to the Creator how He is to be worshipped.

NT worship must follow the synagogue - scripture reading, preaching, psalm-singing without musical accompaniment, prayer etc - in addition we have the NT ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

1) You mean only elements of worship in the Synagogue that were actually prescribed by God in His Word, correct? If it was found that there were Synagogues who practiced 'altar calls' would that bind us to do the same?

2) Is there really a need for the Synagogue to even come up in discussions of the RPW since all of the elements you mentioned are prescribed in other places? In other words,, what does synagogue worship teach us about NT worship that the Bible doesn't teach in other places?

Or is this going to just turn into another EP/musical instruments debate? :worms:

1. Since Christ participated in the worship of the synagogue we know that its worship was divinely prescribed. If you could prove from Scripture that altar calls were used in the synagogue that would be legitimate, but since this has never been done, then we know that altar calls are not divinely prescribed.

2. Maybe, but it is usually people who are opposed to the RPW who bring this up.

1. But what about 'traditional' practices. If it could be proved from non Biblical sources that they were performing 'altar calls' at some Synagogues during Jesus' lifetime, would that bind us to also perform 'altar calls'?

2. I sense that you are armed and ready if such a battle ensues! :lol:
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
As I have explained elsewhere on this thread the RPW does not just refer to explicit commands recorded in Scripture, but to valid historical examples. When there is a valid historical example of something being employed in the worship of God, then we can deduce, by good and necessary consequence that such a thing is divinely authorized. There were loads of things revealed to the prophets, which where not recorded in Scripture; why is this a problem?

Also if the strict interpretation of the RPW is wrong, then precisely what is the "unstrict" interpretation of the RPW? To me it sounds like human autonomy and imposing man-made rites on the Lord's people.

Daniel, is this what you are saying?

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship all worship must follow the format of the Synagogue.

Or...

Because Jesus participated in Synagogue worship may follow the format of the Synagogue.

I go for the first option. The second option is definitely out, as that makes worship ordinances an optional extra. If God is sovereign only He can determine how He is to be worshipped. Otherwise the creature dictates to the Creator how He is to be worshipped.

NT worship must follow the synagogue - scripture reading, preaching, psalm-singing without musical accompaniment, prayer etc - in addition we have the NT ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.



Daniel, I agree the NT assembly was brought forth from what was done in the Synogogue, but not an exact replica. It was still part of the Old. Please read the articles I provided. They show a tremendous amount of evidence of the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top