Here’s something I’d like to throw out for discussion (with due trepidation, remember past discussions):
What does this verse mean?
Deuteronomy 12:3232 [1] “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (ESV)
Footnotes
[1] 12:32 Ch 13:1 in Hebrew
Does this mean:
- Do not add to God’s commandment, and consider the addition to also have been commanded?
- Do not do anything that God did not command?
- Something else?
I won’t trick you here… this has one or two applications, related to the Regulative Principle of Worship on one hand, and whether one can celebrate religious holidays which are not expressly commanded in Scripture on the other. And in fact the two “hands” here overlap.
Discuss. Feel free to dissect the context of the passage, and its applicability as a general principle of worship in the Church today.
18 Comments
Hm, that is tricky. I always wondered about it, too.
Related to what you’ve already pointed out, though, maybe the verse could also have the meaning of not making more of God’s commandments than He would make of them? Of not putting extra weight or an undue emphasis on His commandments than is proper or of making light of that which is serious and weighty, etc.?
Unless you’re Roman Catholic. Then anything goes because, after all, the R.C. Church birthed the canon. Sola ecclesia.
This all assumes that one can possibly put too much weight on a commandment of God, which brings one into the whole debate in Baptistic circles about what the Law means.
In context it doesn’t seem too likely that that’s what it means, so exegetically I don’t find that a viable option. I am open to correction, though.
[bibleblock]Deut. 12:29-32[/bibleblock]
Here is a wider context; one could argue that the whole of chapter 12 fits the context too, and even the first part of chapter 13.
The strictest solution (from an interpretational point of view) is to suggest, I think, that the verse is saying that abominable things that have been done in worship for other gods cannot be interjected into the worship of the One True God.
Hm, oops, you’re right, that totally makes sense in context. It might be nice if I actually read the entire passage before commenting!
Puritans generally thought of Christmas as being popish, and therefore by definition abominable.
Singing hymns is described and perhaps even prescribed in New Testament worship, and therefore would not be excluded, except for those who classify “hymns” as separate from “psalms” and sing psalms only because of the RPW. Again, not common in Baptistic circles, but starting to be in vogue again in wider Reformed circles, if I am a reliable pulse-taker (and I am likely not).
Shoot, I deleted the comment (thinking maybe it was getting off topic, plus it just sounded like a poor question), but you had a good response. So here’s my original question:
So, does the discussion now move to whether Christmas is a Catholic innovation? I had hoped, given the fact that the original verse I cited is a “prooftext” (not with the negative connotation we have today, though) for the RPW clauses in the WCF and LBCF, to figure out where the original lines were drawn, before we move on to seeing how they match up with Christmas, or doing drama in church, or whatever. We need to know what we think the RPW is before we apply it (or decide that it isn’t relevant).
Oh yeah, I totally agree, I do think we need to first figure out what we mean by the RPW before we apply it to Christmas or whatever else. Unfortunately, though, I’m not sure I have much else to contribute here. I mean I’d probably do better to listen and learn.
Well, I would like to ask, however, even if Christmas is a Catholic innovation, then it doesn’t necessarily follow it’s something we should exclude, does it (I mean, assuming we don’t think the RPW is relevant)?
Let’s let Westminster (WCF 21:1) do the talking:
So, this then is the Regulative Principle of Worship: God must be worshiped in the way He commands, and we may do nothing in worship that is not prescribed by Him.
I think that this is essentially true. However, there are other factors at work, particularly in the formation of the RPW itself. These very same people claim this in WCF 21:7:
Now, did God prescribe a change from Saturday to Sunday, or is the New Testament merely descriptive of the change?
I think the answer to that question is one piece of data that is important to this discussion.
Hm, I’ll have to look up all the relevant references in the NT about the Sabbath, the Lord’s Day, etc. But speaking from memory, I don’t recall a command which explicitly mandates a change from Saturday to Sunday? So I’d lean toward the latter, that is, that the NT is merely descriptive of the change. (Hopefully none of the pastors at my church are reading this post! Just kidding.
Actually, I know they’d want me to come to my own decision about this, too.)
Maybe it’s not fair to say it’s descriptive, given that Paul seems to have expected people to worship on Sunday (despite the best efforts of modern-day Judaizers to suggest that this passage is indicative that Christians met on Sunday only to gather the money they wouldn’t carry on Shabbat):
[bibleblock]1 Cor. 16:2[/bibleblock]
As far as I know, the sum total of NT Scriptures
relativedirectly relevant to worship on the first day of the week are these: [bible]Acts 20:7[/bible], the aforementioned 1 Cor. 16:2, and possibly [bible]Rev. 1:10[/bible].I think this verse and its context have a specific application to Israel’s entry in to the land of promise and the command for the new land to be cleansed. It is a summary of all of the commands that have preceded. Its application for us must take into account the fulfillment of the New Covenant and the teaching of the New Testament.
For example, 12:2-3 states that the Israelites are to destroy all the places of pagan worship in this new land by tearing down, smashing, and burning their altars and gods. Should we take this as a command for us today as well?
12:5 says that they are to worship in a specific place, the place where God’s name will be established. How would we apply this without using the NT?
12:11, 13-14 commands that they only offer their burnt offerings in the places which God has chosen, not “in every cultic place you see.”
The chapter contains many more specific commands, obviously, that are summarized in 12:29-32.
So in order to apply these verses to us, we must take into consideration the NT teaching on worship and the fact that Christ has come and the New Covenant has begun.
A couple of thoughts/questions come to mind regarding the RPW, its definition, and its application:
1. In Scripture, how much of a distinction is made between the corporate gathering of the church as worship and our individual lives as worship?
2. Does the RPW apply only to our corporate gatherings or to our daily lives? In other words, are there activities that Scripture would forbid in corporate worship but not forbid in our daily lives, and conversely, are there activities that Scripture would command in our corporate gatherings and forbid in our daily lives?
3. We must define more clearly the definition of the RPW from Scripture. I think the confessions are week in this area. They bind believers into many applications (which could be correct applications) as if the applications are commanded in Scripture.
Just a couple of thoughts to focus (muddy?) the conversation. Am I off-base here?
That’s an awful lot of comment to which to reply.
Our presuppositions make this a tough one to tackle. My (possibly partial) list includes:
I mean, I could apply practically all of Deuteronomy 12 to the New Testament, if we move the altar to the altar of a Christian’s body and heart, and other typological changes along the same lines.
However, one could argue with some force that all our priestly functions are done under the aegis of the Perfect High Priest, and therefore it is impossible for us to worship Him incorrectly, as long as we are in fact worshiping Him. Whatever is not done in faith is sin; the converse is that whatever is done in faith is not sin, or at least is not sin imputed to us. So we are still required to worship Him correctly, but we have grace, it seems, to determine what that is without a liturgy (and a liturgical calendar) having been passed down by the apostles.
In an attempt to answer your questions (or at least to begin):
Comments?
I agree with most of what you have said Charlie. Here are my reservations/questions/inquiries:
First, when you mention that “God does expect His people to obey some sort of OT law” you refer to the $64,000 question: What sort? How much? Guided by what? Interpreted by what? I am confessing my searching on this subject (of which you are aware, but others may not be), so my questions and comments are truly a search for an answer to this question.
Second, when you say that you could apply practically all of Deut. 12 to the NT by recognizing the typology, are you saying that we are therefore bound by the OT law in Deut.? I agree that it is applicable, but not without the NT. We can’t even recognize a type without a knowledge of the reality.
For instance, the command in Deut. 12 about worshiping in a specific place is not negotiable for the Israelite. But in John 4 we see that the reality of the type is that believers are to worship not in a specific place, but in a specific person and in a specific way (in Spirit and in truth). Our application of Deut. 12 is actually an application of John 4, the reality of the type found in Deut. 12. We do not say that the place is important, even though it is commanded in Deut. 12.
Also, an application of a Scripture may or may not be the same as a binding principle. For instance, “flee sexual immorality” is the command, but if I say that men should not go to the mall because women are dressed in an immoral way and Victoria’ Secret has a shop there, then I am binding men to an application, maybe even a wise application, that is not a command in Scripture.
Third, I agree that there are references to corporate worship in the NT. I am also in agreement with the RPW, depending on how it is applied. By that I mean that I believe that God cares about how He is worshipped and that he has not remained silent on the matter, in both the OT and the NT. However, in practice, this can become legalistic by placing restrictions on worship that are not found in Scripture (i.e. exclusive psalmody, no instruments, no contemporary music, only certain types of instruments, only hymns written in the 15th-17th centuries, etc.)
The elements of worship that I find in the NT are singing (you used the term “music,” but I am not sure what that entails for you), preaching, praying, reading of Scripture, edification, teaching, baptism & the Lord’s Supper. We are not given much guidance in the NT concerning how these are to be carried out, and this is the point of contention between many who claim to hold to the RPW.
Finally, this is my strongest argument against prohibiting the celebration of Christmas and Easter in the public worship of the church. When we celebrate these doctrines during these holiday seasons, we are not compromising any of these required elements of worship. Our services are governed by Scripture just like every other Sunday. The elements are the same. Christ is exalted in the same way. Our Scripture topic is guided by the season just as some churches preach on a doctrine of the reformation on Reformation Sunday or others set aside a certain season of the year to emphasize teachings from their doctrinal statement, and still other preach on some aspect of God’s faithfulness or sovereignty on the anniversary of the church.
I’m sure I have probably missed your point(s) along the way, so enough for now.
Well, if I knew the answer to that you would have been the first person I called. I was vague because I can be nothing else, but I did want to take pains to affirm that Law is meaningful and applicable, although I am not sold on either full-blown antinomianism or theonomy.
Well, somebody is bound by it. The question in my mind is whether Christ has fulfilled it in His person and work, or fulfills it in us through His spiritual work in us (which of course has elements of the first). When I say that I could apply it typologically, I am thinking along the lines of your next paragraph:
To me, the Temple has become “spirit and truth,” and therefore the “place” is now spiritual. Place is important, but it was spatial in the OT and spiritual in the NT (and in fact the unity of the covenants, and the words of the prophets from Samuel to Malachi, tell us that even in the OT “spirit and truth” were the necessary ingredients even when spatial coordinates were prescribed to Israel). This could be overspiritualizing but I think it makes sense in light of redemptive history. Christ spoke of the Temple, and meant His body. Paul spoke of our bodies as being temples of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think I’m too far afield (or even “novel”) in this approach.
Which is why principles of application and hermeneutics are such an important part of what the church should teach its people. They need to be convinced in their own mind, but watched for signs of wandering to the extremes, and this is not only a function of leadership but of the entire body looking out for each other. One person can listen to secular music, one can’t. One person can go to movies, one can’t. Holiness is personal — not arbitrary, not individualistic, but maybe it’s better to say that sanctification is personal, with holiness being the goal for all.
No argument here. My whole question is what God has actually prescribed, and how do we apply it?
Bother, I knew I forgot something on my list (the sacraments, ordinances, etc.). I took “edification” to be along with fellowship, and “teaching” as part of preaching the Word, but essentially, with what you have brought to the list, I agree — this is worship in the NT.
Regarding music, I meant everything that is said in the NT regarding music: “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,” and all that entails (and I know that people have different opinions about how to translate those words), and I see instruments and songs of praise in the heavenly throne room in Revelation. There is no prescription about percussion and rhythm patterns, about amplification, about anything like that, which to my mind leaves it up to the church and its application of the hermeneutics of worship passages (for example, if nobody can understand the words, then they can’t meaningfully participate; if nobody can sing along, then participation is severely limited; etc.).
That, to me, is the big question, and that brings us back to square one: does God forbid setting aside days of the year for specific themes, and would He have a specific problem if the world has overtaken those days with its own meaning?
And my answer (I was hoping for more discussion here, but I just don’t have the readership or the interest level, I guess) is that, frankly, Satan never sleeps, and he will try to apply his own meanings to every day of the year. Every day is a struggle between being Satan’s special day, and God’s. If there is anything we can bring that will focus us more greatly on Christ, that doesn’t compromise the Gospel, then we should employ it. If we live in a strange culture that actually assumes that we will be thinking about Jesus on Christmas, then let’s take advantage of the fact, and show them the Jesus they never knew. Same goes for Easter. If there are one or two days out of the year where God crosses their mind, we should praise God for the chance to bring it to their attention without their dismissing us out of hand. Christmas is the altar of the Unknown God for most of the Western world; let’s proclaim the God they don’t know to them.
And as regards worship, I agree. Nothing has changed, except that we are topical two Sundays out of the year, and it’s openly and directly relevant at that point.
I don’t know if you missed my point or not. I was trying to logically argue down to the nib, but if it’s just you and me and Patrick, I have a feeling we’re just preaching to the choir.
Sorry, I don’t know how to make the block quotes so that this is easy to read.
You wrote:
“Well, somebody is bound by it. The question in my mind is whether Christ has fulfilled it in His person and work, or fulfills it in us through His spiritual work in us (which of course has elements of the first)”
Me:
I agree with this. I probably need to tighten up my terminology and get better at my use of fulfillment language. What I meant to say is that we are not offering sacrifices in temples so Deut. 12 is not applicable to us in the same way it was Israel (duh! See why I need to tighten up my language:-))
You:
“This could be overspiritualizing but I think it makes sense in light of redemptive history. Christ spoke of the Temple, and meant His body. Paul spoke of our bodies as being temples of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think I’m too far afield (or even “novel”) in this approach.”
Me:
I don’t think you are novel or far a field either. I do not think, though, that “place” is important in the NT. Temple is now Christ’s body and we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, but the emphasis is not on “place,” it is on “Person.” Maybe just semantics.
You Wrote:
“No argument here. My whole question is what God has actually prescribed, and how do we apply it?”
I think we have answered that question, have we not? Singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, preaching, reading Scripture, baptism, the Lord’s supper, edification (which could take several forms: giving testimony, giving encouragement from the word after a passage is read, fellowship, etc), teaching (this could be in preaching but could also be an edification given before the Lord’s supper, placing a passage in context before it is read, etc), and one we forgot, giving of our offerings. Very little is said outside of 1 Corinthians about how these are to be carried out, and even there they are not very specific concerning much of what divides those who claim to hold to the RPW.
Sorry if I pushed us to the end too soon. I, too, would have liked to see more comment. Maybe we should have a “leadership summit” with the two of us and get this sorted through! We could go somewhere and lock ourselves in a room for a day and a night and get to it. We could bring Vos and Owen and Coxe and Goldsworthy and Barcellos and maybe reach some conclusions!
See you Sunday!
No problem, long as you’re clear.
Ooh, that “person” thing is good. And that, really, is the point of the “Temple of His body” and “Temple of the Spirit” passages. It does go beyond semantics; maybe the “place” of the OT, prescribed as the place where the Tabernacle/Temple was but obviously allowed to be elsewhere at times under the right conditions, is transformed into the “person” of the NT, in which our worship is required to be in Christ, in the Spirit, and in truth (and you can’t really have one without the others). I do like that.
Maybe I mean that the terms need to be defined. The Church at large argues about these things, partially because of hermeneutical differences, but partially because some people don’t consider drums, or overheads, or instruments, part of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” And the other thing that came up earlier is the arc of commandments not to mess with God’s calendar to Israel; was that commandment (a) to protect the transmission of the typology that was fulfilled in Christ, (b) something that is transformed or fulfilled in Christ, or (c) another part of the RPW that shouldn’t have been lost (an argument of the few reformed seventh-day sabbatarians that are still out there)? I lean toward (b) because I always lean toward (b), in addition to what I consider to be a clear move from Saturday to Sunday worship described and/or prescribed by the apostles, and of course the sheer fact that Paul enjoined us not to divide over it in Romans 14 is another reason not to think it’s part of the RPW (although nearly all sabbatarians disagree with this reasoning, seventh-day or not).
I wish I had the acumen and Scripture knowledge to have some kind of a summit or whatever, but I’m afraid I blew the wad already here. *smiles*
Looking forward to worship this Sunday.
Wow, it looks like I’ve got a lot of catch-up reading to do! It looks mighty informative, though.