The Regulative Principle of Worship in Theological Perspective

Posted by deangonzales on August 9, 2010
23 Comments

In two previous posts the doctrine known as the “Regulative Principle of Worship” (RPW) was examined from the perspective of historical theology and from the perspective of exegetical theology. In this post, we’ll look at the RPW from the perspective of systematic theology. A number of specific concerns relative to the systematic formulation of the Regulative Principle will be discussed, with a view to the practical implementation of the Principle.

The Biblical Basis of the Regulative Principle

The biblical basis of the RPW has at least four parts. First, it can be demonstrated from specific texts and passages in the Bible.¹ Second, the Principle can be demonstrated from the regulation of worship throughout redemptive history. Divine worship has always been regulated by revelation, though not uniformly.² There is a conspicuous absence of detail both prior to Sinai and subsequently under the New Covenant. Like other periods in redemptive history, worship under the New Covenant is regulated by divine revelation, but not exactly in the same way. Under the Old Covenant the place, people, and particulars of the centralized worship were precisely regulated.³ Under the New Covenant, both Christ and His people are the places, priests, and sacrifices of acceptable worship. Therefore, New Covenant worship isn’t regulated with anything like the detailed precision of the centralized worship of the Old Covenant. The detail of the tabernacle and its worship was necessary, at the very least, because it was intended to be a copy of heavenly things (Hebrews 8:4, 5). The detail of the Temple worship was necessary, at the very least, because it was a prophecy of Christ and His people (temple, priests, sacrifice).⁴ Notwithstanding these variations, worship has always been regulated in some way by the Word of God throughout redemptive history. It is no different now during the New Covenant era. Third, the Principle rests upon the nature of Scripture. Scripture is the Word of God, expired out of His mouth (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16). It is therefore divinely authoritative, amply sufficient, and sufficiently clear. When Scripture speaks to the issue of worship, it does so with divine authority. It tells us what we need to know about acceptable worship, and it tells us with sufficient clarity. We do not need to add to it or supplement it in any way, and we dare not take away from it. At the same time, Scripture is compatible with both reason and tradition.⁵ The denial of the Regulative Principle effectively calls into question the authority, sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture.

Fourth, the Principle can be demonstrated from its necessity. The RPW is necessary for at least three reasons. First, it is necessary because of the sobering reality of human sinfulness and spiritual blindness. Even as redeemed people, we need guidance in worship, as in other things, because of the presence of remaining sin. Since the fall, men are idolaters by nature. Worship we will, but left to ourselves, we cannot worship God in the right way. Human traditions and practices constantly threaten to intrude upon the worship of God. When they gain entrance, they invariably tend to supplant what God has appointed for acceptable worship (1 Kings 12:25-33; 2 Kings 16:10-18; Matthew 15:1-9). For these reasons, God has made redemptive provisions for our worship. Since the fall, acceptable worship is the proper response to those provisions. What constitutes a proper response depends upon where we are in redemptive history.⁶ Second, the RPW is necessary because it is possible to offer unacceptable worship. Some worship is acceptable. Some is not. This inescapable reality forces us to grapple with how we can know the difference. How do we discover what worship is acceptable to God and what is not?  We can know this only from divine revelation. God Himself must tell us. Third, the RPW is necessary, because of God’s sovereignty. It is the prerogative of God alone to determine the terms on which sinners may approach Him in worship.⁷ The denial of the RPW therefore calls into question the supreme divine authority of God.

Defining the Regulative Principle

The RPW can be defined both historically and biblically.⁸ We should not assume that these definitions are always the same. While historical formulations are a helpful guide, they must never be accorded an authority equal to Scripture. They always remain subject to Scriptural authority and examination. This perspective is essential to the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Historically, the RPW has been defined in this way: “With regard to worship, whatever is commanded in Scripture is required. Whatever is not commanded is forbidden.”⁹ According to advocates of this definition, what is commanded includes biblically sanctioned examples and good and necessary consequences as well as explicit commands.¹⁰ William Young is very precise in defining the RPW in this way:

The silence of Scripture is as real a prohibition as a positive injunction to abstain…We may contrast this principle with the ambiguously stated principle that God is to be worshiped according to His Word…Whatever has not been commanded is prohibited….that which may be derived by good and necessary consequences from the express statements of Scripture is no less binding than an express command itself. Approved example has equal validity with a direct command, and even where approved example and express command may both be lacking or uncertain, as in the baptism of infants, necessary inference from the doctrine and commandments plainly set forth in Scripture may sufficiently warrant a practice of worship.¹¹

The RPW can also be defined in another way: “With regard to worship, we may do only what is prescribed (instituted, warranted, or authorized) by the Word of God.”¹² According to this definition, Scripture alone must regulate worship. The question is, how? The answer depends, in part, on how one defines the terms ‘prescribed,’ ‘instituted,’ ‘warranted,’ and ‘authorized.’ Some define these terms according to the historical definition. For them, these terms are synonymous with command, example, or consequence. Others, however, are cautious about understanding them in this way. Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. observes,

The word “prescribed” has frequently led to the types of narrow assertions listed above, i.e., that we ought not to sing songs other than the Psalms or to use musical instruments in worship. A more helpful formulation of the regulative principle is: “We must have positive biblical support for all that we do in worship.”¹³

Some would undoubtedly contend that “positive biblical support” for a worship practice is not a sufficient basis for it. We must do in worship only what is commanded, not merely what can be supported from Scripture, or, as Ralph. J. Gore, Jr. puts it, what is consistent with Scripture.¹⁴  The distinctions among definitions may be viewed in terms of the difference between ‘may’ and ‘must.’ Many would argue that acceptable worship isn’t a matter of what we may do, but what we must do; not what is allowed, but what is required. The question of worship is not, “Why not?”; the question of worship is, “Why?” In other words, we need a reason to do what we do in worship, not a rationalization for it.

Distinguishing historical from biblical definitions suggests a possible distinction between the Westminster standards and the Bible. Those who see little distinction between them are sometimes charged with tending to place the Confession on a par with Scripture. Those who see a greater distinction are open to the charge of failing to uphold confessional standards.¹⁵ It is dangerous and unwise to assume that historical and biblical definitions of the RPW are identical at every point. Ironically, the RPW, which is intended to safeguard sola Scriptura, can also tend to undermine it when it is defined more narrowly than Scripture does. It is possible to add to the Word of God, not only by including things which don’t belong, but also by prohibiting things which may be included. Both are impositions on the Word.

In attempting to define the RPW, several questions call for attention. Is the RPW, as historically defined, a principle derived from Scripture that only applies to some things (i.e. worship at one or more levels)? If so, both the principle itself and its limitation must be demonstrated from Scripture.¹⁶ Is the Regulative Principle, as historically defined, a principle distinct from sola Scriptura or is it an application of sola Scriptura? If the former, then the basis for a regulating principle distinct from sola Scriptura must be demonstrated from Scripture. If the latter, then, again, its limitation to worship must be demonstrated from Scripture.¹⁷

All who are committed to Scriptural worship agree that Scripture alone is the final rule and guide for acceptable worship. This is the RPW. But how does Scripture regulate worship? If, on the one hand, we respond by saying that we must do in worship only what is commanded in Scripture, we must qualify and explain what we mean, for, as we’ve seen, example and consequence, in addition to explicit command, are also legitimate bases for worship practices. Further, worship elements and ordinances must be distinguished from circumstances in order to properly determine what the command mandate specifically applies to. On the other hand, if we respond by saying that if something isn’t prohibited, we might do it, there are still many questions about what is or is not acceptable in worship.¹⁸ Both the Reformed and Lutheran/Anglican approaches are attempts to state in a simple way what is not so simple in real-world applications. There are elements of truth in both positions. People with high views of Scripture are found on both sides of the question.¹⁹ As we explore this matter further, caution is in order, for much is at stake here, not the least of which is the glory of God and the spiritual health of the church.

The Qualification of the Regulative Principle

All who are committed to Scriptural worship agree that we must do in worship whatever is commanded, and that we must not do in worship whatever is prohibited. This much is clear. Difficulty comes, however, with items that fall into neither category, of which there are not a few. What should be done in the case of things that are neither commanded nor prohibited?²⁰

Historically, the resolution of this question has been attempted, with more or less success, by introducing the categories of ‘elements’ and ‘circumstances.’²¹ The elements of worship have been defined as those items that are warranted by the explicit commands of Scripture, approved examples in Scripture, and good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture. Circumstances have been defined as the incidentals of worship, things that are “common to human actions and societies.” Circumstances are subject to the general principles of Scripture, the light of nature, and Christian prudence.²² According to the traditional view, the RPW applies to elements, not circumstances.

The distinction between elements and circumstances arises from the recognition that the RPW (as historically defined) cannot be consistently applied to every detail of worship without becoming unworkable. It is impossible to practice unless some qualifications are made. God hasn’t given explicit directions for every detail of worship. Some things are left to human judgment.²³ Therefore some attempt must be made to determine to what items the RPW applies.

This approach to the application of the Regulative Principle raises an important question. Scripture applies to absolutely everything, including worship. The Regulative Principle does not.²⁴ Unavoidably, this means that we must apply Scripture in a particular way to worship, and in another way to other things. The question is whether this is a Scriptural idea. Does the Bible teach that it should be applied in one way to some things and in another way to other things?

Things that are neither commanded nor prohibited have sometimes been designated as ‘adiaphora.’²⁵ By definition, the adiaphora are things that are morally indifferent or neutral. In one sense, the term is somewhat misleading since nothing in the Christian life is morally neutral in an absolute sense. No one, not even advocates of the adiaphora concept, consistently considers the adiaphora to be totally disconnected from Scripture.²⁶ Some reject the idea of the adiaphora while others make generous use of it.²⁷ Regardless of how broad or narrow one’s view of the adiaphora might be, the traditional view of the Regulative Principle (“we only do what is commanded”) can produce a tendency to assess some circumstantial matters according to the rule for determining elements, and thus exclude them from worship because there is no explicit command for them.²⁸

As we’ve already seen, the distinction between elements and circumstances is extremely helpful, but it doesn’t answer all questions.²⁹ There has not always been agreement about how to define these categories or what they include. Consequently, there has been a good amount of confusion and disagreement about a number of matters relative to God’s worship such as the propriety of offerings, what should be the posture of the worshipers during worship, the propriety and format of corporate prayer meetings, what should be sung, the use of benedictions, whether instrumental accompaniment should be used and, if so, what kind(s), the use of nurseries, and the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper,³⁰ to name but a few examples.

In his Christian Ecclesiastics,³¹ Richard Baxter addresses a number of important questions relative to things that are neither commanded nor prohibited: What additions to the commands of Scripture are lawful or unlawful?³² When is it right or wrong to obey additions to Scripture?³³ What evils arise from unlawful additions to Scripture and, on the other side, what evils arise from making Scripture a rule where it is not?³⁴ How do we distinguish examples in Scripture that can be applied to us today from those that cannot?³⁵

We have seen that biblically sanctioned examples provide warrant for acceptable worship under the New Covenant. However, not all biblically sanctioned examples do. Many things were done with God’s approval in the early church that aren’t necessarily binding on Christians today. Examples include the common purse (Acts 2:44, 45), head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), the holy kiss (1 Corinthians 16:20), making provision for widows when they reach age sixty (1 Timothy 5:9), and elders praying over the sick and anointing them with oil (James 5:14). While most of these don’t have to do with corporate worship, they are concerned with the church as a whole.³⁶

In connection with the qualification of the RPW, consider 1 Timothy 2:8, 9. One interpretation of these verses is that women should not be allowed to lead in prayer in mixed prayer meetings.³⁷ If we strip away the qualifying phrases, Paul wants the men to pray, and the women to adorn (clothe) themselves. If that means that the women shouldn’t pray, then it must mean that the men shouldn’t clothe themselves—certainly an invalid conclusion in view of the analogy of Scripture, not to mention Christian prudence! Of course all should wear clothing. Why, then, shouldn’t all pray? Clearly, Paul isn’t addressing here so much the who as the how of prayer and dress.³⁸ Men should pray with integrity. Women should dress modestly.

Most serious Bible students agree that arguments from silence are inconclusive. Neither doctrine nor practice should be based on arguments from silence alone. Is it not an argument from silence to say that something is prohibited because it isn’t commanded? It would be an argument from silence to insist that something is commanded because it isn’t prohibited. Most would recoil from the latter idea but not the former. Why? One might answer by saying that if we command what God hasn’t commanded, we add to His commands, which is wrong. True enough. But do we not also add to God’s commands by prohibiting what He hasn’t prohibited? Richard Hooker argues for the legitimacy of some actions not explicitly warranted by the Scriptures. He cautions against the use of arguments from the silence of Scripture and challenges the idea that Scripture denies what it does not teach.³⁹

By now it should be clear that determining what is acceptable in worship isn’t always an easy matter. The difficulty forces us to grapple with an important question: Are the explicit commands of Scripture, biblically sanctioned examples, and good and necessary consequences the only legitimate warrant for Christian action, whether in worship or other things?

The Scope of the Regulative Principle

Tied to this question is an equally important concern: the scope of the Regulative Principle. To what and how far should it be applied? To worship only, or beyond? If to worship only, then to the church’s worship only, or to worship at other levels?

At the outset of this discussion, the biblical precedent for special meetings for corporate worship under the New Covenant must be established. In one sense, all of life is worship under the New Covenant.⁴⁰ This fact, however, eliminates neither the mandate nor the need for special meetings for corporate worship. The Bible makes a distinction between worship as a way of life (Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 10:31) and worship as a formal act of devotion to God (John 4:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 14:23-26).⁴¹ As we saw earlier, there is plenty of evidence for special worship meetings in the New Testament (Matthew 18:20; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:17, 18, 33, 34; 14:23-26).⁴²

Some advocates of the “all-of-life-is-worship” view tend to downplay the necessity and importance of special meetings for worship. They also tend to flatten the distinction of the Lord’s Day from other days of the week. On the other hand, advocates of the traditional RPW generally have high views of special meetings for corporate worship, and of the Lord’s Day as the divinely appointed day for those meetings. While acknowledging that Scripture does apply to all departments of life, they are adamant in limiting the application of the Regulative Principle to worship. Scripture doesn’t compel us to choose absolutely between these two views. There are elements of truth in both.

Those who hold to the traditional view of the RPW argue that “the Regulative-Principle-applies-to-all-of-life” view destroys it.⁴³ They are correct. It is impossible to apply the Regulative Principle, as traditionally defined, to all of life without destroying Christian liberty.⁴⁴ As we saw previously,⁴⁵ there has been considerable disagreement about the scope of the RPW, even among its traditional advocates. Some restrict its application exclusively to the worship of the church. Others expand the scope of its application to the church as a whole; others to include private and family worship in the home; others, who depart from the traditional view, to include all of life. As the scope of the traditional Regulative Principle’s application is broadened, Christian liberty suffers. Diagram A (below) represents this graphically. Each concentric circle represents the scope of the Regulative Principle’s application. As one moves from the center toward the outermost circle of application, there is an increasing loss of Christian liberty.⁴⁶

Diagram A

Rather than say that the RPW applies to spheres beyond formal worship, it would be more accurate to say that Scripture applies to all these spheres. Scripture regulates all of life, including worship. To the extent that Scripture speaks to any concern, it regulates it; in some instances, more rigidly than others. But does it regulate any one concern or group of concerns by a set of principles different from those by which it regulates others?

Some openly admit that corporate worship involves a different hermeneutic. T. David Gordon writes, “In point of fact, however, the regulative principle does provide a different heremeneutic.”⁴⁷ Ernest C. Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen assert,

The regulative principle is cabined to worship only. Advocates of its use recognize that, in every other area of life, Christians are under the liberty of the normative principle. In this sense, the regulative principle is an exception to the doctrine of Christian liberty.⁴⁸

John M. Frame writes, “Many in the Reformed tradition, have insisted that there is a separate regulative principle for worship alone, narrower and more stringent than God’s regulation of the rest of life.”⁴⁹ Elsewhere, Frame, commenting on the “eloquent semicolon” in 20:2 of the Westminster Confession, expresses the traditional Reformed view in this way:

In most areas of life, we may adopt the principle that “whatever is not forbidden is permitted”; but in faith and worship we must adopt the stricter principle that “whatever is not commanded is forbidden.” In effect, the confession tells us to follow something like RP2 [the Lutheran-Catholic principle] in most of life’s decisions, but to follow RP1 [the Reformed principle] in matters of faith and worship.⁵⁰

The plainness of these statements by Gordon, Reisinger, Allen, and Frame highlights a key issue in connection with the application of the RPW: Is there one hermeneutic for all of life and a separate hermeneutic for worship, or one and the same hermeneutic for everything? Does Scripture itself identify a distinct and separate hermeneutic for worship? Does Scripture itself teach that the Regulative Principle applies to worship, and the Normative Principle applies to everything else?⁵¹

A simple syllogism may help to clarify:

Major Premise: Scripture regulates all of life.
Minor Premise: Corporate worship is a part of life.
Conclusion: Scripture regulates corporate worship.

This syllogism suggests several questions. How does Scripture regulate corporate worship? By a principle different from that by which it regulates all of life? Or by the same principle? Does the Bible itself demand the application of Scripture to worship in a way that is different from the way it is applied to other things? Are there any other areas of life apart from worship that Scripture regulates by special principles? If so, is there a hierarchy of regulating principles in the Bible? Is there a two (or more)-tiered regulation of anything by Scripture?

To summarize, it is somewhat misleading and confusing to say that the RPW applies to all of life.⁵² As historically defined, it most certainly does not. It is more accurate to say that Scripture applies to all of life. It is the rule for everything, including worship. This is the Regulative Principle.⁵³

Working Toward Resolution

Scripture is clear that acceptable worship must always be regulated by divine revelation. God is to be worshiped according to His Word. Worship should be carried out in accordance with whatever specific directions, examples, and good and necessary consequences are found in Scripture. Where these are lacking, worship should be guided by general Scriptural principles.⁵⁴ Believing that Scripture alone should guide us in matters pertaining to worship, and that it is sufficient for this purpose, the following ten categories of concern are offered as a general guide for determining what is acceptable in worship.⁵⁵

(1) Commands

The clear and explicit commands of Scripture must always be followed. Here, however, we see some important differences between commands concerning worship in the New Testament from those in the Old. The sheer number of such commands in the Old Testament far exceeds those that are in the New.⁵⁶ Detailed directives for the worship of the redeemed community, plentiful in the Old Testament, aren’t found in the New.⁵⁷ The New Testament doesn’t present a set of explicit commands that are intended exclusively for the church’s worship. Strictly speaking, the classic New Testament texts that are used to demonstrate the usual elements of acceptable worship aren’t limited to, or in every case required for, the church’s worship in their application.⁵⁸ They have application to other settings as well. This means that great care must be taken in the way these texts are understood and applied with respect to the church’s worship.

For example, in 1 Timothy 4:13 Paul charges to Timothy give attention to reading, exhortation, and teaching until Paul returns to Ephesus.⁵⁹ This is a command that certainly can be applied to worship, but it isn’t necessarily limited to it or required for it. The same can be said for Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. The saints are commanded to speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, but it doesn’t appear that this is limited exclusively to, or in every case required for, public worship. The context of these passages seems to be broader than corporate worship in the church. For another example, observance of the Lord’s Supper is clearly commanded in the New Testament (Matthew 26:26, 27; Mark 14:22, 23; Luke 22:17-19; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25). The early church, however, didn’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a part of a worship service as we think of it, but in conjunction with a fellowship meal. Furthermore, very few observe the Lord’s Supper each and every time they gather for worship. Is this a violation of the Regulative Principle? For another example, preaching is commanded (2 Timothy 4:2). Does this mean that every worship service must have a sermon? It would seem from the context that Paul isn’t thinking exclusively of the church’s formal worship for he charges Timothy to be ready in season and out of season, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with great patience, and to do the work of an evangelist—all items that seem to be broader than formal worship in their scope. As another example, corporate prayer is commanded (1 Timothy 2:1, 2, 8). All would agree that worship without prayer would be unthinkable! But this command undoubtedly extends to corporate prayer in settings outside of formal public worship.

The point here is not that the basic activities of acceptable worship are up for grabs. Neither is it to argue for carelessness about preaching, prayer, reading and singing in worship, or for arbitrarily including or omitting them. The point is that it sounds simple enough to say that we must do in worship only what is commanded. But when we look for such commands in the New Testament we don’t find them in abundance. Care must be taken in how we understand and apply to worship the texts that refer to these activities. Let each one be convinced in his own mind concerning the proper interpretation and application of these passages to public worship.

(2) Prohibitions

The clear and explicit prohibitions of Scripture must always be obeyed. Foremost among these is the Second Commandment which prohibits all forms of idolatry, including the use of graven images in the worship of God. However, unlike prohibitions in the Old Testament respecting worship, which are legion, there are virtually none in the New.

(3) Biblically Sanctioned Examples

Here we find a considerable amount of material concerning the content of acceptable worship. We are warranted to worship as the early church did, provided that factors peculiar to their place in redemptive history are taken into account.⁶⁰ The early Christians inherited the format of the synagogue worship which consisted of the reading and exposition of the Word of God, the singing of psalms, and prayer.⁶¹ Teaching and the Lord’s Supper were an important part of their gatherings (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; 14:26). They worshiped on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). We are warranted to do the same, not only from explicit commands, but from their example.

(4) Good and Necessary Consequences

These are also vital for determining what is acceptable worship (Matthew 22:31, 32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Matthew 19:4-6; Acts 17:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 11:8-10).⁶² However, care must be taken with this principle. An inference may seem to be good and necessary, but in fact it may not be. If a primary worship practice (element or ordinance) is based only on good and necessary consequence, without a command or an example, it might be invalid. For example, the doctrines of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the resurrection can be established and corroborated from many portions of Scripture in addition to good and necessary consequence, but the doctrine of infant sprinkling cannot.

(5) Lord’s Day Observance

This category of concern is a major player in determining what is acceptable worship. Proper observance of the Lord’s Day is rooted in the creation ordinance of the Sabbath, and is part of obedience to the Moral Law of God. The first day of the week is the Lord’s Day. This is the day that God has appointed for His special worship (John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10). On this day the people of God gather in His special presence to worship Him (Matthew 18:20). This is a day for “desisting from our own ways, seeking our own pleasure, and speaking our own word” (Isaiah 58:13). It is a day set apart for honoring and delighting in the Lord.

Biblical principles of Lord’s Day observance should be reflected in the church’s worship on this day (Genesis 2:2, 3; Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15; Isaiah 58:13, 14; Matthew 12:1-13; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-11; 13:10-16). Effort should be made, therefore, to include, in due proportion and in good taste, as many of the “elements” and “ordinances” of worship as are appropriate for the occasion. Normally this will include Scriptural prayer, the reading of Scripture, the singing of Scripture, Scriptural instruction, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. In addition, activities which lack Scriptural warrant should not be allowed to intrude upon the worship of God on this day. Effort should be made to ensure that “circumstantial matters” accord with the general principles of Scripture, Christian prudence, and the light of nature.  All the meetings of the church remain subject to Scriptural authority at all times, but esteem for the Lord’s Day should be reflected in what takes place in the worship of God on this day compared to the activities of the gathered church on other days.

(6) Church Authority

The quest for acceptable worship unavoidably necessitates discussion of the nature and limits of church power. The Regulative Principle was historically forged in a context of ecclesiastical abuse. It was intended to exclude Roman Catholic idolatry from worship, and to protect liberty of conscience against the enforcement of Anglican liturgical orders. As the confessions correctly assert, Christians are free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the Word, or beside it (not contained in it). Christians possess this freedom outside as well as inside of public worship. They possess this freedom in all departments of life, not only in matters of faith or worship. Doctrines and commandments that are contrary to or beside the Word of God must never be imposed upon their consciences as though they were divine commands. The trampling of the consciences of God’s people by church leadership that sees little difference between its own derivative authority and God’s inherent divine authority is abhorrent to the Head of the church.

At the same time, we must avoid an overreaction in the opposite direction. One cannot escape the fact that the church inevitably must make some determinations about its worship that lie outside of what is explicitly commanded or forbidden. While Christians are free from such “beside-the-Word” determinations, they are also Scripturally bound to obey those who are in authority over them (Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 6:1; Romans 13:1; Hebrews 13:17). These “beside-the-Word” determinations do not, in every case, constitute a violation of Christian conscience or liberty. The elders in a given local setting will make many determinations about the church’s worship which are not explicit in the Bible, such as its general style and flavor (traditional, contemporary, or a mix of both). They will make decisions about the times, number, length, and format of meetings for worship (what will be read, preached, or sung, how much, and in what order, whether a formal liturgy will be used, etc.). Making determinations like these is part of their responsibility as overseers in the house of God (1 Timothy 3:5, 15; Hebrews 13:17). At all times they should aim to make these decisions with sensitivity to the congregation. Their determinations are valid and binding, provided that they are within Scriptural bounds.

Church members, on the one hand, must not blindly submit themselves to worship that is unscriptural. For example, they must not pray to a statue of Jesus or venerate the emblems in the Lord’s Supper simply because church leaders require them to. On the other hand, they must not object to minor, “beside-the-Word” details simply because they’re not explicitly commanded in the Bible. For example, their consciences haven’t been violated and their liberties trampled if the service begins at 10:00 am instead of 11:00 am, or if the church meets more than once on the Lord’s Day.

Church members may find that they prefer the worship in one church over another when the worship in both churches is Scriptural, just as they may prefer to sit under the ministry of one man rather than another when both men are godly, biblical pastors. Church members must, however, choose churches based on principle, not merely preference. As committed, participating church members, they must refrain from a hyper-critical, uncooperative spirit (1 Corinthians 10:10; Philippians 2:14; Hebrews 13:17). Unavoidably, all churches make some determinations about worship that are neither commanded nor forbidden. When Christians commit themselves to membership in a local church and voluntarily submit themselves to these determinations, they are not necessarily surrendering their liberty of conscience.

As church members, believers submit themselves to the government and discipline of a particular church. This usually involves making a church covenant of some kind. In a church covenant vows are taken. Promises are made to do things that the Bible doesn’t explicitly require. For example, the Nazirite vow included the promise to abstain from all grape products and from cutting the hair—things which were normally lawful (Numbers 6:1-5). When we make a vow, we promise to do things that aren’t required of us by the Bible. This is the very nature of a vow. It is voluntary, not mandatory. We voluntarily submit to requirements that are beside the Bible, but which also are based upon the general principles of the Bible. This is what is involved in a marriage—making a covenant, taking vows, promising to do with regard to your spouse what the Bible doesn’t require you to do with regard to anyone else.  The Bible doesn’t require you to marry or make a vow, but if you do, you must keep it. You volunteer to be uniquely committed to this person. Of course, not all vows are equally binding. The vows involved in church membership are not as binding as marriage vows. The latter is necessarily a lifetime commitment. The former is not.

Both leaders and people should feel a tension here. This tension is captured and expressed in the Belgic Confession, Article 32:

In the meantime we believe, though it is useful and beneficial that those who are rulers of the church institute and establish certain ordinances among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, yet they ought studiously to take care that they do not depart from those things which Christ, our only Master, hath instituted. And therefore, we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever.⁶³

This portion of the Confession teaches that, on the one hand, the church has power to make decisions about how worship is carried out. On the other hand, the church does not have power to demand what is contrary to the Word of God. Neither does the church have power to demand things that are neither commanded nor forbidden as though those things were the commands of God. Further, such matters must be carried out in a way that is consistent with Scripture.

Church members must submit to the commands of God. They must never submit to what is contrary to the Word of God. They may choose to submit to things that are neither commanded nor prohibited (things that are beside the Word, not contained in the Word). This is precisely where the potential for disagreement exists. Love, trust, and Christian grace must supply the need here. Happy is that church and that people where the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace prevails.

(7) Christian Liberty

Closely tied to the concern of church authority is the matter of Christian liberty. If, as the confessions state, individual Christians are free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the Word, or beside it, then so are groups of Christians gathered together in local churches.  This means that the principles of Christian liberty may be applied at the corporate level. Christ has given liberty to His church in arranging the details of worship provided that these arrangements don’t violate commands or prohibitions, and that they accord with the general rules of the Word, the light of nature, and Christian prudence. Examples of such include: whether or not to have Sunday Schools, stated meetings for prayer, or nurseries; whether the church will meet for worship in church buildings, homes, or elsewhere; what the order of worship will be; how much singing, prayer, or preaching there will be in a given worship service; whether a liturgy of some kind is used; whether, when, and how offerings will be taken; how ministers will dress; the times, length, and number of meetings for worship; whether elders or others will lead worship, preach, or administer sacraments; how often and in what manner the Lord’s Supper will be administered; what the posture of the worshipers will be during worship, whether sitting, standing, kneeling, hands raised, etc. These and numerous other concerns are all matters of corporate liberty. Congregations may legitimately differ on these and other such items while bringing to the Lord Scriptural worship.

Our sixteenth and seventeenth century forbears were careful about respecting the consciences of God’s people. They were emerging from Rome or resisting the imposition of practices that were ostensibly indifferent. “If they are truly indifferent,” it was asked, “then why do church authorities wish to impose them?” A similar question can be asked, but in the other direction: If they are truly indifferent, why do church authorities wish to forbid them?  We are free, at times, to do what is not prohibited in the Word of God, and we are free, at times, to do what is not commanded.

Conservative advocates of the RPW point out that Christian liberty involves the freedom to restrict oneself to what is commanded, not the freedom to do what is not prohibited.⁶⁴ They approach worship and the Regulative Principle with this perspective of Christian liberty in mind.

Though many would seek to use the doctrine of Christian liberty to broaden the scope of what is permitted in worship, the authors of the confession actually wrote this to restrict what was required in worship. Because Roman Catholicism had added so many doctrines and commandments of men it was necessary to assert that the consciences of men could not be bound by the doctrines and commandments of men. It was necessary to assert that only that which was commanded in Scripture was required in worship and to submit to any other requirements was to betray true liberty of conscience.⁶⁵

In the same place, the paper goes on to assert: “Applying this principle to our situation would assert that the elders of a church could not require of the people in worship more than God requires or expect less than God requires in His Word.”

This statement is true in itself, but impossible to practice. It is not possible for church leadership to require no more or no less than what God requires without imposing on someone’s liberty. There are many “beside-the-word” items respecting worship in which churches have the liberty to differ. It is not wrong for church leaders to make determinations about such items. In fact they must. The Head of the church requires them to (1 Timothy 3:5, 15). Once church leaders make determinations (applications) about how aspects of worship that are neither commanded nor forbidden will be carried out, they unavoidably require either more or less than what God requires in His Word.

To be sure, in a self-indulgent society that venerates radical individualism, it is important to remember that gospel liberty isn’t the freedom to do anything one wants to, but the freedom to do what is best within the bounds of Scriptural authority in accordance with the law of love (Galatians 5:13, 14). Rightly should we regard Christian liberty as an opportunity to limit our liberty for the sake of others. The church may not burden the conscience of the believer by requiring anything in worship not required by Scripture. Neither, however, may the church burden the conscience of the believer by forbidding what is not forbidden by Scripture. The liberty of others can be violated in this direction as well—by restriction and prohibition as well as addition and enlargement. For example, one who advocates the singing of psalms only restricts the liberty of one who advocates the singing of inspired songs. Both are persuaded that they are “singing the Word.” Those who advocate the singing of hymns (considered “uninspired songs” by some) have their liberty restricted by the previous two. The hymn singer is persuaded that if hymns may be quoted in preaching, they may also be sung.

The restriction of liberty works in both directions, by prohibition as well as addition. Once determinations are made respecting things that are neither commanded nor prohibited, unavoidably someone’s liberty is sacrificed in one way or another. The apostle Paul, whose treatment of Christian liberty is second to none of the biblical writers, doesn’t resolve this dilemma by taking sides. This is because neither side is entirely right or wrong about the issue in question, if it is truly a matter of liberty and not a matter of biblical mandate. Perhaps we can hear Paul say, “He who sings inspired songs in addition to the psalms is not to regard with contempt he who sings psalms only, and the one who sings psalms only is not to judge the one who sings inspired songs in addition to the psalms, for God has accepted him. He who sings inspired songs in addition to the psalms sings for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who sings psalms only, for the Lord he sings psalms only, and gives thanks to God” (Romans 14:3, 6). Ultimately, the resolution of this dilemma lies, not in consulting the Bible as if it were a rule book designed to specifically address every situation, but in the willingness of God’s people, with an open Bible, to defer to one another in love for the sake of the peace and unity of the church and the glory of Christ.⁶⁶

(8) General Rules/Principles of Scripture

This category of concern comes directly from 1:6 of the confessions of faith: “…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” Circumstantial matters are items which are neither commanded nor forbidden. These remain under the authority of the Word of God. For example, the general principles of edification and orderliness (1 Corinthians 14:26, 40) extend to circumstantial concerns. Further, the sufficiency of the Scriptures means that the Bible speaks in some way even to things in the worship of God which aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Word (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

(9) The Light of Nature

Like the previous item, this one comes directly from 1:6 of the confessions. It rests upon 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14 where Paul assumes that “nature” (phusis) has something to say to the matter of head coverings. Some take this to be a reference to natural reason; others to the laws of creation; others to our natural constitution as men and women; others to cultural and social customs that aren’t in conflict with Scripture.⁶⁷ Perhaps Paul has more than one of these ideas in mind. While each of these possibilities are distinct from one another, they overlap in experience. Instinctive feelings and judgments sometimes result from the laws of creation, natural constitution, or cultural and social customs. At other times they influence or produce cultural and social customs. In any case, “nature” is a principle that exerts a legitimate influence on some circumstances of worship. Of course, “nature,” like all other things, remains subject to the general rules and principles of God’s Word.

(10) Christian Prudence

Like the two previous items, this concern also comes directly from 1:6 of the confessions. Christian prudence is just another expression for sanctified common sense. In a world where sin is operative, though, common sense isn’t always so common, not even among those who have been savingly renewed by the Spirit of God. The general rules and principles of the Word of God must therefore be brought to bear upon matters of so-called common sense.

Note several observations about these ten categories. First, they have been weighted in their order of importance. While legitimate objections might be raised to the weighting at points, they generally rank in importance from the strongest (#1) to the weakest (#10). Second, the classic distinction between so-called elements and circumstances is helpful in identifying the primary activities of acceptable worship. At the very least, it is a good starting place for understanding what comprises acceptable worship. The distinction between elements and circumstances can be profitably employed in conjunction with these ten categories. Categories 1-5 may be applied to primary worship practices (“elements”) while categories 6-10 may be applied to circumstances. The best case can be made for primary worship practices that rest on commands, examples, and good and necessary consequences. A good case might be made for primary worship practices that rest upon examples and consequences without commands. But caution is in order for primary worship practices that rest on consequences only without commands or examples. Third, we do what we do in worship because of what we learn about acceptable worship from Scripture, not because we apply Scripture to worship in a way that is different from the way we apply it to other things. We don’t use a different hermeneutic for worship, but we do follow the teaching of Scripture for worship. These ten categories of concern may be profitably used to help us understand any item of Christian practice, not just worship. Fourth, the application of these ten categories won’t produce uniform worship in all times, places, and cultures. The Bible allows for some variety in worship styles and flavors, all of which are acceptable to God. Fifthly and finally, this approach is not radically different from that used by advocates of the traditional Regulative Principle. All who take Scriptural worship seriously wrestle in similar ways with these ten categories, regardless of their particular view of the Regulative Principle. This approach does differ, however, from the traditional one in that it’s not as restrictive. It isn’t bound to elaborate arguments about what constitutes an element or a circumstance.⁶⁸ At the same time, it forces us to deal carefully and honestly with Scripture when it comes to worship. It also avoids the “multiple hermeneutic” problem. These ten categories are necessarily involved in the application of sola Scriptura to worship.

Temple or Synagogue?

Shall the temple or the synagogue be a pattern for New Covenant worship? This is an important question. Several considerations favor the synagogue over the temple as a model for the church’s worship. For one thing, the worship of the synagogue clearly influenced the worship of the early church.⁶⁹ Though the origin of the synagogue is uncertain, early Christian worship was patterned after the service of the synagogue. This has significant implications for the content and form of acceptable worship, one of which is the propriety of rigidly imposing the formula of Deuteronomy 12:32 upon New Covenant worship as is often done.

In addition, two things about the temple worship disqualify it as a pattern for New Covenant worship. First, it was part of a system that was typological and therefore temporary. It was at the center of that which was fading (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). The Mosaic system was a complex of types and metaphors that pointed ahead to New Covenant realities, i.e. temple, priest, and sacrifice (John 2:19-21; Hebrews 94:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Peter 3:5). From this imagery, the New Testament draws theological and moral, not liturgical conclusions for the church.⁷⁰ Second, it was part of a system that was inherently defective (Hebrews 8:1-10:18).⁷¹ R. Kent Hughes observes,

Since Christ is the temple, “sacred spaces” and consecrated grounds are a delusion. Since Christ is high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, the priesthood is superseded and obviated. Likewise, priestly vestments and clerical dress are out of date. Since Christ is the Lamb of God slain once for our sins, there is no justification for the Mass or for sacrificial accoutrements such as an altar or a chasuble. These superseding realities should also serve as a warning to those in the Reformed tradition whose devotion to the “Regulative Principle” inclines them to draw from the cultus of the old covenant.⁷²

These considerations make it difficult to find any compelling reason to use the temple as a paradigm for Christian worship.

Summary and Conclusions

Acceptable worship has always been regulated by divine revelation, though not uniformly. Detailed regulation of worship clusters around the tabernacle and the temple. Though there is a conspicuous absence of detail at other periods of redemptive history, revelation has always been given in sufficient amounts so that at any period fallen men may know how to worship God acceptably. Divine revelation regarding acceptable worship is necessary because man’s fallen nature leaves him prone to idolatry. Since it is possible for him to offer unacceptable worship, fallen man needs an infallible guide for acceptable worship. Scripture alone is authoritative, sufficient, and clear for this purpose. It is the prerogative of the sovereign God to determine the terms on which sinners may approach Him in worship.

The RPW can be defined historically and biblically. We must not assume that these definitions are always the same. According to the historical definition, we must worship God only as He has commanded us. This is not exactly the same thing as saying that we must worship God according to His Word. In either case, however, worship, in order to be acceptable, must always be regulated by Scripture. The Bible is the final rule for worship. The question is, how does Scripture regulate worship? Historically, the Reformed answer is that we do in worship only what is commanded. This view has to be explained and qualified, for not absolutely everything in worship requires an explicit command. The Luther/Anglican answer is that we may do in worship what isn’t explicitly prohibited. This view also has to be explained and qualified, for not absolutely everything that isn’t prohibited is acceptable in worship. The confessions are helpful in resolving this question, but ultimately the Bible must supply the answer. Scripture doesn’t demand that we choose absolutely between these two views.

In the quest for acceptable worship, care must be taken to avoid two radical extremes. One is to mandate what doesn’t belong in worship, thus imposing on worship by addition. The other is to forbid everything that isn’t commanded, thus imposing on worship by prohibition. Both are errors in that they add to the Word of God—one by enlargement, and one by prohibition. As the absence of a prohibition in the Bible doesn’t always equal a command, so the absence of a command in the Bible doesn’t always equal a prohibition.

In an attempt to define what the Regulative Principle applies to, the categories of elements and circumstances have been employed with considerable success. Some confusion remains, however, concerning what specific items fall into each category. Treating elements as circumstances, and circumstances as elements, yields undesirable results. It is fair to ask whether the Bible itself compels us to think in terms of rigid distinctions between elements and circumstances.

To say that the RPW applies to all of life is somewhat misleading and confusing. It is better to say that Scripture regulates and applies to all of life, including corporate worship. It does this by the same hermeneutic, not one or more special hermeneutics. Scripture is applied in the same way to all things, not in one way to some things and in another way to other things.

The RPW, as historically understood, is intended to protect the liberty of Christians. It does this by rejecting the imposition of what isn’t explicitly commanded. At the same time, it inevitably restricts the liberty of Christians by imposing prohibitions. For example, the Directory for Public Worship neither prescribes nor proscribes the use of liturgical forms, congregational responses, or the use of read or written prayers. A stricter application of the RPW would prohibit all of these. In practice, then, once an application is made, it is impossible to entirely avoid restricting someone’s liberty in one way or another. Both the protection and restriction of liberty work in two directions.

At least ten categories of concern are useful for determining what is acceptable worship. They include: commands; prohibitions; examples; consequences; Lord’s Day observance; church authority; Christian liberty; general principles; the light of nature; Christian prudence. Regardless of their view of the Regulative Principle, all who are serious about Scriptural worship utilize these ten categories to understand what is acceptable worship. These categories are accessories to the application of Scripture to worship. They are not a special way of applying Scripture to worship. Further, they may be profitably employed in connection with any item of Christian doctrine or practice, not just worship.

The format of the synagogue worship plays heavily into the format of New Covenant worship. The early Christians did not go to their Bibles to discover what is acceptable in worship. Initially they did not hammer out from their New Testaments a theology of worship. They took up the format of the synagogue worship, which had the sanction and approval of Christ and the apostles. In the synagogue, they sang the Word, read the Word, prayed the Word, and taught the Word. So should we, who live between the two advents of the Word incarnate. Jesus Christ is the Regulative Principle. Acceptable worship is word-centered. We are to sing the Word, read the Word, pray the Word, and preach the Word. We even see the Word in the church ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 11:26).⁷³ Undoubtedly, there is some amount of flexibility in how this is done. Legitimate variations will be found from church to church. Being word-centered and non-piacular, neither the worship of the synagogue nor the worship of the church requires detailed instructions such as we find in connection with the tabernacle and temple worship.

The Regulative Principle is a corollary of the doctrine of Scripture. It concerns the application of sola Scriptura to worship. Sola Scriptura doesn’t exclude all tradition from worship. Neither does it forbid all use of reason and logic in determining acceptable worship. It doesn’t mean that we must have an explicit command for absolutely everything we do in worship; that the absence of an explicit command is equivalent to a prohibition; that if something isn’t prohibited it’s necessarily permitted. William Cunningham sounds a helpful warning about two great dangers in connection with the application of the RPW. We do well to heed his words:

The one is to stick rigidly and doggedly to a general principle, refusing to admit that any limitations or qualifications ought to be permitted in applying it; and the other is to reject the principle altogether, as if it had no truth or soundness about it, merely because it manifestly cannot be carried out without some exceptions and modifications, and because difficulties may be raised about the some of the details of its application which cannot always be very easily solved. Both of these extremes have been often exhibited in connection with this principle. Both of them are natural, but both are unreasonable, and both indicate a want of sound judgment. The right course is to ascertain, if possible, whether or not the principle be true, and if there seems to be sufficient evidence of its truth, then to seek to make a reasonable and judicious application of it.⁷⁴

In our next installment, we’ll explore the RPW from the perspective of practical theology.

Jim Domm, Pastor
Englewood Baptist Church

1. See Part II: The Regulative Principle of Worship in Exegetical Perspective where 47 passages of Scripture are expounded. [↩]
2. Again, see Part II. [↩]
3. It doesn’t appear that Israel’s decentralized worship was as precisely regulated. [↩]
4. See R. Kent Hughes, “Free Church Worship: The Challenge of Freedom,” Worship by the Book, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 140. [↩]
5. Terry L. Johnson, The Case For Traditional Protestantism: The Solas of the Reformation (Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004) pp. 30-37. [↩]
6. See D.A. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” Worship by the Book, pp. 34-38. [↩]
7. Samuel E. Waldron, The Regulative Principle of the Church (Quezon City, Philippines: Wisdom Publications, 1995), pp. 14, 15; James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 1, (Edinburgh: The Banner  of Truth Trust, 1960), pp. 340, 341. [↩]
8. Dr. D. G. Hart and Professor John Frame, The Regulative Principle of Worship: Scripture, Tradition, and Culture, 1998, http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/ a998HartDebate.htm, pp. 4, 5. [↩]
9. Frank J. Smith, “What Is Worship?” in Worship in the Presence of God, ed. Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992), pp. 16, 17. [↩]
10. See Part I: The Regulative Principle in Historical Perspective. See also Brian Schwertley, A Brief Critique of Steven M. Schlissel’s Articles Against the Regulative Principle of Worship, 1999, http: // www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/schlissel.htm, p. 3: “The regulative principle refers not just to explicit commands of Scripture, but also to approved historical examples within the Bible and to good and necessary consequence.” [Emphasis is the author’s.] [↩]
11. William Young, “The Second Commandment: The Principle That God Is To Be Worshiped Only In Ways Prescribed In Holy Scripture And That The Holy Scripture Prescribed The Whole Content Of Worship, Taught By Scripture Itself” in Worship in the Presence of God, ed. Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992), pp. 76, 77. [↩]
12. See Part II. [↩]
13. Richard L. Pratt, Jr., “The Regulative Principle,” available online at http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.Reg.Princ.pdf. The paper is not dated but the file is dated 9/6/1999. [↩]
14. Ralph J. Gore, Jr., Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2002) p. 140: “…whatever is consistent with the Scriptures is acceptable in worship.” [↩]
15. Whether one’s definition is truly confessional, or whether one has broken his ordination vows to uphold a confession, is something of a red herring when it comes to settling on a Scriptural definition of the Regulative Principle. Ultimately all questions must be resolved by Scripture. [↩]
16. Whether this is possible is another question altogether. See the expositions of Scripture in Part II. [↩]
17. We should attempt to answer these questions, not only from the exegesis of individual texts, but from biblical and systematic theology as well. [↩]
18. Observe the dichotomy here in terms of polar opposites. No one consistently does in worship only what is commanded. Neither does anyone consistently do in worship everything that isn’t prohibited. Both of these extreme positions must be qualified in their practical application. Multiple choice exams usually offer a “none-of-the-above” option when the choices given aren’t entirely satisfactory. In the Reformed versus the Lutheran/Anglican debate about the Regulative Principle, we could wish for a “none-of-the-above” option. [↩]
19. See Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” in Worship by the Book, pp. 54, 55. [↩]
20. The confessions refer to these items as things that are “beside” the Word (Westminster Confession of Faith 20:2) or “not contained” in it (Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 21:2). According to the confessions, the consciences of believers are free from such things. Granting this, does the inclusion of these items in a given worship setting constitute a violation of conscience in every case? Most would answer in the negative, but the task of sorting out what would or would not be a violation of conscience with reference to these items is challenging. [↩]
21. See Part I. It is fair to ask whether these are biblical categories to begin with. Does the Bible itself compel us to distinguish elements from circumstances? [↩]
22. See the Westminster and the Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith 1:6. [↩]
23. See John Owen as quoted by Ernest C. Reisinger in Shepherding God’s Flock (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988) p. 156: “…it is utterly in vain and useless to demand express institution of all the circumstances belonging unto the government, order, and worship of the church.” Reisinger likely got this quotation from A.W. Pink, who cites it in his commentary on Hebrews (1974 reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bake Book House, 1954) pp. 1234, 1235. Neither Reisinger nor Pink reference the quotation. I have been unable to locate it in Owen’s writings. [↩]
24. This is just another way of saying that some things in worship require a command, example, or consequence, while other things in worship do not. [↩]
25. A transliteration of the Greek term meaning “things indifferent,” “things not important” [↩]
26. See Brian Schwertley in “Some Contemporary Objections to Sola Scriptura in the Sphere of Worship Considered and Refuted,” Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, 2000, http: //www. reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm, pp. 29, 30, note 63; Gore, Covenantal Worship, pp. 87, 88. [↩]
27. See Gore, Covenantal Worship, pp. x, 114. [↩]
28. The most common example of this is the use of musical instrumentation in worship. Other examples would include Sunday Schools, nurseries, and sermons preached in connection with Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day, and Father’s Day. Gore claims that Gillespie does the opposite (not excluding, but including a circumstance as an element) when he treats the synagogue, which Gore considers to be a circumstantial institution, as a divine one out of a “constricted” view of the adiaphora. See Covenantal Worship, p. 104. [↩]
29. See Part I; William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh, Scotland; Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967; 2000) p. 32. [↩]
30. If the Lord’s Supper is an “element” of worship, on what basis should it ever be omitted, as in the case of an afternoon or evening service on the same Lord’s Day it was observed in the morning service? If prayer, singing, the reading of Scripture, or preaching wouldn’t be omitted in such cases, why omit the Lord’s Supper? On what biblical basis can any so-called “element” of worship ever be omitted from a worship service? [↩]
31. See Questions CXXXI-CXXXVI in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (reprint, Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990) vol. 1, pp. 706-712. Baxter was ordained in the Church of England, but registered himself as a Non-conformist. [↩]
32. For Baxter, not all additions to the commands of Scripture are unlawful. [↩]
33. For Baxter, it is not always wrong to obey additions to Scripture. [↩]
34. For Baxter, some additions to Scripture are wrong. At the same time, for Baxter, Scripture must not be made a rule where it is not. [↩]
35. For Baxter, not every Scripturally approved example is valid and binding for all believers throughout the New Covenant era. [↩]
36. It would be interesting to explore the implications of these and other passages for the application of the Regulative Principle, not only to the church’s worship, but to the church’s overall life and ministry. [↩]
37. On a very literal reading of the text, should women even pray silently in mixed prayer meetings? Should women even be present at such meetings? [↩]
38. It may be that Paul is indeed addressing the ‘who’ of prayer and dress, in terms of the liabilities peculiar to the sexes in a fallen world where remaining sin exerts its influence. With reference to prayer, men need to guard against relinquishing their leadership obligations by letting the women do all the praying. With reference to dress, women, as the fairer sex, need to guard against vanity and immodesty. It’s possible that some may legitimately argue against women leading in prayer meetings when men are present using other texts and on other grounds. The point here is simply that 1 Timothy 2:8, 9 is a questionable text to make the case from. Does the positive command for the men to pray prohibit the women from praying? [↩]
39. Richard Hooker, Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, 1593 (online resource, n.d., http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/hookbib.htm) pp. 310-313. See also his final paragraph on pp. 335, 336. Hooker was an Anglican priest. [↩]
40. Frame roots this in the fulfillment of the Old Testament ordinances in Christ. See Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1996) pp. 29, 30. Carson roots it in “the sacralization of all space and all time and all food.”See Worship By the Book, pp. 38-41. [↩]
41. For a helpful discussion of this distinction, see Gore, Covenantal Worship pp. 111-119. [↩]
42. See the exposition of these and other relevant passages in Part II. See also Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996) pp. 226-280. [↩]
43. See Frank J. Smith with Chris Coldwell, The Confessional Presbyterian (Rowlett, TX: Reformation Presbyterian Press, 2006) vol. 2, p. 108. [↩]
44. I will say more about this in Part IV: The Regulative Principle of Worship in Practical Perspective. [↩]
45. See Part I. [↩]
46. One wonders whether those who apply the Principle more broadly do so with the same rigidity and consistency as those who restrict its application to the worship of the church; or with the same rigidity and consistency with which they themselves apply it to the worship of the church. [↩]
47. T. David Gordon, “Some Answers About the Regulative Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal 55:2 (1993): 327. [↩]
48. Ernest C. Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen, Worship: The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Practice of Accommodation (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2001) p. 30. [↩]
49. Frame, Fresh Look, p. 4. [↩]
50. John M. Frame, “Some Questions about the Regulative Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal 54:2 (1992): 357. As we’ve already seen in Part I, the Normative Principle/Regulative Principle distinction is found in the Westminster Confession 20:2, but not in 21:2 of the Savoy Declaration and the Second London Baptist Confession. [↩]
51. The distinction isn’t so clear cut, for the Regulative Principle, as traditionally understood, certainly applies to some things outside of worship, while the Normative Principle, it must be admitted, applies to some things inside of worship. [↩]
52. This confusion is seen, for example, in the following statements: “Nor is it sufficient to say that because all of life is to be regulated by Scripture, this proves the invalidity of the regulative principle as expounded by the Westminster Confession and subsequent tradition. The point is not…whether the regulative principle applies to the whole of life. It does! But it does so in a different way…the regulative principle applies differently [to public worship than it does to family worship]. All worship…is regulated by God’s Word, but the application is different in different contexts, whether formal or informal, public or private.” These quotes are taken from Derek W. H. Thomas and Terry L. Johnson in “The Regulative Principle: Responding to Recent Criticism” in Give Praise to God, ed. by Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2003) pp. 87, 88. The emphases in these quotes are the authors’. These statements imply at least three hermeneutics: one for public worship, another for family worship, and yet another for the rest of life. Note also that “Scripture” and “the Regulative Principle” are used interchangeably in these statements, as if they are one and the same thing. They are not. This is confusing language. Further, the reason why the sacraments are to be administered by the church and not at home is not because the Regulative Principle (or Scripture) applies to public settings in a way that is different from the way it applies to private settings. It is because Scripture teaches that the sacraments are church ordinances, not family ordinances. [↩]
53. Paul David Tripp, in Age of Opportunity: A Biblical Guide to Parenting Teens (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 128-137, outlines the application of Scripture to “clear-boundary issues” and “wisdom issues” for guidance in life. These categories bear remarkable resemblance to “elements” and “circumstances” respectively. Mr. Tripp is applying these categories, which are part and parcel of the traditional view of the Regulative Principle, to all of life. One might say that he is applying the Regulative Principle to all of life, though I believe it is more accurate to say that he is simply applying Scripture to all of life. Similarly, Jerram Barrs argues for the application of the Regulative Principle to evangelism. What he means is that evangelism should be shaped by the teaching of Scripture and the example that Scripture sets before us. See his Learning Evangelism from Jesus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 17. [↩]
54. See Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship Reformed According to Scripture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002) pp. 3, 4. [↩]
55. It is assumed here that the Old Testament Scriptures remain normative for New Covenant worship, provided that they are interpreted and applied in light of the New Testament (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). Remember that the early Christians possessed only the Old Testament Scriptures. It wasn’t until about the 2nd century that they possessed any New Testament canon. [↩]
56. This factor is important to take into account. If one is looking for explicit New Testament commands for worship, then, not finding what one expects, one is liable to exclude legitimate items from worship simply because the New Testament is silent about them. [↩]
57. This isn’t all that surprising in view of the typical nature of the Tabernacle/Temple worship which finds fulfillment in Christ and His people. [↩]
58. See Frame, Fresh Look, pp. 11, 12: “Even granting the legitimacy of the concept “element,” the claim that God provides a list of elements specific to each particular form of worship will not withstand exegetical scrutiny…There is, therefore, no form of worship for which Scripture yields a list of elements as required by the narrow reading of the regulative principle.” [↩]
59. The exegesis of this text suggests several questions. Was Timothy to give attention to these things only until the apostle arrived, or thereafter? What weight, if any, should be attached to the articles before the nouns? Would Timothy understand the articles as a reference to public, and not private reading, exhortation, and teaching? Does “the reading” refer to the reading of Old Testament Scripture only, since this is all that was available to Timothy? Similar questions may be asked concerning “the exhortation” and “the teaching.” If “the reading” is an element of worship in the traditional sense, then so must “the exhortation” be. Are those, then, who don’t exhort in every meeting for public worship failing to do what God has commanded for worship? Lenski understands the burden of the text in yet another way. He maintains that Paul charges Timothy to oversee the reading of lections in the churches. According to Lenski, the burden of the charge is not that lections be read, but what lections are to be read. See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964) pp. 642-644. [↩]
60. One of the more prominent factors is the absence of a completed canon. An apostolate and extraordinary spiritual gifts were present to fill this void. The early church would resort to these for guidance. In post-apostolic times, Scripture alone is the final rule. [↩]
61. See Part I. [↩]
62. See Brian Schwertley, Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, p. 32, note 97. [↩]
63. Three Forms of Unity, 3rd ed. (Grandville, MI: Protestant Reformed Churches in America, 2002) pp. 42, 43. [↩]
64. See T. David Gordon’s critique of Ralph J. Gore, Jr. as quoted by Frank J. Smith in The Confessional Presbyterian, (Rowlett, TX: Reformation Presbyterian Press, 2005) vol. 1, pp. 144, 145: “Gore believes that Christian liberty is the liberty to do what is not prohibited. Calvin and the Reformed creeds perceive it as liberty from doing what is not commanded.” Emphases are Gordon’s. [↩]
65. ARBCA Position Paper Concerning the Regulative Principle of Worship (online resource, 2001, http://www.rbcnc.com/Regulative%20Principle.htm) p. 4. [↩]
66. I will say more about this in Part IV. [↩]
67. See Charles Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians (1857; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983) p. 213; Curtis Vaughan and Thomas D. Lea, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983) p. 115. [↩]
68. Take, for example, Girardeau’s argument for a distinction in circumstances. Noting that Chapter 1, Paragraph 6 in the Westminster Confession states that some (not all) circumstances are common to human actions and societies, he concludes that there are circumstances regarding the peculiar acts specific to Christian worship, and that these must be expressly commanded by God in Scripture. Thus, for him, the Regulative Principle applies not only to the elements of worship, but also to the circumstances attending the elements of worship. In this way, he argues against the use of musical instruments in the public worship of God. (See Part I.) Girardeau’s conclusion, however, is impossible to apply consistently. This becomes evident when it’s applied to other worship activities. For example, prayer is not common to human societies in their gatherings. Thus any circumstance attending prayer must be explicitly prescribed in Scripture in order to be valid. Since there are a number of biblical references to lifting up the eyes to God in prayer, we might conclude, therefore, that bowing the head and closing the eyes is not prescribed and is therefore forbidden. The same type of reasoning could be applied to preaching, the reading of Scripture, the sacraments, and offerings (that is, if one includes offerings as a part of worship). Since none of the elements of Christian worship are common to human actions and societies, every circumstance attending every element must be clearly mandated by Scripture in order to be valid. Obviously, this is impossible to carry out. Cory Griess observes, “Therefore, when he [Girardeau] charges anyone who has [musical] accompaniment in worship with ‘adding to the counsel of God which is set down in his word,’ then he must face seriously his own charge with respect to the other elements of worship.” See Cory Griess, “The Regulative Principle: A Confessional Examination,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 41 (2008): 79-82. [↩]
69. See Part II: The Development of the Regulative Principle in History, pp. 30, 31; Schwertley, A Brief Critique, p. 6: “Not only can one deduce weekly synagogue worship from the Bible, but also the basic worship elements of Scripture reading and exposition (cf. Neh. 8:7-8; Lev. 10:8-11; Dt. 17:8-13; 24:8; 31:9-13; 33:8; 2 Chr. 15:3; 17:7-9; 19:8-10; 30:22; 35:3; Ezra 7:1-11; Ezek. 44:15, 23-24; Hos. 4:6; Mal. 2:1, 5-8; Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 13:54; Mk. 1:21, 39; 6:2; Lk. 4:15-22, 44; 13:10; Ac. 15:21; etc.) and prayer (2 Chr. 6:34-39; Neh. 8:6; Is. 56:7) can be deduced. Virtually all regulativists recognize that the Christian church was the natural outgrowth of the synagogue, in which the covenant people conducted weekly non-ceremonial public worship.” [↩]
70. R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2008) p. 244. [↩]
71. Ibid., p. 244. [↩]
72. R. Kent Hughes, “Free Church Worship: The Challenge of Freedom,” Worship by the Book, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 140. [↩]
73. See J. Ligon Duncan, “Foundations For Biblically Directed Worship,” Give Praise to God, p. 65: “An apt motto for those who embrace the regulative principle then might be, ‘Read the Bible, preach the Bible, pray the Bible, sing the Bible, and see the Bible.’” [↩]
74. Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, pp. 32, 33. [↩]

The Sacred “Whymns” of Isaac Watts: The Worship Wars of the 18th Century

Posted by deangonzales on December 20, 2009
13 Comments

It’s not uncommon to hear Reformed Christians complaining that nearly all modern hymnody is tainted by worldliness and longing nostalgically for the “good old days” when human invention and novelty were excluded from the songs of Zion. In reality, though, “worship wars” are not an exclusively modern phenomenon. As the video clip below demonstrates, the hymnody we now deem as entirely biblical and reverent was once decried as unscriptural and whimsical. Perhaps the story of Isaac Watts should prompt us to reexamine our presuppositions about God-honoring worship and temper our hasty censures of what we perceive to be fickle in modern day worship.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

The Regulative Principle of Worship in Exegetical Perspective

Posted by Domski on December 8, 2009
11 Comments

It is an understatement to say that the Regulative Principle of Wor­ship is a controversial topic. Feelings run deep on the subject. Much of the polemical literature concerned with the Regulative Principle is less than charitable, and often riddled with generous amounts of straw men and personal attacks. Opponents in the debate vilify one another as dev­ilish enemies of the truth. Ironically, each accuses the other of violating liberty of conscience and taking us back to Rome; one by imposing wor­ship activities that are not explicitly forbidden; the other by limiting wor­ship activities to what is explicitly commanded. It is sometimes true that controversy arises when men make one-sided things which Scripture does not, or when men speak where Scrip­ture does not. This may account, in part, for the heated discussion about what is or is not acceptable in New Covenant worship. While Scripture is both sufficient and clear, truth usually lies somewhere between two extremes.

Both the level and tone of disagreement about the Regulative Prin­ciple witness to the prevalence of remaining corruption, blindness, and deficiency in grace even among professing followers of Christ. It is truly cause for shame that they would be so confused and prone to contro­versy about something so vital, basic, and central to Christian experience as the public worship of God. Professor John Murray has written eloquently on the importance and necessity of continuing the work of systematic theology.¹ Never should his words be used to advocate change for the sake of itself, or to justify forsaking the old paths with a cavalier attitude. They do remind us, however, that our most cherished traditions, no matter how biblical we believe them to be, remain subject to both the authority and con­tinuing scrutiny of the Word of God. Are any afraid that their principles won’t stand further examination?

I, for one, am convinced that there is more work to do on the Regulative Principle of Worship. I have always held to it, and taught it to my people. But I have also always been somewhat uncomfortable with going too far with it. My moderate discomfort has led me to write on this subject. I am painfully aware of deficiency and imperfection in the work I present here. My hope and prayer is that others with far better creden­tials, abilities, and grace than I possess will take what I offer, discard what is bad, and improve upon what is good. May our Living Head in some way bless these modest efforts for the preservation and improve­ment of pure and pleasing worship in His church.

The presentation of the subject will be in four parts. We have already surveyed the Regulative Principle of Worship as it has been understood and applied in church history. Now we will examine many of the biblical texts that elucidate the Regulative Principle.  In subsequent studies, we will collate some of the major biblical emphases, principles, and theological considerations based upon the exegetical and historical materials, in an attempt to define the Regulative Principle from the perspective of systematic theology. Finally, in part four, we’ll attempt to address some practical issues associated with the application of the Regulative Principle.

In this section, we will survey various passages of Scripture to con­sider their regulative bearing on the subject of worship. According Wil­liam Cunningham,

With regard to the Scripture evidence of the truth of the [Regulative] principle, we do not allege that it is very direct, explicit, and overwhelm­ing. It is not of a kind likely to satisfy the coarse, material, literalists, who can see nothing in the Bible but what is asserted in express terms. But it is, we think, amply sufficient to convince those who, without any prejudice against it, are ready to submit their minds to the fair impres­sion of what Scripture seems to have been intended to teach.²

While appreciating Cunningham’s modesty of statement, one might respectfully disagree with him. Scriptural support for the Regulative Principle is in fact direct, explicit, and overwhelming. Any fair examina­tion of the biblical materials leads inevitably to the conclusion that “the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself.”³  God must be worshiped according to the rule of Scripture. As one has aptly put it, “God cares about how He is worshiped.”⁴ There can be no doubt that all true and acceptable worship must be regulated by divine revelation.

We begin with a survey of texts in the Bible that contribute in some way to the demonstration of this principle. The list is not exhaustive. Many more texts and passages could be cited, but these should be suffi­cient to show that the Regulative Principle neither stands nor falls on any single text but rests squarely on the comprehensive witness of Scripture.

Genesis 4:3-7

Abel and his offering were acceptable to the Lord. Cain and his offering were not. Why? The reason for the different receptions of the two offerings was in the worshipers’ attitudes toward God which manifested itself in the selection of their gifts.⁵ By faith, Abel offered a better sacrifice to God than Cain did (Hebrews 11:4). Biblical faith presupposes divine revelation. Throughout Hebrews 11, true faith is represented as a belief in God that results in obedience to God’s revealed will. How did Abel and Cain know to bring offerings to the Lord? How could Abel exercise faith by which his offering was more acceptable than his brother’s? Most likely it was through divine revelation, of which we have no written record. This may seem to be an argument from silence, but we will see that this instance is not an isolated one.

Genesis 4:26b

Invocation of the name of Jehovah commenced during the lifetime of Enosh, Adam’s grandson. The true and acceptable public worship of God began early on when men began to call upon the name of the Lord, that is, in accordance with God’s self-revelation. This text indicates nothing about the extent to which or the particulars by which worship was divinely regulated, only that it was.

Genesis 8:20, 21

After the flood, Noah offered clean animals in sacrifice to God. How did Noah know to offer blood sacrifices? How did he know which animals were clean and which were unclean? How did Noah know to offer clean, and not unclean animals? It must have been through divine revelation, of which we have no written record. When God instructed Noah about bringing the animals into the ark, He referred to clean and unclean ani­mals (Genesis 7:2). But there is no prior written record in the Bible des­ignating which particular animals were clean and which were not.

Genesis 14:18-20

As a priest of the Most High God, Melchizedek performed worship on God’s behalf. Where is the office of priest instituted prior to Melchizedek? What were his duties? Where is any warrant for tithing stated in Scripture prior to Abraham (Hebrews 7:1-10)? God in some way must have revealed these things related to worship, although there is no written record of it in the Bible.⁶

Exodus 12:16

Here is the first mention in the Bible of the “holy convocation” (“sacred assembly”; miqra’ qodesh). These were meetings held for the worship of Jehovah. They were divinely regulated. It was stipulated that they were to be convened on certain days. No work was to be done. It is apparent, however, that they were not regulated in precisely the same way or to the same degree as the Tabernacle or Temple worship.

Exodus 20:4-6 (Deuteronomy 5:8-10)

The Second Commandment embodies the essence of the Regulative Principle. This commandment is a prohibition. It prohibits the use of graven images and representations of God as objects of worship. In other words, the Second Commandment prohibits idolatry of all kinds. Note carefully two important distinctions. First, this commandment prohibits idolatry at all times and in all places, whether inside or outside of corpo­rate worship. Second, this commandment only prohibits the use of images as objects of worship. Images and representations may be used for other purposes, such as sculpture, painting, photography, architec­ture, and jewelry, but not as objects of worship (Exodus 26:1; 28:33, 34; 37:7-9; 1 Kings 6:23-32; 7::25; 10:19, 20; et al). Images of God inevitably misrepresent Him and convey false ideas about Him. Being lifeless and impersonal, they obscure His glory. By the use of images, the attempt is made to control God and secure His blessings (Ex. 32:1-6; Judges 17:1-13).⁷

Like the other prohibitory commandments in the Decalogue, the Second Commandment implies a positive duty. This is a deduction from good and necessary consequence (Matthew 5:21-30; Ephesians 4:28).⁸ It implies that God is to be worshiped, not by means of images and representations, but in the proper way. What way is that? At the very least, it means without the use of idols or images intended to represent God. Beyond this, the commandment doesn’t specify particulars. Since God alone defines acceptable worship, we must learn what that is at any given point in redemptive history from other portions of His inscriptu­rated Word.

Like the other nine commandments in the Decalogue, the Second Commandment isn’t exclusively Mosaic. Like all the other precepts of the Moral Law, its requirements are binding upon all people in all places and at all times. The moral scope of the Second Commandment is sweeping. God is always to be worshiped in the right way. What is that? Beyond the prohibition of graven images, the particulars aren’t specified here.

Like the Fourth Commandment, the Second contains an essential principle, the particulars of which are expressed in different ways at dif­ferent periods of redemptive history. The essence of the Fourth Com­mandment is one-day-in-seven worship. Prior to Sinai that day was specified as the seventh.  After Sinai the Fourth Commandment was regulated with more specificity than before. Certain ceremonial elements were prescribed in the Mosaic Law which weren’t in force prior to Moses (Exodus 16:22-30; 35:3; Numbers 15:32-36; 28:9, 10), and which did not remain in force under the New Covenant (Colossians 2:16). In addition, the designated day of worship was changed from the seventh to the first, the day of Christ’s resurrection (John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).

Similarly, the essence of the Second Commandment is to worship God in the right way, that is, as He prescribes. Prior to Sinai, worship wasn’t regulated with the same degree of detail or with the same specifics as it was after Sinai. Even the Tabernacle and Temple worship weren’t regulated in precisely the same way. The earthly Tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly reality (Exodus 25:9, 40 with Heb. 8:5). The Temple was not. The Synagogue worship wasn’t regulated with the same degree of detail or with the same specifics as the Tabernacle and Temple worship. No detailed specifications for New Covenant worship are present in Scripture. The essential principle in the Second Commandment is that God is to be worshiped in the right way, that is, not “in any other way than He has commanded in His Word”;⁹ Over the course of redemptive history, corporate worship is always regulated by the Word of God, but the degree and the particulars of that regulation (the “right way” of corporate wor­ship) change. These observations suggest several questions. Under the New Covenant, is the “right way” of corporate worship limited to explicit commands only? Does it include biblical example? Does it include good and necessary consequence?¹⁰ We cannot say from the Second Command­ment alone. We must consult other biblical passages to determine this. The only particular item specified in the Second Commandment is the prohibition of graven images. The good and neces­sary consequence is to worship God in the right way. Apart from the prohi­bition of graven images, the particulars of that right way are not specified here.

The Second Commandment addresses the matter of self-willed worship. The prohibition involved in the commandment extends to idolatry in all its forms. All worship, honor, and service of God which is the product of man and not divine revelation is idolatry.

Exodus 25:40

The Tabernacle had to be constructed precisely in accordance with the instructions that Moses received on Mt. Sinai. Why? The answer is given in Hebrews 8:5. The Tabernacle is uniquely a copy and shadow of heavenly things. It is also a picture/prophecy of Christ’s heavenly minis­try (Hebrews 9:1-28). The copy must be an accurate one, so every detail is important. The Temple is never said to be a copy of heavenly things. But it is a picture/prophecy of Christ and His people.¹¹ For this reason, it too is regulated in considerable detail. The picture must be an accurate one, so every detail is important. The Synagogue is never said to be a copy or a picture of anything. This doesn’t mean, however, that the Isra­elites could worship any way they wanted to in the Synagogue.¹² We can’t be certain of how detailed its regulation was, only that it was regulated in some way by the Word of God (See the exposition of Leviticus 23:1-44.). These distinctions have significant implications for the worship of the church.¹³

Leviticus 10:1-3

Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord because they “offered strange (foreign) fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them.” What does this mean? Was the fire strange because the Lord did not command it to be offered, or because the Lord commanded it not to be offered?

Brian Schwertley defines adiaphora (“things indifferent”)¹⁴ as involv­ing “…activities that are neither commanded nor forbidden.”¹⁵ Sam Waldron asserts that Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire was “…not fire that God had forbidden…”, but “…was fire which He had not commanded them.”¹⁶ By Schwertley’s definition, then, Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire was in the category of “things indifferent” (adiaphora). Since we know that God consumed these men because they did something that was not morally neutral or indifferent, we shall have to find another explanation for their deaths.¹⁷

One approach to this passage is that taken by Carl Bogue. He writes, “It was not that God had specifically forbidden other fires to be used. The issue is His appointment of a particular fire, and the conclu­sion is that whatever is not commanded is therefore forbidden.”¹⁸ Bogue is correct in asserting that God had not specifically forbidden other fires to be used. He is also correct in asserting that God had appointed a par­ticular fire. Granting this, his conclusion doesn’t follow. The proper con­clusion is that not doing what God appoints is forbidden.

Strictly speaking, it’s true that Nadab and Abihu did something that wasn’t commanded. Strictly speaking, however, it’s also true that Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited, if not explicitly, then by good and necessary consequence. Matthew Henry observes:

Instead of taking of the fire from the altar, which was newly kindled from before the Lord and which henceforward must be used in offering both sacrifice and incense (Rev. viii. 5), they took common fire, probably from that with which the flesh of the peace-offerings was boiled, and this they made use of in burning incense; not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and, though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God commanded it not.¹⁹

John Knox likewise understood Nadab’s and Abihu’s fire to be “…a common fire and not of that fire which God had commanded to burn day and night before the altar of burnt sacrifice, which only ought to have been offered unto God.”²⁰ Not any fire would do. God had commanded that fire from the altar be used (Exodus 30:9; Leviticus 6:13; 16:1, 2, 12; Numbers 16:46).²¹ Granting that doing otherwise may not have been explicitly prohibited, it was still equivalent to doing what was prohibited because God had been very specific about the fire that was to be used. At the very least, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited by virtue of a good and necessary consequence from the positive command concerning the fire that was to be used. God said, “Use this fire.” He does not need then to prohibit all other fires by name. All other fires are prohibited by the negative implication of the positive command. In this way, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited and thus presumed to bring before God that which lacked divine authorization.  This passage issues a sober warning to those who would follow in their footsteps.²²

Leviticus 23:1-44

The holy convocations (“sacred assemblies”; vd<qo-ar”q.m[RG11] <#_msocom_11>  ) were meet­ings held for the worship of Jehovah (see Exodus 12:16). These meetings included the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3), the new moon (Numbers 29:6), the yearly feasts (Leviticus 23:5, 6), and even the times of the daily morning and evening sacrifice (Numbers 28, 29). Every Sabbath a sacrificial serv­ice was held at the central sanctuary while holy convocations were held locally throughout the land wherever people lived. The holy convo­cations were a decentralized form of worship. They were divinely author­ized and regulated, but not to the same degree or in the same particulars as the Tabernacle or Temple worship. Some conjecture that the holy con­vocations were the beginnings of the synagogue. This, however, cannot be proven with certainty.²³

Numbers 16:1-40

The Law of Moses stipulated that no one should burn incense before the Lord unless he was descended from Aaron (v. 40; Exodus 30:7-10). Korah and those associated with him acted contrary to God’s command and paid with their lives. This incident issues a sober warning to those who would worship God in a manner contrary to His revealed will.

Numbers 28:1-29:40

See the exposition of Leviticus 23:1-44.

Deuteronomy 4:1, 2

Moses exhorts the people to carefully obey the Law of God. Verse 2 is a prohibition. Both enlargement and diminution of the divine Law are explicitly prohibited. This exhortation stands near the conclusion of his first address (1:1-4:43). Most of this address is a historical review of God’s guidance of the people from Horeb to the sojourn at Kadesh-barnea. Moses appeals to Israel to give heed to the commandments of the God who had acted on their behalf. The obedience enjoined in the exhortation isn’t restricted to any one particular division of the Law of God. It encompasses it all (vs. 5, 6, 8, 40).  This is also clear from the fact that the first address serves to introduce the second, which sets forth the Law in its entirety (1:5; 4:44, 45).

Deuteronomy 12:32

Moses again exhorts the people to carefully obey the Law of God. In addition to the command of careful obedience, the dual prohibition of Deuteronomy 4:2 is repeated. Again, both enlargement and diminution of the Law are explicitly prohibited. This exhortation is similar to the one in Deuteronomy 4:2. It comes in the midst of Moses’ second address (4:44-26:19). The more immediate context of chapter 12 is concerned with the centralization of the worship of God. This may not be in terms of one place of worship as opposed to many (Deuteronomy 16:21; 27:1-8), but in terms of the place(s) where God appoints that He will be worshiped, as opposed to places where Canaanite deities were worshiped (vs. 2-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 26).²⁴ In any case, the exhortation of Deuteronomy 12:32 is more immediately concerned with worshiping God in the place He appoints. It also introduces chapter 13 where Moses gives instruc­tions for dealing with false prophets and others who would lead the people into idolatry.²⁵

The larger context (chapters 5-26) indicates that the exhortation envisions careful, comprehensive obedience to the Law of God, without enlargement or diminution. For Israel, the rule of Deuteronomy 12:32 applied to the Moral and Civil aspects of life, as well as the Ceremonial (Deuteronomy 5:1-21; 16:1-17; 22:1-12). In other words, no area of life was exempt from the rule of Deuteronomy 12:32. No distinction was made between “sacred” and “secular”, or between ethics and so-called adiaphora. This fact raises some important questions about the contem­porary application of Deuteronomy 12:32. Does it have a contemporary application? If so, what is it? Should it be restricted to corporate wor­ship? If so, on what biblical basis, and how far? If not, how does this affect the liberty of God’s people under the New Covenant?[RG14] <#_msocom_14>²⁶

Judges 17:1-18:31

These chapters describe Micah’s idolatry and its consequences. This is a biblical example of what happens when people attempt to wor­ship God in the way they want to rather than the way God commands them to. Evil innovation is the inevitable result. Micah’s religion was a blatant violation of the Second Commandment (cf. Judges 17:3, 4 with Deuteronomy 27:15). This incident furnishes a sobering illustration of the depravity of man which makes him prone to worship God in accor­dance with rules of his own devising, and which necessitates divine regulation of worship. It demonstrates how easily idolatry and false wor­ship spread and grow. The perverted idea in the mind of a single woman, Micah’s mother (17:3), was linked up with her son’s “house of gods” (17:5), eventually affecting a whole tribe (18:31), and later a whole nation (1 Kings 12:29). It is not surprising that one hundred years later Jeroboam found a place for his golden calf in Dan.

2 Samuel 6:1-11 (1 Chronicles 13:5-10)

David’s first attempt to bring the ark of God to Jerusalem failed. During the procession, the oxen slipped. Uzzah reached out his hand and took hold of the ark to keep it from falling off the cart. God immedi­ately struck him down for his irreverence. The ark was not to be touched when it was transported. It was to be carried by means of the poles inserted into the four gold rings on the ark (Exodus 25:10-15; 35:12; 37:5). Touching the ark meant certain death (Numbers 4:1-15). David was more careful the second time (1 Chronicles 15:11-15). This incident is often used to demonstrate that God is displeased when things are done in worship which lack an explicit command. The use of the text in this way is not valid for at least two reasons. First, the transport of the ark wasn’t an act of corporate worship in the usual sense. Second, Uzzah died, not because he did something that God hadn’t commanded, but because he did something God had prohibited.²⁷

1 Kings 12:25-33

Jeroboam led the northern kingdom into idolatry of a particularly offensive kind. The place, people, and particulars of God’s worship were altered, not for the glory of God, but with political interests in view (v. 27). His golden calves were reminiscent of the incident at the foot of Mt. Horeb (Exodus 32).  He set them up in unauthorized places, appointed unauthorized priests, appointed an unauthorized feast, offered unau­thorized sacrifices, and burned unauthorized incense. Jeroboam’s inno­vations didn’t rest upon divine precept. They were the products of his own mind. To an undiscerning people, they must have appeared impres­sive enough and close enough to the real thing to seem legitimate.

“The sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat” became proverbial in Israel (1 Kings 14:16; 15:30, 34; 16:2, 19, 26, 31; 22:52; 2 Kings 3:3; 10:29. 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22; 23:15). By altering God’s worship to serve his own ends rather than God’s honor, Jeroboam brought divine judgment upon himself, his posterity, and the nation (1 Kings 13, esp. vs. 33, 34; 14:16). This is a classic passage demonstrating the propensity of fallen man to alter the true worship of God, a particu­larly aggravated form of idolatry in that it high-handedly rejects the authority of the very God it alleges to be the object of its worship. Jeroboam’s innovations issue a sober warning to those who would care­lessly tamper with the worship of God.

1 Kings 16:31

Ahab’s promotion of Baal worship in the northern kingdom was a further step down the path of apostasy. Douma comments: “We could say that Ahab sank from sinning against the second commandment to sinning against the first.”²⁸ Jeroboam had opened the door, and Ahab walked through it.  The progressive infidelity of these two kings illustrates how departure from the rule of Scripture in worship leads easily to fur­ther innovation and decline.

1 Chronicles 15:1-15, 25-28

David had previously attempted to transport the ark from the house of Abinidab to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:1-11). Uzzah had touched the ark and died. The second time around, David took greater care when transporting the ark from the house of Obed-edom. God crowned the effort with success (2 Samuel 6:12-19).²⁹

2 Chronicles 26:16-21

Uzziah presumed to burn incense in the Temple which he was for­bidden to do since he was not a priest of the sons of Aaron. The king paid dearly for his presumption and irreverence. The Lord smote him with lep­rosy, and Uzziah remained a leper until the day of his death, secluded away from common society and the public worship of God. Mark care­fully the king’s offense. It was not that he had done what God hadn’t commanded, but that he had done what God had prohibited.

2 Chronicles 30:1-20

During the reign of Hezekiah, the Lord brought great spiritual revival. The king called for the priests and the Levites to consecrate themselves. He also called the people back to the temple as the appointed place of the nation’s worship, even inviting the tribes of the now decimated northern kingdom to join them (vs. 1, 11). Reformation was proceeding as the time approached for the celebration of the Passo­ver. As with many other things in Judah, the Passover had been neglected for a long time. Hezekiah called for the Passover to be celebrated in the second month instead of the first month because not enough priests had consecrated themselves and the people had not yet assembled in Jerusalem (vs. 2, 3).³⁰ The postponement was in accor­dance with the provision of Numbers 9:6-11. In Moses’ time, when any­one was unclean because of a dead body or away on a journey, they could opt to celebrate the Passover in the second month instead of the first.³¹ Even by the second month, however, many of the people, espe­cially those of the northern tribes, were not yet consecrated. But they ate the Passover anyway.³² This was contrary to what was written (vs. 17, 18). So that God’s anger would not be kindled against them, Hezekiah assumed the role of intercessor, asking the Lord to pardon the people for eating the Passover while they were unclean. His prayer sprang from the conviction that an upright seeking of the Lord from the heart sometimes offsets deficiency in strict technical observance of the letter of the law. God heard the king’s prayer and healed them (vs. 18-20).³³

Care must be taken here. In the worship of God, the Word of God must never be arbitrarily disregarded, not even when the worshipers are well-meaning or sincere. The Lord attaches great importance to how He is worshiped (Deuteronomy 12:32). Hezekiah’s prayer was offered in rec­ognition of this fact. These, however, were extraordinary circumstances, and extraordinary mercy was granted in answer to extraordinary prayer. On this occasion, the people were seeking God from the heart, and though technical precision was lacking, God was pleased to accept their worship in answer to Hezekiah’s prayer. Matthew Henry observes: “Let the circumstance give way to the substance, and let not the thing itself be lost upon a nicety about the time.”³⁴

On other occasions, the Lord rejected worship that was technically correct, but offered from lives void of moral integrity (Isaiah 1:1-17) or hearts void of sincerity (Isaiah 29:13, 14). Sincere, well-intentioned wor­ship offered in careless disregard for the revealed will of God is as unacceptable to Him as technically correct worship that lacks sincerity. God looks favorably upon sincerity coupled with conscientious obedi­ence. Either one without the other is unacceptable to Him.

Proverbs 30:5, 6

This passage, along with Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and Revelation 22:28 are often used to establish the principle that what is not com­manded is forbidden in worship.³⁵ What does this passage teach? Does it in fact establish this principle?

In vs. 1-3 Agur acknowledges his own ignorance. No man knows even so much as the name of God (v. 4). None but the omnipresent, omniscient Creator has perfect knowledge and wisdom. Ithiel and Ucal must understand that the full knowledge of divine mysteries does not reside with any man. What can be known of those mysteries is obtained only from the Word of God, which is pure, perfect, and therefore suffi­cient (v. 5; Psalm 12:6). It needs no addition. It therefore must not be corrupted by human enlargement (v. 6). Doing so invites God’s reproof.³⁶ Verse 6 is a prohibition. For whatever reasons, Agur, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, only prohibits adding to the Word of God, not subtracting from it. This is certainly not because the latter is any less a corruption of the Word of God than the former (Matthew 5:19). The corruption of God’s pure Word by enlargement happens easily in the course of interpreting it, and is further accelerated by the perverse delight fallen human nature takes in its own inventions.

With regard to the question of using this text to prove the Regula­tive Principle, all must agree that the prohibition of adding to the Word of God isn’t limited only to corporate worship. It applies to every situation and circumstance of life. Further, all must agree that the prohibition must be understood and applied in a qualified way for the obvious rea­son that the broad spectrum of life’s experiences require that we do many things that aren’t explicitly commanded in the Bible. Matthew Henry explains:

This forbids the advancing of anything, not only in contradiction to the word of God, but in competition with it; though it be under the plausible pretence of explaining it, yet, if it pretend to be of equal authority with it, it is adding to His words, which is not only a reproach to them as insuffi­cient, but opens a door to all manner of errors and corruptions; for, that one absurdity being granted, that the word of any man, or company of men, is to be received with the same faith and veneration as the word of God, a thousand follow. We must be content with what God has thought fit to make known to us of his mind, and not covet to be wise above what is written.³⁷

What is specifically prohibited here is the elevation of any human idea, command, or tradition to a place that is equal or superior in authority to the Word of God, whether inside or outside of corporate wor­ship. This is not the same as saying that the text comprehensively pro­hibits anything and everything in corporate worship that is not explicitly commanded.

Ecclesiastes 3:14

This text is occasionally cited alongside of Deuteronomy 4:2, Deu­teronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6 in order to prove that if God doesn’t command something for corporate worship, it is therefore pro­hibited. The citation of this text for this purpose, however, is due more to the fact that its wording is similar to these other texts, than to careful exegesis. The use of the text in this way is a stretch. The context of Ecclesiastes 3:14 is not dealing with corporate worship. Solomon asserts that all that God does in His inscrutable wisdom is perfect. Man can neither improve upon it by his contributions, nor frustrate it by his efforts. To be sure, no one can “improve” upon God’s worship by addition. But God’s worship can certainly be spoiled by addition, subtraction, or both. If one wishes to prove that we must only do in worship what God commands, and that if God doesn’t command it it’s prohibited, he must look elsewhere. This text, in the final analysis, doesn’t teach sola Scriptura with regard to corporate worship

Isaiah 1:1-17

Verse 12 is sometimes quoted in an attempt to demonstrate that God rejects worship that He hasn’t commanded. It’s true that God rejects worship that lacks Scriptural warrant, but that is not the point of the divine reproof in Isaiah 1. In the context, Israel brought offerings (v. 11), burned incense (v. 13), observed festivals and Sabbaths (vs. 13, 14), and offered prayers (v. 15). There are no innovations or additions here. Every one of these things had been commanded by God. So why did He reject their worship? It was because the people were without moral integrity (vs. 2-6, 15-17). Their worship was correct and precise, but they them­selves were not upright people. Their formalism and hypocrisy made their worship unacceptable. Right worship offered from a wrong heart is as displeasing to God as wrong worship offered from a right heart (Amos 5:21-26; Micah 6:6-8).³⁸

Jeremiah 7:21-24

Chapters 7-10 of Jeremiah’s prophecy contain a message delivered at the temple gate in which the prophet reproves the people for their false trust in the temple, condemns them for their idolatry, and threatens exile.  Verse 24 is sometimes cited as proof that God rejected their worship because it wasn’t offered in careful obedience to His commands. The context, however, demands a very different interpretation. God rejected their worship because it wasn’t offered from a life of moral integrity. The language of vv. 22, 23 is hyperbolic. The denial of one thing (sacrifice) does not exclude it altogether, but emphasizes its importance over another (obedience). “Not that, but this.” Of course God had commanded sacrifices and offerings, but not before the Moral Law was given. Mere sacrifice wasn’t so much what was commanded as sincere submission to God’s will, which gives to the sacrifice all its virtue.³⁹ Sacrifice and offer­ings are to be the fruit of a covenant relationship, not a substitute for it. The Lord does not desire the sacrifices of a people who have fallen away from Him.

Jeremiah 7:31

This text (along with Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35) is sometimes used to prove that worship that isn’t commanded by God is unacceptable to Him. Attention is drawn to the fact that Israel did in worship what God had not commanded. They did what had never even entered God’s mind. For this reason, the argument goes, it was unacceptable to God. But clearly Israel was not condemned merely for doing what God had not commanded, but for doing what God had explicitly prohibited. Child sac­rifice is explicitly prohibited in Leviticus 18:21. It therefore had indeed entered into God’s mind. He gave thought to it—enough to condemn it! So it is obvious that the expression “it did not come into My mind” must be understood in another way, namely, that God would never require such a costly thing from His worshipers as the sacrifice of their own beloved children. He would never take pleasure such an act. In this sense, it never entered His mind.⁴⁰

It is one thing to say that worship activities are unacceptable to God because He hasn’t commanded them. It is quite another thing to say that worship activities are unacceptable to God because He has prohib­ited them. Clearly, the latter, and not the former, is in view in this pas­sage.⁴¹ This is not to say that what God doesn’t explicitly command is always acceptable to Him. It is simply to say that what God prohibits is never acceptable. Passages that demonstrate the latter should not be used as alleged proof of the former. This is not responsible exegesis.⁴²

Jeremiah 13:10

This text is also sometimes cited to demonstrate that worship that is not commanded is unacceptable to God. But there is nothing about this in the verse or the surrounding context at all. God condemns Israel for worshiping other gods (something forbidden by the Second Com­mandment), not merely for worshiping in a way that had not been com­manded by Him.⁴³

Matthew 15:1-9

This passage is often appealed to in defense of the Regulative Principle of worship. When the Pharisees saw some of the disciples eat bread without ceremonially washing their hands, they found fault with them. Jesus responded by turning the question around and asking the Pharisees why they broke God’s commandments in order to observe their traditions. As an example, He refers to their violation of the Fifth Commandment in order to observe their “Corban” tradition (Mark 7:11). He condemns them for this practice, quoting from Isaiah 29:13 and applying it to them specifically.

Two observations are in order. First, the principles and application of this passage aren’t limited to corporate worship. They certainly include worship, but they also extend to all spheres of life, including the domes­tic sphere, as is clear from the Jesus’ argument in vv. 4-6. Second, Jesus declares that human traditions aren’t binding on the consciences of His people. When human traditions contradict the Word of God or are accorded equal or superior authority to the Word of God, they must not be observed. If they do not contradict the Word of God, or are not accorded equal or superior authority to the Word of God, they are optional, and might be observed, depending on a number of other considerations.⁴⁴ Jesus and the disciples would not have sinned by cere­monially washing, unless they did so as though they were obeying a commandment of God.

Luke 4:16-20

The reading of Scripture was a regular part of the synagogue wor­ship. Christ’s participation (as well as the apostles’) in the worship of the synagogue sanctions its legitimacy (Acts 13:14, 27; 14:1; 15:21; 17:1, 2, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8).

John 4:21-24

This is the Mt. Everest of passages in the Bible concerning corpo­rate worship during New Covenant times. Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman at the well are some of the most instructive words in all of Scripture concerning the corporate worship of the church.

Jesus’ response to the woman (vs. 21-24) is given in three parts. First, He announces the impending obsolescence of both the Jerusalem temple and the Mount Gerazim site as definitive places of worship (v. 21). Nev­ertheless, He insists, salvation springs from the Jews, not the Samari­tans (v. 22). And finally, He explains more positively the nature of the worship that forever renders obsolete the conflicting claims of Jerusalem and Gerazim (vs. 23, 24).⁴⁵

Our Lord prefaces His statements with the words, ‘believe Me’. This is the only time that Jesus uses this expression in the gospels. It demands that special attention be given to what the Head of the church is about to say. At least six important things about New Covenant worship can be learned from Jesus’ words:

First, the time would come when acceptable worship would undergo a change in its geographical locale (vs. 21, 23). The ‘hour’ that is coming is the Gospel Era. The change in locale, commensurate with the arrival of the Gospel Era, is here stated negatively. When the Gospel Era commences, acceptable worship will no longer be restricted to Jerusalem, Mt. Gerazim, or any other geographical location. Jesus essentially says to the woman, “There is little to be gained by a prolonged debate over the relative claims of Jerusalem and Gerazim, since both sites are about to be bypassed by those who truly worship the Father.”⁴⁶ The prophets spoke of a time when the earth would be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14), and when incense would be offered to His name in every place (Malachi 1:11). Jesus here implies that this time had come.

Second, God the Father is the proper object of worship (vs. 21, 23). In the Gospel Era, worship takes on a distinctly Trinitarian flavor. The apostle Paul later designates the Trinitarian formula of worship in Ephe­sians 2:18: to the Father, through the Son, in (by) the Spirit.

Third, God determines what is acceptable worship (vs. 22-24). Worship is not acceptable unless it is sanctioned by divine revelation. Worship in ignorance is unacceptable to God. Worship must find its war­rant in the Word of God in order to be acceptable.

Fourth, there are true worshipers and there are false worshipers (v. 23). Consequently there is true worship, and there is false worship. The Father seeks the former. He is displeased with the latter.

Fifth, the time will come when acceptable worship will undergo a change in its essential character (v. 23). The ‘hour’ that is coming, and now is, is the Gospel Era. It was “already proleptically present in the per­son and ministry of Jesus before the cross.”⁴⁷ When Jesus spoke these words, this hour had already begun by the preaching of the kingdom of God. It was still to come in that Christ had not yet been crucified, raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father. The advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost had not yet occurred, and the church had not yet been established.

When the Gospel Era arrives, acceptable worship will be “in spirit and truth” (evn pneu,mati kai. avlhqei,a). It is tempting to think of ‘spirit’ as a reference to the Holy Spirit, especially in light of Philippians 3:3. But it is best to take this as a reference to the human spirit. One preposition joins the two nouns so that a single idea is in view, a point that is obscured in vv. 23, 24 of the KJV, and in v. 24 of the NIV. It is not worship in spirit and worship in truth, but worship in spirit and truth, or “spirit and truth worship”. This is worship offered out of the fullness of the supernatural life they [true worshipers] enjoy (in spirit), and on the basis of the truth now objectively revealed in Christ (in truth), the One through whom God’s person and will are ultimately disclosed. These two characteristics form one indivisible whole.⁴⁸

Sixthly and finally, acceptable worship is consonant with the char­acter of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures (v. 24). Because God is spirit, worship isn’t tied to a specific geographical place. Because God is spirit, visible, lifeless idols are inappropriate for His worship. Because God is spirit, He is unknowable unless He chooses to reveal Himself, which He has now done in the incarnate Word, the One “who baptizes His people in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33).”⁴⁹ Since the Spirit works only in and through the Word, acceptable worship must be founded on the Holy Scriptures. Only worship that proceeds ultimately from the Spirit through His Word is pleasing to God.

By way of summary and conclusion, something new, something different was about to be introduced in connection with the corporate worship of God’s people. In fact, it had already begun. During the Gospel Era the worship of the New Covenant community would be geographi­cally delocalized and corporately internalized.

A change was coming, first of all, with respect to the location of corporate worship. Acceptable worship would be geographically delocal­ized. No longer would it be restricted to one geographical location (v. 21). It would be offered wherever the people of God gather in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17). Not a temporary physical tem­ple made by human hands (Acts 17:24), but the church, the spiritual house (Ephesians 2:19-22), the true spiritual temple made by divine hands, would be the place of acceptable worship.

A change was coming, secondly, with respect to the nature of cor­porate worship. Acceptable worship during the Gospel Era would be cor­porately internalized (worship in spirit and truth). Whatever else had been wrong with Jewish worship, it at least had divine warrant and Scriptural authority (v. 22). The God who was the object of its worship was the true and living God who had revealed Himself to Israel. At the same time, in spite of whatever may have been right about Jewish wor­ship, for the most part it lacked sincerity. Jehovah repeatedly complains of this in the Old Testament (Isaiah 1:1-17; 29:13, et al.).⁵⁰ Nevertheless, there have always been true worshipers who worship in spirit and truth. Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, and a remnant of other Old Testament saints worshiped in this way. But never before had this kind of worship marked the covenant community as a whole. Never before had a covenant community existed on earth that worshiped in spirit and truth as a corporate entity.⁵¹

There were two streams in the worship of Old Testament Israel: the Tabernacle/Temple, the place where God dwells and meets with His peo­ple (centralized and piacular) and the synagogue (decentralized and non-piacular). The church partakes of both streams. The essential elements of the centralized worship, namely, Tabernacle/Temple (place), priest­hood (people), and sacrifice (particulars), are fulfilled in Christ and His people. No longer is worship tied to a particular location and a physical tent or temple, a ritual priesthood and shadowy types, or the sacrifice of bulls, lambs, and goats. The shadows are cast away, for the full light of the truth has come in Jesus Christ. The New Testament explicitly identi­fies Christ and His people with all three of these elements. Both He and they are the Tabernacle/Temple/Body (John 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; Colossians 1:18, 24). Both He and they are the priests (Hebrews 7-10; 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Both He and they are the sacrifice (Hebrews 9, 10; Romans 12:1).

Christ is the Place, Priest, and Sacrifice. His people are the places, priests, and sacrifices. The worship of the church is always mediated through Christ who is the embodiment of the Regulative Principle. He is the Regulative Principle of worship.

In addition to fulfilling the Old Testament Tabernacle/Temple imagery, the church inherits the format of the non-piacular synagogue worship. Since Christ’s sacrifice is once for all, never to be repeated (Hebrews 9, 10), the worship of the church is non-piacular, and, not sur­prisingly, its format resembles that of the synagogue worship.

Furthermore, the worship of the church is itself prophetic in that it points ahead to the perfect substance yet to come in the new heavens and the new earth. Acceptable worship only takes place through Christ since He is the true temple (John 2:19-22). In the consummated king­dom, the new Jerusalem, no temple will be found because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple (Revelation 21:22). With the first advent of Christ, the hour was dawning when the principle ingredients of the heavenly reality would be set in operation. Worship during the New Covenant era would be a foretaste of the consummation to come.⁵² The worship of the church is a provisional fulfillment of the best that is yet to come.⁵³

Acts 2:42-47

This passage provides a glimpse into the life and corporate worship of the early church. Special meetings for corporate worship began to be held early on (Acts 1:6, 14; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 11:18-34; 14:1-40; 16:1, 2). Certain items are commended and confirmed as belonging to acceptable worship, not by way of command, but by way of example. We are warranted to worship as the early church did. Some items found here, however, may not legitimately be brought over into our own experience and made binding on the people of God. Care must be take to distinguish these items from those that can. For example, the common purse, daily meetings for corporate worship, and daily home communion would not be among those things that are binding on all believers in all ages. The larger witness of Scripture is helpful in deter­mining this distinction.

At least three items in this passage properly belong to the cor­porate worship of the church in all ages: reading, teaching, and preaching the Word of God (steadfast continuance in the apostolic teaching), the Lord’s Supper (breaking of bread), and corporate prayer (the prayers: tai/j proseucai/j). This passage demonstrates that in addition to explicit commands, biblically sanctioned examples are legitimate in determining what is or is not acceptable worship.

Acts 20:7-12

As we just saw, special meetings for corpo­rate worship were held in the early church (Acts 1:6, 14; 2:42-47; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 1 Corinthians 11:18-34; 14:1-40; 16:1, 2). This meeting was held on the evening of the first day of the week. The Perfect Passive participle (sunhgme,nwn, “being gathered”, i.e. as usual) suggests that this was a regular practice. Even at this early date, the observance of the first day of the week, the day of Jesus’ resurrection, had become customary. The activities of this meeting included a sermon (in this case, not a very short one!), and the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Again, biblically sanctioned example carries considerable weight in determining what is or is not acceptable worship.⁵⁴

Romans 12:1

We have already seen that meetings for special corporate worship were held in the early church (Acts 1:6, 14; 2:42-47; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 11:18-34; 14:1-40; 16:1, 2). Jesus promised His special blessing and presence upon His people when they gather in His name (Matthew 18:18-20). The worship referred to in this text, however, is of a broader kind. It is general worship in contrast to special wor­ship.⁵⁵ For the Christian, all of life is worship. This does not in any way preclude the warrant or necessity for special meetings for worship, but it does remove the restriction of worship to special gatherings and broaden it to include everything the Christian is and does. In the exposition of John 4:21-24, we saw that the Old Testament imagery of temple, priest, and sacrifice was fulfilled in Christ and His people. Under the New Cove­nant, ritual offering has been replaced by rational (spiritual) service.⁵⁶ Believers no longer offer atoning sacrifices. This was done once and for all in Christ. But believers do offer sacrifices—not dead animal sacrifices, but spiritual ones that are pleasing to God (Hebrews 13:15, 16). Believers themselves are living sacrifices.⁵⁷ They live in obedience to the Word of God. They sacrifice themselves to God’s purposes. The whole of their lives is priestly service to God.

1 Corinthians 11:18-34

Here is another instance of special meetings for corporate worship (Acts 1:6, 14; 2:42-47; 4:23-31; 5:42; 13:2; 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40: 16:1, 2). The observance of the Lord’s Supper was a regular activity in the corporate worship of the early church. Though celebrated in con­junction with the love feast (a fellowship meal), the Lord’s Supper itself was not an ordinary meal. It was a participation in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16), and must be partaken of in a worthy manner (v. 27). Jesus called it the New Covenant in His blood (v. 25). Special worship, then, involves special activities. Again, biblically sanctioned example car­ries considerable weight in determining what is or is not acceptable wor­ship.

1 Corinthians 14:1-40

Here is another instance of special meetings for corporate worship in the early church. This passage, more than any other in the New Tes­tament, gives a glimpse of an early Christian worship service. As the apostle gives authoritative instruction (vs. 37, 38) concerning meetings for public worship, two overarching principles govern his thought. First, corporate worship should be edifying (oikodome, vv. 4, 5, 12, 17, 26). Sec­ond, corporate worship should be decent (euschemonos) and orderly (taxis, v. 40).

In the absence of a closed, written New Testament canon, certain revelational spiritual gifts were exercised in the corporate worship of the first generation church.⁵⁸ These included tongues (glossa), interpretation of tongues (hermeneia), and prophecy (profetia).⁵⁹ Male individuals (vs. 34, 35) brought psalms (psalmos), teachings (didache), revelations (apocalupsis), tongues (glossa), and interpretations (e`rmhnei,a). It doesn’t appear that these individuals were limited to church officers. Paul addresses two problems associated with the use of these gifts in the church at Corinth. One concerned the proper use of revelational gifts. The other the number of individuals permitted to exercise these gifts in a given worship service. The remedy for these problems is expressed in terms of the two princi­ples enunciated above.

Without interpretation or prophecy, tongues cannot be understood. Genuine edification occurs only when the mind understands (vs. 1-25). Edification always involves the use of the mind. Unintelligible speech doesn’t edify because there is no understanding. So tongues must not be used unless there is someone to interpret or prophesy.

If too many people are speaking at one time, confusion and disor­der result. So those who speak must go one at a time. Not more than two or three should speak in tongues, and only if there is an interpreter. Otherwise they must keep silent. Similarly, only two or three prophets should speak (vs. 26-33).

Corporate worship must be God-centered, not man-centered. At the same time, it also has a horizontal focus (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). It is to be edifying (vs. 12, 26), and even evangelistic (vs. 24, 25). A proper concern for worshipers, however, doesn’t mean catering to their wants. “Worship is not, therefore, a program to provide entertainment, or to enhance self-esteem, or to encourage self-righteousness.”⁶⁰ Also, the evangelistic thrust of worship must not be allowed to overshadow either its God-ward focus or the goal of edifying believers.

A clear distinction is present in this chapter between acceptable and unacceptable worship. This distinction is always determined by the Word of God (vs. 37, 38). We are warranted in following the example of the early church in its corporate worship.

1 Corinthians 16:1, 2

Special meetings for corporate worship were held on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7-12). Collections were made on that day for the relief of the saints. The example of the early church warrants us to do the same.

Ephesians 2:18-22

The apostle Paul describes the formation of God’s new people under the New Covenant. Christ has broken down the division between Jews and Gentiles and reconciled them both in one body through the cross (vs. 14-16). This has significant implications for the worship of the church. The language of this passage is rich and concentrated. Now believing Jews and believing Gentiles together are God’s household (v. 19). They are being built into a holy temple, a dwelling of God in the Spirit (vs. 21, 22). The foundation of the new house is the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone (v. 20; 1 Peter 2:4-8). Con­sequently, Jews and Gentiles have access to the presence of God (v. 18). Under the old economy, the high priest alone could enter into the holy of holies but once a year. Now in Christ all believers have continual access. The Trinitarian formula of v. 18 describes the normal pattern of the church’s worship—to the Father, through Christ, by the Spirit.

Ephesians 5:19 (Colossians 3:16)

These passages have been understood and interpreted in a wide variety of ways.⁶¹ Consequently, there has been considerable disagree­ment about whether the corporate worship of the church should include congregational singing and, if so, what should be sung.⁶² The proper inter­pretation of these passages requires that at least three key questions be addressed: (1) Are these passages concerned with the corporate wor­ship of the church to begin with?⁶³ (2) How should these passages be punctuated?⁶⁴ (3) Are psalms (psalmos), hymns (humnos), and spiritual songs (odais pneumatikais) three separate types of compositions, or are they syn­onymous?⁶⁵ From 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26, however, it can be argued that at the very least, the singing of psalms was a part of the worship of the early church.

Philippians 3:3

The people who had formerly been called the circumcision were only so outwardly. They were but a shadow of the reality to come—a peo­ple who would be circumcised in heart (Romans 2:25-29; Colossians 2:11). They are the true circumcision, the true Israel of God. Three dis­tinguishing characteristics of this group of people are mentioned. The first pertains to their worship. They worship (latreuo) in (by) the Spirit of God. The worship referred to here isn’t limited to corporate worship. It includes worship (service) in the broadest sense (Romans 12:1). This worship is initiated by the Holy Spirit through the inward transformation of the members of the New Covenant community (Ezekiel 36:26-28). This worship is also animated by the Holy Spirit who stirs up and empowers the believer to worship and service (Gal. 5:16).

Colossians 2:23

Paul uses a term which he may well have coined himself: ethelothreskia (“will-worship”, “self-made religion”, self-imposed worship”). This is religion that originates in the mind of man and not in the Word of God. Such religion is powerless against temptation, and unacceptable to God.

1 Timothy 3:15

Paul writes to Timothy so that he will be certain about what con­duct is acceptable in the church. His words imply that some practices (including worship practices) are acceptable in the church, while others are not. Care must be taken about conduct in the church because it’s God’s house, the place where He dwells, the place of His special pres­ence. The rule of acceptable conduct in the church is the apostolic Word. The specifics of acceptable conduct are discovered by interpreting and applying the apostolic Word in the usual way, not by using a different hermeneutic. In other words, the principle for interpreting and applying the Word of God for conduct in the church is the same principle for interpreting and applying the Word of God in any and all other areas of life.

1 Peter 2:4-10

Peter quotes from numerous Old Testament passages to demon­strate the fulfillment of the Old Testament temple worship in Christ and His people (Isaiah 28:16; Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; Exodus 19:5, 6; Hosea 1:10; 2:23). Both He and they are the place of worship, the true tabernacle/temple to which the Old Testament Tabernacle/Temple pointed. He is the Living Stone, the chief cornerstone in the spiritual house. They are the living stones in the spiritual house. Both He and they are priests. He is their Great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14). They are a royal priesthood. Both He and they offer sacrifices. He offers the sacrifice of Himself (Hebrews 9:12, 26). They offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The fulfillment is realized through faith in Christ (v. 4: “coming to Him”; John 6:35). Peter presents these as broad realities. There is no indication that they are restricted to corporate worship alone. They pertain to all spheres of the Christian life, not merely special gatherings of believers.⁶⁶

Hebrews 2:12

In v. 12, the writer to the Hebrews quotes from Psalm 22:22, a Messianic psalm. Christ is the speaker. He is the One who sings with the people of God in the midst of the gathered assembly. When the church gathers for worship, Christ condescends to meet with His people by the Spirit, in accordance with His promise in Matthew 18:20. Here is a line of argument in favor of congregational singing in the corporate worship of the church.⁶⁷

Hebrews 10:19-25

What was only an annual priestly prerogative under the Old Cove­nant is now the privilege of all believers at all times under the New Cove­nant. Through the excellence and effectiveness of Christ and His sacrifice, believers have continual access to God in worship. While the access of individual believers is certainly in view, the idea of corporate access is also present (vs. 24, 25).

Hebrews 12:18-29

The fathomless superiority of Mt. Zion over the fear-inducing solemnity of Mt. Sinai has significant implications for the manner of wor­ship under the New Covenant. The words of v. 29 echo the words of Moses in Deuteronomy4:24. The God of Sinai is the God of Zion as well. Our exalted privileges under the New Covenant, coupled with the awe­some holiness of God, demand that He be worshiped acceptably (latreuomen euarestos). Careless familiarity in the worship of this God is unacceptable. Joy, gratitude, and confidence are not incompatible with fear, humility, and reverence.

Hebrews 13:15, 16

Under the New Covenant, blood sacrifices are not offered occasion­ally. Spiritual sacrifices are to be offered continually. The scope of these verses is comprehensive both of worship in the special corporate sense, and worship in the general sense. The sacrifices mentioned in v. 15 are more conducive, though not limited to, special worship, while those mentioned in v. 16 occur in general worship. The list itself, however, is not comprehensive. With these and other similar sacrifices (toiautais thusiais) God is pleased.

Revelation 1:10

The “Lord’s Day” is a technical term for the first day of the week. It is the Lord’s Day because on the first day of the week Christ rose victori­ous from the grave. If we assume the abiding validity of the Fourth Commandment, and identify the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath, then we must conclude that the activities of the gathered church on that day will be different in some respects from the activities of the gathered church on other days of the week. What might be an acceptable activity for the gathered church at a mid-week prayer meeting or a Friday night Fellowship Dinner may not be appropriate for a corporate worship service of the gathered church on the Lord’s Day, and vice versa. As examples, one might expect there to be preaching and observance of the Lord’s Supper on the Lord’s Day, while at a mid-week prayer meeting there will be far more emphasis on prayer, and no observance of the Lord’s Supper. A Saturday afternoon baptismal service will have an entirely different thrust, as would a Friday Night Fellowship Dinner where high school graduates are recognized and presented with graduation gifts from the church.⁶⁸

Revelation 22:18, 19

John by inspiration of the Spirit issues a solemn warning against tampering with the words of this prophecy by either addition or subtrac­tion. Willful distortion of its message has serious consequences. Of course it is never right to add to or subtract from any portion of the Word of God.⁶⁹ But in the strictest sense, the warning issued here applies to the book of the Revelation itself (this book: tou bibliou toutou; this proph­ecy: tes profeteias tautes) and not to the Bible as a whole.

This text is often lumped together with Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6 as alleged proof of the Regulative Principle in worship, i.e. that we are only permitted to do in corporate worship what is explic­itly commanded; if it is not commanded, it is prohibited. However, as was similarly observed in the exposition of Proverbs 30:6, the prohibition of adding to or subtracting from the Word of God can’t properly be restricted to corporate worship alone. It must apply to every situation and circumstance of life. This means that the prohibition must be under­stood and applied in a qualified way for the obvious reason that in the broad spectrum of life’s experiences we sometimes must, and at other times may, do many things that aren’t explicitly commanded in the Bible (eat grapes, play softball, take out the garbage, etc.).

If the prohibition of Revelation 22:18 is broadly applied to the whole Bible, two things are specifically forbidden. The first is the elevation of any human idea, command, or tradition to a place that is equal or superior in authority to the Word of God (adding to the Word of God). The second is attributing anything less than divine authority to any biblical command or principle (subtracting from the Word of God). This is not the same as saying that the text comprehensively prohibits anything and everything in corporate worship that is not explicitly com­manded.

Summary and Conclusion

From this survey, at least four things are clear. First, corporate worship that is acceptable to God always is and always must be regu­lated by divine revelation. We are not at liberty to worship God in any way we please, but only in ways that His Word warrants us to.

Second, the regulation of corporate worship by the Word of God is not uniform throughout Scripture.⁷⁰ Prior to Sinai, gatherings for corpo­rate worship were regulated by divine revelation, but not with the same degree of detail or specificity after Sinai. Once Israel entered the land, worship was centralized in the Tabernacle and the Temple. No longer was it acceptable to offer sacrifices anywhere one wished to. Nor could they be offered indiscriminately by anyone who wished, or in the way they wished. Now sacrifices would be offered only in the authorized place, by authorized persons, and in the authorized way. One reason for this can be discerned from Israel’s relationship to the church, the new Israel. This was a relationship of shadow to substance; picture to reality; promise and prophecy to fulfillment. Precision was important. All pointed forward to Christ who is the Place, Priest, and acceptable Sacrifice through whom the worship of His people is mediated; and to Christ’s people who them­selves are places, priests, and sacrifices of worship. Through the bloody sacrifice of Christ, their spiritual sacrifices of adoration, praise, thanks­giving, and benevolence are made acceptable to God. Concurrent with the centralized worship of the Tabernacle and the Temple was a decentralized worship, first in the holy convocations, and later in the Synagogue. This decentralized worship was also regulated by divine revelation, but not in the same way or to the same degree as the centralized worship of the Tabernacle and the Temple. It was non-piacular and word-centered. The church partakes of both streams of Israel’s worship. It is the antitype of Israel’s centralized worship. It takes up the format of Israel’s decentralized worship. The prophetic and typical relation of Old Israel to New Israel may at least partially account for the concentration of detailed regulation clustering around the Tabernacle/Temple, and the absence of such detailed regulation during other periods of redemptive history, including the New Covenant Era.

Third, the absence of a command isn’t necessarily equivalent to a prohibition. It is one thing to say that God cares about how He is wor­shiped; that we must worship Him according to His Word; as He has commanded; as He has prescribed in His Word. It is very different to say that this always has, does, and will mean that nothing must be done in worship unless it has been explicitly commanded; that the absence of a command equals a prohibition. Passages that are brought forward to prove that worship activities that aren’t expressly commanded by God are unacceptable to Him do not prove this at all. In each case, they actu­ally prove that worship activities that are prohibited by God are unac­ceptable to Him.

Fourth, Scripture applies to corporate worship in the same way it applies to other things. The use of a special hermeneutic for corporate worship does not appear to have any demonstrable basis in Scripture.

These conclusions will be explored and further developed in part three, “The Regulative Principle in Theological Perspective.”

Jim Domm
Pastor of Englewood Baptist Church, Englewood, NJ
Student of Reformed Baptist Seminary, Easley, SC

1. John Murray, in vol. 2 of his Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), pp. 7-9. [↩]
2. William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (reprint, EdinburghGreat Brit­ain: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 33. [↩]
3. The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, 22:1. [↩]
4. J. Ligon Duncan III, “Name of Article or Essay,” in Give Praise to God, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2003), pp. 17-50. [↩]
5. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, n.d.),  1:110. Editor: See Bruce K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 (1986): 363-62. [↩]
6. See also the implications of Genesis 26:5. [↩]
7. J. Douma, The Ten Commandments, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1996), pp. 35-72. [↩]
8. Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:6. [↩]
9. Heidelberg Catechism, Question #96) in the way He has “prescribed”; in the way “instituted” by Him. ((Westminster Confession of Faith, 21:1; Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, 22:1; See also the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question #109. [↩]
10. We could turn this question around. Under the Old Covenant, did the “right way” of corporate worship include biblical example? Did it include good and necessary consequence? [↩]
11. See Part III: The Regulative Principle in Theological Perspective. [↩]
12. As Brian Schwertley wrongly concludes in “Some Contemporary Objections to Sola Scriptura in the Sphere of Worship Considered and Refuted,”Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, 2000, http: //www. reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm, p. 8. Neither does this mean that worship is no longer regulated by the Word of God under the New Covenant. [↩]
13. See Part III: The Regulative Principle in Theological Perspective [↩]
14. We might question whether adiaphora is a valid biblical concept to begin with. I use the term here as it is popularly referred to. [↩]
15. Ibid., p. 2. [↩]
16. Sam Waldron, The Regulative Principle of the Church (Quezon City: Wisdom Publications, 1995), p. 18. [↩]
17. Schwertley attempts to avoid the difficulty here by distinguishing worship ordinances from so-called adiaphora. But this doesn’t appear to square with Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 which apply comprehensively to all the law of God, not just worship. See the exposition of those passages. [↩]
18. Carl Bogue, The Scriptural Law of Worship (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1988), p. 16. [↩]
19. Matthew Henry, in vol. 1 of Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean: MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 478. Henry also observes that Nadab and Abihu may have provoked God’s displeasure by burning incense when it was not their turn. But this doesn’t appear to be the reason given in Leviticus 10:1. [↩]
20. John Knox, “A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry,” in The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: T.G. Stephenson, 1864), p. 38. [↩]
21. It’s possible that what Nadab and Abihu did was explicitly prohibited in one or more of these passages. [↩]
22. The observations of Keil and Deilitzsch also deserve consideration: “It is not very clear what the offense of which they were guilty actually was.” “This might be called “strange fire” if it was not offered in the manner prescribed by the law…” “The fire of the holy God …brought destruction upon his [Aaron’s] two eldest sons, because they had not sanctified Jehovah in their hearts, but had taken upon themselves a self-willed service;” C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, n.d.),  2:350, 351. [↩]
23. “What enables scholars to come up with such divergent theories [regarding the origin of the synagogue] is the fact that we have very little information to go on.” R.D. Anderson, in Prophetic Singing in the Corporate Worship of the Church (unpublished manuscript), p. 13.  “Although the synagogue is Judaism’s most central and enduring institution, its origins are shrouded in mystery.” W.S. Lasor, T.C. Eskenazi, “Synagogue,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Chicago: Howard Severance Company, 1915; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 677. [↩]
24. See R. K. Harrison’s discussion of the number of altars in his Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 642, 643. See also J.A. Thompson, Deuteronomy (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1974), pp. 35-42. [↩]
25. In the Hebrew Bible chapter 13 begins with 12:32. Editor: Also worthy of note is the suggestion of some scholars, in light of some parallels between Deuteronomy and ancient Near Eastern treaty diplomacy, that the formula of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 is a kind of “covenant copyright,” indicating that so solemn was this formal relationship that none of its stipulations could be altered or modified. See Eugene Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4 in New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Broadman & Holman, 1994), 115. [↩]
26. The scope of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 isn’t limited to centralized worship in the Tabernacle or the Temple. It comprehensively includes all of Old Testament Israel’s covenant life, the particulars of which were more specifically regulated than the covenant life of the New Testament church. It does not appear, therefore, that the prohibition of additions and subtractions in these passages can be taken absolutely. To carry these texts over into the New Testament and apply them exclusively to the New Covenant worship of the church appears to be arbitrary and without sufficient exegetical warrant. See Part III: The Regulative Principle in Theological Perspective. [↩]
27. Editor: I would also suggest the likelihood that Uzzah’s action, like that of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, was probably accompanied by somewhat of a cavalier attitude. In other words, it’s doubtful that their actions were due to sincere ignorance. [↩]
28. J. Douma, The Ten Commandments, p. 36. [↩]
29. See the comments on 2 Samuel 6:1-11 regarding the use of this passage to prove the Regulative Principle in Worship. [↩]
30. Neither had the Temple been consecrated in time for observance in the first month (See Numbers 9:2, 3 with 2 Chronicles 29:17). [↩]
31. A rigid interpretation of the provision for a postponed observance in Numbers 9 would prohibit its application to this situation. The people had neither touched a dead body nor were they on a journey. Apparently, however, Hezekiah saw that in some instances Numbers 9 could be applied more broadly than this. Observance of the Passover could be postponed for a variety of reasons (i.e. providential hindrances). Of course, such an approach could be pressed to an extreme, leading to postponement for all kinds of trivial or even sinful reasons. But the possibility of abusing the provision doesn’t appear to prevent Hezekiah from applying it specifically to the situation at that time. Hezekiah’s use of Numbers 9 meets with no divine disapproval. [↩]
32. I will not here enter into the question of whether the observance of the Passover was postponed until the second month of the following year as some suggest. It does not materially alter the exposition given here. [↩]
33. The question of the nature of the healing is not germane to the exposition given here. The relevant point is that God heard Hezekiah’s prayer and accepted their worship notwithstanding its irregularities. [↩]
34. Matthew Henry, in vol. 2 of Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1001. [↩]
35. See the exposition of those passages. [↩]
36. See the exposition of Matthew 15:1-9. [↩]
37. Matthew Henry, in vol. 3 of Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean: MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 965. [↩]
38. See the exposition of 2 Chronicles 30:1-20. [↩]
39. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in vol. 2 of A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), p. 27. A similar idea is found in 1 Samuel 15:22, Psalm. 50:8, Psalm 51:16, 17, and Hosea 6:6. [↩]
40. Editor: It might be helpful to point out that the English “mind” translates the Hebrew word for “heart.” In this case, it’s not that God was unaware of or never thought about such an abominable practice, as you note. But such a practice could never find a place in God’s affections, as an act pleasing him. [↩]
41. The same idea is present in Deuteronomy 17:3. [↩]
42. So also in Jeremiah 19:5 and 32:35. [↩]
43. See also Deuteronomy 17:3. The worship of other gods wasn’t wrong simply because God hadn’t commanded it. It was wrong because, among other reasons, He had prohibited it. Similar language is found in Deuteronomy 18:20 and Jeremiah 29:23. In these verses God condemns those who speak falsely in His name. God doesn’t condemn them simply because they did something He didn’t explicitly command them to do. He condemns them because they did something that He prohibited, namely, bearing false witness. The reader will certainly have noticed by now that I am arguing that many texts are wrongly used to demonstrate that the absence of a command equals a prohibition; that the phrase “which I commanded them not” is found in situations where the express commands of God have been violated. It is no secret that these texts are frequently used this way in literature defending the Regulative Principle of worship. Careful examination shows that in the Bible the phrase “which I commanded them not” is always found where explicit commands have been violated. It is never used in Scripture to refer to human additions that weren’t explicitly prohibited, not even in Leviticus 10:1-3. None of these texts prove that the absence of a command equals a prohibition.  For an interesting discussion of the “commanded them not” texts, see Brian Schwertley, “A Brief Critique of Steven M. Schlissel,” 1999, http: // www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/schlissel.htm, pp. 14-16. Richard Hooker observes that David presumed to build the Temple without a command from God, who, instead of condemning David for the sin of will-worship, commended him for his well-meaning intent. Later, He relieves David of his self-imposed obligation and even goes so far as to reiterate His covenant promises to David (1 Chronicles 17:1-15). From this account, Hooker urges caution in drawing conclusions about the absence of explicit commands in connection with God’s worship. See his Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, pp. 312, 313. [↩]
44. See my treatment of the Baptist Confession of Faith, 21:2 in Part III: The Regulative Principle in Theological Perspective. [↩]
45. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 222. [↩]
46. Ibid., p. 223. [↩]
47. Carson., p. 224. [↩]
48. Carson, pp. 225, 226. [↩]
49. Carson, p. 225. [↩]
50. Is there a hint here that the Samaritans had sincerity but lacked the truth, while the Jews lacked sincerity while having the truth? [↩]
51. Schwertley is correct when he observes that worship in spirit and truth was not a new principle. (“Some Contemporary Objections to Sola Scriptura in the Sphere of Worship Considered and Refuted,” Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, 2000, http: // www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm, p. 14). There were in fact true saints in Israel who worshiped in spirit and truth, but the covenant community as a whole did not. Schwertley misses this important distinction. He also mistakenly equates the “now is” hour with the Old Covenant era. By flattening these distinctions, he draws an invalid conclusion: “Therefore, when He [Jesus] says that the same worship principle of “spirit and truth” now operative in the Old Covenant era will also be operative in the New Covenant era, He is connecting the strict worship principle that regulated the temple to the new covenant church.” [↩]
52. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, p. 226. [↩]
53. I want to acknowledge my debt to Pastor Jeffery Smith of Coconut Creek, Florida for some helpful lines of thought in the interpretation of this passage. [↩]
54. See the exposition of Revelation 1:10. [↩]
55. The Greek term latreia may be translated ‘worship’ or ‘service’. It is used in the New Testament to refer to the Temple service discharged by worshiping Israelites. See Romans 9:4; Hebrews 9:1-6. [↩]
56. The Greek adjective logiko,j is rendered ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ by some, and ‘spiritual’ by others (see 1 Peter 2:2). Either rendering is possible and makes good sense. [↩]
57. They are living stones in a spiritual house. See the exposition of 1 Peter 2:4,5. The term ‘living’ might also reflect on the permanence of the offering. [↩]
58. These were “supernatural gifts given to the church only for the period of its founding, to attest the ministry of the apostles (Hebrews 2:1-4; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 2:20). That ministry is available to us in the Scriptures, and so we should not expect God to give these gifts to us today.” John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1996), pp. 30, 31. [↩]
59. The prophecies were revelatory in nature (vs. 26, 29, 30). [↩]
60. John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1996), p. 8. [↩]
61. See Steve M. Shlissel, Part 2 of All I Really Need to Know About Worship…I Don’t Learn From the Regulative Principle, 2002, http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp? printv=1&id=95, pp. 7, 8. See also Brian Schwertley, “Some Contemporary Objections to Sola Scriptura in the Sphere of Worship Considered and Refuted,” Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, 2000, http: //www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm, p. 15, and “The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas,” http://www.swrb.com/newlett/ actualNLs/CHRISTMAS.htm, p. 4. [↩]
62. See Part II: The Regulative Principle in Historical Perspective. [↩]
63. Nothing in the context indicates that corporate worship is in view. Still, this does not preclude the relevance of the principles in these passages for congregational singing, granting that congregational singing is included in the corporate worship of the church. [↩]
64. Should “with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” be connected to “teaching and admonishing” or “singing with thankfulness” in Colossians 3:16? The parallel in Ephesians 5:19 seems to favor the former idea. [↩]
65. Some treatments imply that singing was not part of the synagogue worship. See Carson, Worship by the Book, p. 20; Alfred Edersheim, Synagogue Worship, n.d.: http://www.piney.com/Synagogue1.htm1, p. 3; W. S. Lasor, T. C. Eskenazi, “Synagogue,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Chicago: Howard Severance Company, 1915; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), p. 681-684. Most, however, affirm that it was. See Carson, Worship by the Book, p. 21; Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession. p. 245; Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), p. 63; Thomas, “The Regulative Principle: Responding to Recent Criticism,” in Give Praise to God, p. 91. [↩]
66. See the exposition of John 4:21-24 and Ephesians 2:18-22. [↩]
67. See also Romans 15:5-13. [↩]
68. Even on the Lord’s Day, worship activities will not be absolutely uniform. For example, if two gatherings for corporate worship are held on the Lord’s Day, one might expect there to be preaching at both meetings, but the Lord’s Supper to be observed at only one of those meetings. See Part III: The Regulative Principle in Theological Perspective. [↩]
69. See the exposition of Proverbs 30:6. [↩]
70. For a suggestive but thought-provoking biblical-theological survey of worship in the Bible see D.A. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” Worship by the Book, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), pp. 34-38. [↩]