Proskuneo (2)

So many ideas on worship, and a few do have biblical foundation. . . .  (This post continues thoughts from a few days ago.)

Eighteen years ago, the Christian Chronicle surveyed a few American Restoration Movement leaders of various, shall we say, bents.  I retained at least one response that surprised me positively, on recent re-discovery:

. . .  Worship rings out of the fountain of the soul and heart–the springing out of adoration, praise and thanksgiving to God. . . .

The internal man must be involved. You can worship internally without doing anything external, but you can’t worship externally without involving the internal.

Worship is intentional. You cannot worship God accidentally. It must be an intended act. [editorial emphasis–bc]

We only worship vertically. It is something we do in communication, adoration and praise toward God. . . .

God is not our buddy. He is deity; we are human.  Let us go back to the fact of how awesome is the majesty, power, grace and love of God. . . .  We must beware turning the worship of God into more of a pep rally than the awe-inspiring worship of the Almighty God.

– Excerpted from  Roy Lanier Jr., “My Hope for the Church’s Worship” in “Worship Today: Six Leaders Express Their Views,” Christian Chronicle, 7/94. Reprinted by permission.

Mr. Lanier, if memory serves (and it well may not!), is someone with whom I would share a fair number of historical underpinnings, but whose ideas around church functionalities and Bible interpretation would often fall to the right of my own.  He does seem to have a good handle on worship, though!  Here, I particularly want to highlight that worship is vertical, i.e., between creature and Creator.  The horizontal “life” stuff is related, and does absolutely need to be harmonized, but is not worship per se.

Moreover, specifically on an expression that leads to much misunderstanding:  Paul did not write “spiritual act of worship” in Romans 12.  He didn’t write English words at all, and the Greek words he wrote aren’t normally, otherwise translated “spiritual” and “worship.”

May we get our ideas on all “God things” from the scriptures.

To be continued . . .

7 thoughts on “Proskuneo (2)

  1. godschildrenorg 11/15/2012 / 4:37 pm

    Brian, Enlighten me please – what did the Greek words mean that Paul wrote which have been translated “spiritual worship.” Dan could read Greek fluently. I miss having him here to tell me what the Word was originally saying. Sometimes I ponder why God has not given us easy access to the true meaning of His original words. Speaking several foreign languages, I understand how difficult it is to translate exactly from one language to another. By putting their own interpretations into the translations from the Greek. translators have led some astray. What is the solution? Don’t tell me to learn to read Greek! I am struggling enough learning Hungarian and Romanian so I can serve better in Transylvania! — Anne B.


    • Brian Casey 11/15/2012 / 8:37 pm

      Anne, I’m not surprised that Dan could read Greek. I’m taking courses now to learn more. As they say, “I know enough to get me in trouble. . . .”

      The expression in Rom. 12:1 is *logiken latreian; **logikan* is a relatively uncommon word and could be said to have spawned our word “logical.” *Latreian* is also uncommon in this particular form. Its basic meaning is “service rendered for hire, ministration,” and it further is said to related to the likes of Levitical priestly service. I don’t have this next part on good authority, but I have a hunch that *latreian *may be at least marginally related to other words such as *leitourgia,* which basically means “an office which one administers.”

      Robertson’s *Word Pictures* gives this further insight, and I’m not sure how the Gk. characters will be displayed here, but I trust you’ll be able to make out the words, either way:

      *Which is your reasonable service* (*thn logikhn umwn latreian*). “Your rational (spiritual) service (worship).” For *latreia*, see on Romans 9:4 . *Logiko* is from*logo*, reason. The phrase means here “worship rendered by the reason (or soul).”

      I think Robertson may be affected by church tradition here in linking “service” with “worship” and do not not see anything directly vertical, i.e., human-to-God, in Rom. 12:1. I rather think Paul is putting quote marks around “reasonable service” and suggesting that *offering ourselves becomes, rationally (or even figuratively?) speaking, the New equivalent of Old priestly service. *If I’m right, this verse is not about worship *per se* but is about Christian living much more generally. (Worship was never halted, but animal sacrifices were.) Robertson also may be unduly affected by Greek philosophical thought in relating reason to “worship” of the “soul,” which was the part of the self that linked the inner spirit and the body, if I remember correctly.

      Your other questions are a lot more difficult to answer, and I’m not sure either of us needs me to try. 🙂 I ponder similar things sometimes. Translation issues are thorny, and when one comes to understand, as I’m sure you have, that exact translation from language to language is quite impossible in most cases, the issues change color . . . . and then adherence to a single version (1611 or otherwise!) tends to go away. . . .


    • Brian Casey 11/15/2012 / 8:39 pm

      By the way, my 3rd post on this general topical area was already dealing some with the words you ask about. Now that I’ve written this reply, I think I’ll adjust my 3rd post to include some of this information you made me look up! 🙂


  2. godschildrenorg 11/15/2012 / 4:41 pm

    P.S. Why do people think the Bible was originally written in English in 1611? Why is language that was spoken in England in the 1600’s considered to be the actual words of God? I’m curious. — Anne B.


    • Dorcas 01/05/2019 / 11:12 am

      Answer to Anne B.
      Since your post was over 6 years ago, I don’t expect a reply. But I will say this, the KJV, written in 1611 is a reliable version, is it not? If it is not, please show me the soul destroying passages that take away any English speaking person’s ability to be saved, ie. to become a Christian, and also to understand how God wants us to live our daily lives and how he wants us to worship him. The problem with too many of the newer English translations, is that they do skew Bible doctrines that can effect your understanding of how to be saved, worship, and serve God. Therefore they can affect your Salvation as any misguided shepherd could do. Now let’s use my litmus test. Turn to Matthew 19:9 in any English translation and check to see if the Greek, pornea, is translated “fornication.”
      A myriad of the newer translations have pornea to mean marital unfaithfulness or even just unfaithfulness as an exception to the innocent party being able to remarry in God’s acceptance. So what do those terms mean?
      If you cannot trust a translation to accurately translate a basic word like pornea, what other deceptions might be found. I am all for researching the Hebrew, the Greek, and any other helps a person might have access to, but I will keep my personal study Bible as the KJV.
      As an interesting note, Brother Robert Taylor writes articles on the different versions at times and I have seen him comment that the more he studies their errant parts, the more he goes running back to the KJV.
      My prayer is that we seek God’said will. The dinamic equivalent versions attempt to interpret what God meant. I do not desire your commentary on what God said as much as I desire to know the words God has said to me. Words, in whatever language are important. You cannot convey thought without words. Therefore it is very important to get the true words.
      P.S. Sorry if I spelled pornea wrong.


    • Brian Casey 01/05/2019 / 11:57 am

      Thanks for your thoughts and what I take as sincere concerns. What seems to be missing is the realization that words change in meaning. The 1611 translation was incredible in its time.

      Anyone who continually relies on one translation (whether a 400 years old or 50 or 10) may well unaware of basic human linguistic communication concerns. No serious student of Bible texts (you or me or anyone else) is ever interested in obscuring God’s will or desires. All translations interpret and make judgments. Every single one of them. No translation is free of interpretation. This is why continued study and comparison are important. God’s best to you.


Please share your thoughts. I read every comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.