Lexical specifics and meaning theory (IID)

Modern linguistic theory teaches that the meaning . . . is not located in the word itself but is determined by the relationship the word has to other words . . . and by the contrast it forms with other words which share its semantic domain.  (Jobes 202)

Meaning is determined primarily by context.  The search for meaning may at times and with limitations be aided by lexicon/dictionary studies and by historical etymological factors, but each discrete text—taken as a whole, and sometimes including comparisons with other texts—will reveal meaning by virtue of comparisons and similarities.

To apply a music metaphor:  an 8th note has some meaning to a music reader who knows the language of musical notation.  However, it is only in the understanding of the musical context—the whole composition—that the musician may approach a full understanding of said 8th note.  Its style; its implied direction; its relation to quarter notes, half notes, and other 8ths . . . all these things and more are found in the note’s relationship to the whole musical context in which it is found.

The primacy of context is an important principle that I am hoping will guide all considerations of worship and service words.  I don’t want context to be lost in these posts that have been submerged in lexicography.

With that said, I’m going to offer more of a residual smattering of observations (those of Karen Jobes and my own) related to words she placed in the semantic domain for worship. Any preliminary conclusions drawn based on dictionary concerns must be made subservient to contexts in which the words are found.

The more frequently a given word is used in comparison to other words in its semantic domain, the more general and inclusive its meaning tends to be.  Proskuneō is the most frequently used of the verbs for worship. . . . Latreuō is the second most frequently used. . . . In contrast, eusebeō is the second most frequently used of the verbs in the extra-biblical works. . . .  (203)

Latreuō and leitourgeō share a very specific sense that distinguishes them from the other Greek verbs for worship that have a wider semantic range. (203)

The two related words latreuō and leitourgeō are more narrow in focus and application, denoting priestly “vocation.”  I would go a step further in asserting that these two words may not even belong in a discussion alongside proskuneo, kamptō to gonu, gonupeteō, sebomai, and sebazomai.  Actually, I don’t think Jobes would disagree:  she later depicted the relationships among three groupings of these words in circles that overlap each other but that do not touch the other circles.

. . . [T]he English word worship is both far too general and too conditioned by Western culture to adequately capture Paul’s vivid analogy of the Christian to the Old Testament priest.  (204, referring to Romans 12:1)

Jobes is right, right, right about this.  Once again, in case there’s any possibility that any reader has missed it:  the noun form of latreuō in Romans 12:1 should not be translated “worship.”  I am asserting this, not Jobes, and I suspect she would only partly agree.

The phrase kamptō to gonu (bend the knee”) may be a Semitic idiom and is included in the “worship, reverence” word grouping in Louw-Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, a very highly regarded work.

Jobes suggests that the lesser frequency of eusebeō in the NT, in comparison to secular literature, may indicate intentional choice against this word by NT writers.  To associate two separate passages in her article, and perhaps to extrapolate a bit, two things occur to me:

  1. Eusebeō’s association with pagan ritual could easily have given pause to a 1st-century writer.
  2. In any event, ritual was not what NT authors seem to have wanted to spotlight in terms of the “vertical” in the New Covenant relationship, and eusebeō seems generally to have denoted ritual.

The word eusebeō “refers to pious acts done for the benefit of or in obedience to an object of devotion,” Jobes comments.  Not incidentally, I have found that those who see worship largely from a vantage point of obedience to Deity’s demand are rarely the most exemplary worshippers.

The words eusebeō, sebomai, and sebazomai [1]share the root -seb.  While this factor is worthy of note, it should not be very significant in determining meaning.  Other etymological factors might be the “prefix” “eu” (which connotes “good”) and the differentiation of “voice” (sebazomai is in the middle voice, which edges toward the passive voice).  Context, however, is king:  it is best to depend primarily, and most heavily, on the context when we want to know what a word means.

Speaking of context, a reading of even isolated subcontexts using proskuneō will reveal that it has relatively predictable implications, although different applications.  Jobes notes,

[The word proskuneō is] always evaluated positively when used with respect to God or Jesus and always condemned when directed toward angels, Satan, demons, or pagan deity (e.g., Luke 4:7-8; Acts 7:43; Rev. 9:20). (207)

In the following post I will retransmit a Jobes image that displays graphically the relationship of all these words.  Then I will share some specific verses, inviting further examination of context, as each reader has time and interest.

[1] The word sebazomai, used only once in the NT (Romans 1:25), is related to a Greek honorific title for the Roman emperor.  This title, Sebastos, might be compared to the adjective “Reverend” today—a word that in my view should not be applied to a human, whether Caesar or not.

Worship-word domain(s) and proskuneō (IIC full)

The digest version of this post appeared a few hours ago.  My hope is that some who scanned that will have had their appetites whetted for more detail!

Toward a delineated, nuanced understanding and practice, this installment further discusses the semantic domain(s) for words translated “worship,” emphasizing meanings of proskuneō and related words.

After years of thought and observation, it’s admittedly gratifying to have my general conclusion about Romans 12:1-2 propped up by the scholarly work of Karen Jobes¹ in this area.  It does make perfect sense to read latreuō in Romans as a reference to the Levitical priesthood.  A morphed, New-Covenant understanding of the priestly “religious vocation” (as Jobes termed it)—in contradistinction to any notions of more vertically framed worship (e.g., humble adoration, praise, words of direct honoring)—seems to be what Paul is advocating.  To reiterate a couple items from the last post:  

  1. It is an interpretive mistake to make the word latreian in Romans 12 refer directly to things under the typical, modern Christian heading “worship.”
  2. It may not be assumed that all the biblical instances of the word “worship” refer to the same thing; however, various horizontal and vertical things may all be reasonably included in the same discussion, if one takes care.

Below are the words Jobes has identified as constituting the semantic domain for worship.  Here, she includes latreuō and leitourgeō in the broad category,² although she will subsequently explain that the range of meaning of these two words does not really overlap with the others.  I am adding gloss definitions, but please don’t hang your hat on these English-translation hooks.  I might point out now that several of these words may be used with secular meanings.

Five verbs
latreuō – perform priestly duty
proskuneō – give worship/homage, “kiss toward”
sebazomai – participate in religious revelry
sebomai – show honor (a pejorative term in the NT)
eusebeō – show piety

Three other expressions with close connections
leitourgeō – perform civil or prietsly duty
kampto to gonu – bend the knee
gonupeteō – petition on bended knee

Just prior to listing the above words, Jobes offered a sample of English NT verses with the word “worship,” noting that Rom 12:1, Matt 2:11, Mark 7:6-7, and Rom 1:25 each involves a different Greek word from the list above.  These verses do not all speak of the same thing!  Forgive my bold effusiveness; it might be better at this stage to point out more cautiously that

  1. The original words in each of those passages are different.
  2. The semantic relationships among the words are nuanced.
  3. Taken in the contexts of those passages, these words very likely do not speak of the same thing.

It is in learning which specific word was used in each specific context that we may begin to delineate and understand this whole concept-area more thoroughly and appropriately.  Giving attention to the document- or book-level context often reveals even more about the use of a word.

Now, I do note a slight discrepancy in Jobes’s article:  early on, she lists all eight of the above words as making up the whole:  “The range of meaning of these eight expressions comprises the semantic domain for worship.” (202)  Yet in a detailed discussion of proskuneō a few pages later, she notes, “However, gonupeteō is not a member of the semantic domain for worship.” (205)  This conflict is resolved in acquiring a more thorough concept of the two semantic senses of proskuneō (and then in extending thought into the range of meaning of gonupeteō):

Proskuneō’s “A” sense:  worship, homage shown by bowing (physically and/or in spirit), “kissing toward” in reverent adoration of God

Proskuneō’s “B” sense:  entreaty, petition made subserviently, on bended knee, i.e., request made of anyone in power, including a governmental/civil authority

Jobes believes that the magi’s proskuneō of Matt 2:11 falls into the 2nd category, i.e., that it is not hermeneutically justifiable to call this “worship” per se.  Her distinction—namely, whether there is a theologically motivated component—seems necessary because we are focusing on dictionary definitions.  While those men might have worshipped in the believing, Christian sense, what they did as “delegates of an eastern monarch” (Jobes 206) surely didn’t involve a developed understanding of the incarnation or of Jesus’ identity as Messiah.  As exegetes, we might well find a contextual reason to lean toward sense A or sense B, but all we can say, based on vocabulary, is that what they did was proskuneō:  that’s the word that was used.  And proskuneō isn’t restricted to spiritually motivated actions.

Context can give us clues as to the sense of the word, as in John 4, where a more theologically based sense A for proskuneō seems appropriate.  In the case of Matt 2:11 (and, e.g., Matt 20:20, from the mouth of James and John’s mother), either sense A or sense is possible, but the latter seems more likely.³

To return to the gonupeteō issue:  this word (used in Matt 17:14, 27:29; Mark 1:40, 10:17) is in the semantic domain with sense B of proskuneō.  In that sense, then, gonupeteō is not properly included in the semantic domain for theologically oriented “worship”; on the other hand, it is properly considered alongside proskuneō.

Most writers on worship seem to love the word proskuneō while ignoring kampto to gonu (bend the knee) and gonupeteō (petition on bended knee)This is a curiosity; at first blush, it seems to be an evidence of somewhat shallow study, and I’ve been both victim and the culprit in the past.  I’m impelled now to examine the NT (and other) passages that use these expressions—expressions that share in proskuneō’s general range of meaning.  A starter list of these passages is below.4

Through studies like this, we may gain a clearer understanding of the vertical and horizontal.  The expressions kampto to gonu, gonupeteō and proskuneo are all vertically oriented; some usages are spiritually/theologically specialized.

¹ PhD, Biblical Hermeneutics, Westminster Theological Seminary

² Why might one group latreuō and leitourgeō with proskuneo and related, vertical word-concepts?  Two possible explanations come to mind:

  • because almost everybody does it that way (to their hermeneutical detriment!)
  • because church life in most institutional churches—and particularly in high-church environments in which Jobes has made her home—naturally leads even the best scholars to lump every ostensibly churchy activity into the same category

³ Jobes appears to have made a mistake in referring to John 12:20 in this light; this instance of proskuneo does not relate directly to “petitioning Jesus for assistance or healing.” (205)

4 Matthew 17:14, Matthew 27:29, Mark 1:40, Mark 10:17, Mark 15:19, Luke 5:8, Luke 22:41, Acts 7:60, Acts 9:40, Acts 20:36, Acts 21:5, Romans 11:4, Romans 14:11, Ephesians 3:14, Philippians 2:10, Hebrews 12:12


Worship-word domain(s) and proskuneō (IIC digest)

If you’re not interested in many academic details, or if you only have 1 minute instead of 5-10, here is a condensed version of what will appear in full form in a few hours.

  • When the word "worship" appears in a Bible verse, one should ask what is behind that English word.  The answer to this question depends on the specific verse.  In order to understand, both the Greek vocabulary and the literary context must be considered.
  • According to Karen Jobes,¹ a list of eight Greek expressions constitutes the "semantic domain" for worship (and service).
  • Romans 12:1-2 refers to OT priestly service, and this text does not correlate directly to what believers generally put in the (vertical) worship category.
  • Even proskuneō (the most common Greek word translated "worship") does not always mean "worship" in a spiritual sense.  Comparing Matt 2:11 and John 4 reveals the likelihood that this vertical-worship word has two different senses.

More detail will be available at noon Eastern time!

¹ PhD, Biblical Hermeneutics, Westminster Theological Seminary

Words: Romans 12 and the latreuō relationship (IIB)

This post discusses latreuo, the Romans 12:1 semantic subdomain, and a more delineated understanding and practice (part B)

Most Christians have not understood the distinction between horizontal and vertical, and they sometimes gush forth about “such great worship this morning” when there has been no vertical component.  Not that there must be a vertical component in every gathering, but when the nature and purpose of any activity is clearly understood, its practice will be enhanced.

When I first read Karen Jobes’s fine word study[3] on worship words about six months ago, it gave me a new lease on thought-life in this area, so it’s probably bad form to begin a treatment of her work with a criticism.  I think this will really amount to a clarification, not a criticism, because there is good reason for her to have done what she did in writing for English Bible readers.

Jobes takes as her jumping-off-point all the words in the semantic domain for the English word “worship” rather than beginning with Greek words and concepts.  In other words, she takes as her sample a complete list of the English-Bible instances of “worship” and investigates what’s beneath them.

Her premise is fine, given that she’s explaining things primarily for English readers.  But I think the water actually gets a little muddy right off the bat for those trying to get to the bottom of all this.

If our goal is to understand what the referents are when we see “worship” in Bibles, OK.  If our goal, rather, is to understand how the earliest Christians thought about and practiced vertical worship, we might want to exclude a few things from Jobes’s study, or at least treat them separately.  You make the call for yourself.  In the end, I think you’ll see the differentiation, regardless.

Here, I’ll start with the very two words that could throw the unsuspecting reader off track:

Latreuō and leitourgeō[1] share a very specific sense that distinguishes them from the other Greek verbs for worship that have a wider semantic range.  In the New Testament[2] latreuō is used to designate duties performed in a religious vocation.  Forms . . . are used  . . . to refer to the temple service of Anna (Luke 2:37) and the altar work of the Old Testament priests (Heb. 8:5). [3]

The observation that latreuō in the NT refers to OT priests is crucial before we notice another text—Romans 12:1—and in it, an often-quoted NT instance of a noun form of latreuō, one of the words captioned above:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.*

* “Worship” (here in the ESV) is latreian in the original.

It is not within my intended scope in this post to treat Romans 12:1-2 contextually, and I’m not currently qualified to do that.  I do know enough about Romans to know that Israel’s history and theology are involved, so it makes perfect sense to read latreuō in Romans as a reference to the Levitical priesthood.  The priestly “religious vocation” (as Jobes termed it) of course gets a facelift under the New Covenant, and a morphed understanding seems to be what Paul is advocating.  Here is Jobes again:

Paul is drawing a close parallel between Israel’s priests and the priesthood of all Christian believers.  The priests of Israel offered sacrifices of dead animal flesh. . . .  What sacrifice, if any, is logikén—that is, reasonable or appropriatefor the corresponding Christian priesthood of believers to offer?  According to Romans 12:1, . . . his or her own living human flesh. . . .  [4]

Paul, then, is speaking of what Hebrew priests did in their vocational life and then is putting the offering of the Christian’s body into that frame.

Many modern Christians become confused here.  Based largely on Romans 12:1-2, they make Paul out to be saying that vertical worship is superfluous and that everything is summed up in so-called whole-life worship.  The logical inference, then, would be that Paul was negating, for instance, humble prayer he would have known from the Psalms, the worship of Isaiah, or the unrestrained praise of Miriam.  No, Paul was not negating vertical worship.  He wasn’t even dealing with it in Romans 12.

Paradoxically, many of the same Christians seem to hold in mind a relatively consistent grouping of mostly vertical activities, placing them under the mental heading “worship.”  It is an interpretive mistake to make the word latreian in Romans 12 refer directly to things in that grouping.

Summing up, for today
A single discussion might include such diverse English terms as worship and service and OT priests and honor and glorification and praise and religious ritual.  One can maintain a clearer head if he will differentiate the meanings of the original Greek words.  Whether you want to place latreuō in your worship category or not, it is undeniable that latreuō is referring to a different set of things than those referred to by some of the other words translated “worship.”

The overarching point is this:  we mustn’t indiscriminately intermingle all the times we see “worship” in the Bible.  It may not be assumed that each refers to the same thing; however, they may all be reasonably included in the same discussion, if one takes care.

[1] In these posts, I will use transliterated English spellings of Greek words, although Jobes uses Greek.

[2] Among other salient aspects here above are the words “In the New Testament.”  While we Christians might simply pass over those words thoughtlessly, I would point out that it is often important to notice how a word is used in scripture as well as how it is, or isn’t, used in secular literature and in non-canonical sacred writings.

[3] Karen Jobes, “Distinguishing the Meaning of Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain for Worship,” in Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning:  An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (1994), 203.

[4] Ibid., 204

Words and understandings (IIA)

Worship words:  toward a delineated, nuanced understanding and practice

On Sunday mornings in many congregations, various men suddenly become active, having been assigned to do the “welcome” or “call to worship” or “table talk.”  Have you heard one of these speakers (we’ll call this person “John”) say something like this, just after a couple of songs led by “Jim”?

Wow, Jim. That was so great.  Y’all, you might think Jim and I planned that for several weeks together.  But it must have been the Holy Spirit working, because Jim just led two songs that talked all about the love and grace of God and Jesus and the way God gave us His grace to atone for our sins, and I was going to talk about sin and how I have to show grace to others when they sin, and if I don’t, I’m sinning too.  Isn’t this how to be a Christian by following Jesus who loves and forgives?  And He forgives me, too, so I’m so thankful.  What a great thing to focus on in this Christmas season as we worship the Lord together!

Actually, I’d prefer that such pseudo-inspired leaders didn’t attribute such definitional verbal haze, vague generality, and lack of purposefulness to the Spirit of God, thank you very much.

In less than a minute, John has gone all barista on us, making a Sunday morning smoothie¹ of inspiration, grace, atonement, sin, forgiveness, Christian identity, discipleship, love, gratitude, Christmas, and worship.

Where is the focus, actually?  Probably on John’s winsome personality. 

Where is the understanding?  Probably in the wind.

Everyone would have been better off if John had spoken clearly and specifically about just one or two of those things—perhaps grace and gratitude.  Like John, many men also spoon some presumptuous additives into their smoothies, deeming the songs to have been sung in order to serve their words.  (Preachers of sermons are probably the worst culprits in this.)

In the smaller conceptual context of worship, it is the same kind of smoothie—no matter how good it tastes in the moment—that I want to pour into a centrifuge in the next couple of posts, in order to separate the ingredients.

Most Christians have not understood the distinction between horizontal and vertical, and they sometimes gush forth about “such great worship this morning” when there has been no vertical component, or they are glad for the “blest tie that binds” when the order of the day has been closed-eye meditation on atonement.  When such elements are delineated and separated in our minds, I suspect we’ll be able to derive more benefits from the strawberry and the banana and the flax seed—or the worship and the teaching and the edification.

¹ Here, I am re-purposing a similar analogy from Gary D. Collier, who comments about the negative effects of throwing various scripture passages into a blender instead of treating each one separately within its context.

Packer on the source of right living

“The life of true holiness is rooted in the soil of awed adoration.”  

– J.I. Packer, via Bettye R. Casey

At the risk of compromising the lodging of Packer’s words within the souls of readers, I would probe myself, and any of you who opt to ponder:

  1. How “holy” am I living?  (Define “holy” as “set apart/sanctified” or as “pure.”  Or both.)
  2. If I am at all unsatisfied with the answer to #1, how much awed adoration am I engaging in?


It’s not that it’s wrong . . .

. . . it’s just out of balance.

Here is a quote out of a recent Instrumentalist magazine — from an interview with a successful, well-reputed high school band director in Arizona.

We will sometimes record video of students from the symphonic band demonstrating marching techniques and put it on YouTube for me to show to the concert band in the next class period.

I had to read that twice to make sure I got it right — beyond the ostensible intent to tell how the director uses technology,

To elucidate, for the majority of my readers who do not work in academic music vocations . . . what the quotation shows is that a highly touted high school band director is in the habit of using indoor band rehearsal time for outdoor marching band.  I have also found this phenomenon in Texas:  in the fall, jazz band class time is for marching band; concert band class time is for marching band, and even mariachi band class time (it exists!) is probably used sometimes for outdoor marching band activities, too.  This practice appears to be common, to the point that no one even feels the need to make excuses for it.  For these marching band-heavy schools, it’s about “pride” — but more, about preparation for marching band competitions.


When I was learning about how things are done around here, I had the feeling that people were almost feeling sorry for me in my ignorance of the needs of the marching band machine.

The problem is not that marching band exists.  The problem is that it’s out of balance.  A two-week band camp plus three after-school rehearsals a week plus weekends ought to be plenty.  But the competition aspect puts heavy demands on schools, bands, and directors, and it gets out of balance.  The cart drives the horse.  (Or, in one case I knew about years ago, the lug nuts on the wheels drove the cart and the horse:  percussion staff drove the marching percussion which drove the marching band which drove the instrumental music program.)

Other situations may have elements out of balance, too.  Take church assemblies, for instance.  Typically, there might be three to six songs, a token prayer or two, and a 25- to 35-minute sermon.  A few churches add communion and maybe a brief, excerpted scripture reading.  Most have some announcements.  I suggest that some of this is out of balance.

Like the outdoor band that commandeers indoor band time for its supposedly more pressing needs, preachers have for centuries been in the habit of taking too much corporate time for the supposedly more important needs of the sermon.  Moreover, I would suggest that even prayer has overshadowed other vehicles of communion with God.  Specifically, I assert that these should be allowed more time in most church assemblies:

  1. Worship in song — that is, when the singing truly is marked by words of worship
  2. The reading and hearing of extended sections of scripture

Marching band is important, but it is best when it is manifested in proper balance.  Sermons and prayers and announcements are important — and obviously are not wrong — but they, too, are best when experienced in proper balance.


Everything we do? (Nope.)

The preacher said, “Everything we do is worship!”  Then the preacher invited “his” congregation to turn in their Bibles to Revelation 19:10.  The section reads as follows:

Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that!  I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus.  Worship God.  For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”  (ESV)

. . . and I wondered how much time he thought we should be spending in obeisance.  Are we really to be falling down and doing homage at all times?

It is not that everything we do is worship.  No, worship is defined more specifically than that.  Indirectly, some other activities might be said to become worship, sort of, but worship is worship, and other things are not worship.  It’s really about that simple.

It’s the same thing with praise, too.  Maybe you have heard a prayer that goes something like this:

LordWeThankYouForLettingUsGatherHereToSingTheseWonderfulSongsOf PraiseToYourName (when the songs had actually consisted of “In the Sweet By and By,” “I’m in the Gloryland Way,” “Be with Me, Lord,” and “Abide with Me”).

It either is, or it ain’t.  It should be relatively clear whether a song’s words are those of praise or worship to God.  Praise is praise, and worship is worship.  Other things are other things.

Worship is the chief end of man.  By “end,” I mean both the present end-goal and the final, continuing activity of God’s people, as indicated in the Apocalypse (Revelation).  And the glorification of God in and through our lives is a worthy ideal, but not everything in this life is worship.


Sometimes I think I’m the only one who notices that preachers have a vested interest in much of what they do.  If everything a church is understood as worship, and preachers are involved in everything a church does, then preachers’ roles are effectively aggrandized, and preachers themselves benefit.  Because of this vested interest, preachers’ words ought to be weighed carefully.

Personal application: John 9

[This post continues the lines of thinking begun with blogpost #1000.¹  John 9 has long been a favorite chapter; it is a chapter of deep impact, highlighting Jesus in an eminently compelling way.]  

Moving away from exegesis of John, I thought it would be good to share, for better or worse, some “personal application” musings.  For me, this material comes from the text, but in a less direct way.  I believe it is best to defer making these kinds of observations until some reasonable level of strictly text-based understanding is reached.  I’m not at all sure that I’ve arrived at a strong enough exegetical point to share personal application publicly, but I’m doing it, anyway — in order to challenge my own status quo (and maybe yours, too, serendipitously)….

Like the Jews of John 9, I wonder how often I have responded unwisely or inappropriately because of perceived threats to my preferences or my sense of well-being?

In my work life, I’m convinced it’s been way too often.  My professional emphases and preferences and “missions,” together with personal insecurities and hurts, have at times sent me scurrying into protective foxholes while I verbally “re-load.”  (I have no clue if that’s an accurate military image, but it seems to describe how I’ve operated at times.)  When I feel threatened, I ought to pray more, trust and observe a lot more, and defend/fight less.

I move more deeply into my personal sphere, and fear creeps in.  I ask, “What work of God have I rejected because of my personal agendas and biases?  Where have I been resistant to God?  When I have begun to see new truth, have I retreated, turtle-like?  The answers, while cloudy, are troubling.

I wonder whether some preconceptions have kept me in comfortable surroundings, whereas God might have been working just outside said surroundings.  (This is just what the Jews of John 9 were found doing.)  Has my closed mind hindered spiritual growth and/or service to others?

In personal doubt, worry, or pain, one can easily be diverted into human processes that obscure God.  Sometimes, I feel very little certainty of what is of God and what is not.  (More of the good stuff has surely been His.)  Yet I depend on planning-by-computer and accounting records and human communication . . . I should probably simply back off more and try to perceive the hand of God. 

In my first post on John 9, I asked the somewhat exegetical, but also introspective, questions below:

  • What do “the Jews” and the Pharisees think of Father God in this story?  How do they “use” Him? (vv. 16, 24, 29)
  • What does the blind man think of Him?  (9:31, 33)
  • What could be made out of the fact that Jesus only mentions God early in the story but not later?

And I might apply some of that to myself now.  What do I think of Father God, and how can I discern what I really think of Him?  Have I relegated Him, ancient-Jews-like, to history, or is He a living, active force likely to astound?

If I were blind and then given my sight by God, would my thoughts of the Father be radically altered right away?  Would I give Him praise and honor?  What about now, in the 21st century?  How do I experience and respond to the less miraculous, less obvious, but equally God-originated events in my life?  The “little stuff” is more problematic than the major events, I suspect.

Next in the series . . . exegetical thoughts on John 11.


¹ Incidentally, I now feel rested from blogging, after a long break, and am getting back into it, in full swing!

Digging in: John 9 (1000)

[This is public blogpost #1000.  In this post, I’m going to attempt to merge concisely some very significant areas–exegesis, religious challenge and reform, and worship.  And then I’m going to take somewhat of a break.  This is a longish blog, but I hope you’ll take the time, because there won’t be any more blogs coming from me anytime soon!]

Digging In:   John 9

One of the Marvelous Happenings in the Life of Jesus

Exegetical Interpretation, Focusing on Christian Challenge/Reform and Worship
With a Timely, Eulogistic Postscript

John 9 has long been a favorite chapter, and it’s not because I memorized it as a child or because it was read at a family funeral.  This chapter is of deep impact on me because the story highlights Jesus in a way that simply won’t let me go.

While it would have been nice, I suppose, to have a true essay worked out, I would need more time for that, “living with” the text for a period of weeks or even months.  I trust that it will be beneficial to see the process of asking questions of the text, not only the reaching of conclusions.

Method  Ideally, I would start with two or more readings of the entire gospel, in different versions — perhaps one with more of a sentence-for-sentence orientation, and another, more of an expansive paraphrase.   Initially, my method was simple:  to read/refresh myself on the whole of chapter 9, and jotting questions I had while reading.  The “first pass” through chapter 9 resulted in the need for a second pass.  Within about an hour and a half total, I had approximately two pages of notes/questions.  (An irresistible 3rd pass is yielding almost as many additional questions and bringing tears to my eyes, but the new material will have to wait.)  For sake of brevity — ha! — I am selecting only a few of these questions to blogshare (to coin a term).

Book-level questions

Bypassing for the moment the typical, academic, background questions that are important but are more stock-in-trade (author, date and place of writing, audience, etc.), I ask such things as these, from a perspective that is mostly “zoomed out” on the entire gospel of John:

    • What special features can be found in John’s vocabulary and literary style?
    • Within the whole gospel, does chapter 9 constitute a bona fide pericope?  Does John use pericopes as, say, Matthew does?
    • What is the relationship of blindness and sin for John?
    • How does God the Father relate to Jesus in the narrative?  Is Jesus called “Son of Man” earlier? later? throughout? often?
    • How does John’s stated purpose (20:30-31) relate, or not, to key aspects found in this passage, such as spiritual blindness, sin, coming to faith, and worship?  How might belief in 9:35-36 be tied to the overall, stated purpose?

Smaller-context questions

Now zooming in more to the immediate context:

    • Where are we in the progression of John’s narrative when we reach the events of chapter 9?  What occurs immediately before, and immediately after?  (The answer to these questions may be singularly significant.)
    • Check 9:1-2 for chiastic structure.  (Note the three mentions of blindness.)
    • Note the various portrayals in this chapter:  disciples, Jews, neighbors, Pharisees, and the man.  (Larger question:  how is each group painted in John overall, as compared to Mark?)
    • What is the relationship of blindness and sin for each of the above people/groups?
    • Could there be a larger inclusio from 9:1-34 (“the Jews’” idea of sin as bookends)?
    • Note the relationship between eyesight and light and works, as in verse 4.
    • Is “Siloam” Aramaic?  Translation relationship to Greek “apostle”?  Any significance to be found in Jewish background there — either with the Siloam pool or with the use of the word in OT texts?  What is John saying by inserting the definition of the word?
    • Chiasm in 9:13-16 vicinity (Pharisees, had been blind, Jesus, mud ==> Sabbath, Pharisees <== mud, Jesus, see, Pharisees/Sabbath). Yes? Investigate.
    • Examine the use of “disciples” in 9:27-28 vs. its use in John overall.
    • How does the Father God figure in to this story?
      • What do “the Jews” and the Pharisees think of Him?  How do they “use” Him? (vv. 16, 24, 29)
      • What does the blind man think of Him?  (9:31, 33)
      • What could be made out of the fact that Jesus mentions God early in the story but not later?
    • Hermeneutically speaking, are questions (such as the above group) significant from both John’s and the first readers’ points of view?  Does John show any bias or agenda that his first-century readers would naturally share, or naturally be resistant to?  How is God potentially working through John to say what needs to be said?  And how do these answers affect my own point of view?
    • What is the significance of the label “Son of Man” in this particular text?  (It seems significant for John in the ultimate responsiveness of the [formerly] blind man.)  (9:35)
    • There appears to be a mirroring mini-chiasm in 9:39:  blind ==> see; see <== blind?  Do “judgment” and “guilt” complete this mini-structure?
    • Note some striking, possibly unusual, recurring, or significant vocabulary words and phrases in NASB:  blind, works of God, displayed, Light of the world, spit, seeing, eyes opened/opened my eyes (vv. 10, 13, 17, 30, 32), mud, miraculous signs, prophet, put out of the synagogue, “give glory to God,” disciples.

Musings  Some musings and commentary stem from these types of questions!

I.  In terms of challenge to the status quo and religious power structures it seems to me that there are battles presented in this chapter — a battle of people and cliques, a battle of systems, and ultimately, a battle of and for the Kingdom.  Clearly, the Jews and the Pharisees are the “conservatives” here, resisting challenge and change — while the simple facts of the blind man’s story necessitate, on the other hand, that traditional viewpoints are challenged.

Although the connection of blindness and sin might be an easy target for preachers of sermons, one should not dive into a topical sermon that uses a snippet of John 9 without first knowing a good deal about the context(s) here.  We could not, in other words, legitimately draw any conclusions about the equation of spiritual blindness and sin without knowing more of how John the inspired writer uses and develops those ideas (or doesn’t) within the literary context.  Just as significant would be some cultural insights — related, for example, to blindness, begging, synagogue norms, Pharisees, and more.  This area, like so many others, requires more investigation.

It has long seemed to me that the parents in this story are presented as weak and sniveling.  (Textual clues gained in further investigation could bolster or counter this impression.)  Out of fear, they deflect attention and responsibility.  On the other hand, the “Pharisees” and “Jews” groups are not “weak,” but they are in some sense blind and foolish.  Note, for example, that they pronounce a cloudy half-truth regarding Jesus and the Sabbath in v. 16, and they resort to name-calling in v. 34.  The Jews in power are more interested in protecting their system than in avowing the obvious wonder that has just occurred at the hands of Jesus.  From their standpoint, 1) Jesus is a threat, and 2) the now-seeing man — although formerly negligible — may now be a threat, too.

Something that struck me 25 years ago, and still strikes me today (and here, I hope I’m not just coddling my earlier reading) is this:  the Pharisees could not even see, much less accept, the God-glorifying miracle that had obviously occurred because they were too invested in protecting their empire.  John presents unadorned facts in v. 7 (that the man “returned seeing”) and in v. 9 (that he kept saying “I am the one”).  Waxing prophetic, I would assert that the implications of the Pharisees’ stubbornness here are momentous for institutional Christendom, and for various cliques and sects.  Could the Pharisees legitimately be seen to represent some of the entrenched “clergy” of later eras?  The implicit warning echoes through the centuries:  Watch out that you’re not building your own structures, and pay attention to the work of God, or else you may be found blindly rejecting Him.

In contrast to the Pharisees and the parents stands the blind man.  I would imagine that a Jewish person reading or hearing John’s gospel would find intense irony here:  the blind man appears as largely a positive example, although he would previously have been a worthless drain on society — a mere opportunity to be seen giving alms!  Initially, the man is trusting and obedient.  He also makes an ostensibly false assumption:  that “God does not hear sinners.”  No, he doesn’t quite “get” everything about Jesus yet (no one could), but he is open, and he is coming to faith.  (Who wouldn’t be experiencing new things after having been given sight?!)  Not only can he see the ground in front of him for the first time in his life, but he is beginning to see who and what Jesus is.  An encouraging message surfaces:  that one can travel the road of discipleship, progressively coming to see more truth.

II. In terms of worship … the response seems so beautifully unfeigned and unaffected — the man simply worships, when confronted with the truths that Jesus is 1) from God and 2) able to work miracles.  (Let alone, for now, the question of the meaning of “Son of Man.”)  The antecedent worship word here is proskuneo, which

  • is not inherently a “religious” thing to do
  • means “kissing toward” as an act of homage, and implies bowing down
  • has nothing directly to do with so-called whole-life worship
  • is rather the simple act of response — by one who recognizes greatness far beyond oneself

Letting alone the so-called worship wars of our times, and jettisoning any historical connections related to liturgy/”services,” or checking off items on a list on Sunday mornings, or any other corruptions of biblical worship ideals, we see worship, pure and simple, in this text.  We see that an unconstrained person, when he observes the reality of Jesus, worships.

And that is a beautiful precedent that both instructs and compels.  Lord, may we.

~ ~ ~


It worked out to honor my grandfather, Andy T. Ritchie Jr., by publishing my blogpost #1000 on this, the 104th anniversary of his birth.  (I even set the posting time as 19:09 CDT, the year of his birth, but this part is useless trivia.) 

Andy Thomas Ritchie, Jr., son of Andy T., Sr. and Fannie Mae Cobb Ritchie, was born and raised in the Nashville, Tenn., area.  He married Kathryn Delma Cullum in 1933; the pair had four children — Andy T. III, Edward, Bettye, and Joan.  I am #7 of 10 grandchildren, and there are 29 great-grandchildren.

Granddaddy taught music at David Lipscomb College and Bible and music at Harding College.  (Both later become universities.)  He was a concert singer who recorded an album in addition to his performing on stage and on radio.  He influenced thousands through his

  • personal conversations and correspondence
  • leadership of personal evangelism meetings and “lily pool” hymn sings on the Harding campus
  • direction of the Harding Chorus for several years
  • much-remembered classroom teaching (see here for an external mention)
  • inimitable, compelling leadership of worship  in song, and preaching — in his own congregation, and in other states
  • manner of living life

I think Granddaddy would have appreciated a good deal of what I’ve written on this blog to date, although certainly not all.  He himself wasn’t known for his writing as much as for his leadership in other veins, but he did publish articles in multiple periodicals and wrote a full-length book on worship.  I imagine that, were he alive today, he would also have expressed being inspired by John 9, and would have appreciated my exegetical efforts, along with the highlighting of the challenge of the (Jewish) status quo.  (Therein, certain goals of the Restoration Movement which influenced both of us are also highlighted.)  Granddaddy probably would have appreciated most the emphasis on the worship of God the Son, as seen in this compelling story.

Believe it or not, one of the more memorable aspects of Andy T. Ritchie, Jr., almost eluded mention until the fourth draft of this postscript.  He was severely sight-impaired for the last 20 years of his adult life, having suffered detached retinas related to diabetes, and later became legally blind.  This mention of his blindness, written after the main portion of this post, leads me to include, here, a prayer song I wrote for a family reunion some years ago.  Please take a moment to read at least the words of Lord, I Want To See

Granddaddy entered the land of the eternally living and seeing in 1983.

Worship: spiritual, timeless, chosen

[The following is excerpted, adapted, and expanded from my reply to a reader’s comment on this prior post.]

Generally, under the New Covenant, I see the trends as having moved away from the physical, toward the spiritual.  (For more, please see this post on the Old and new.)  I tend to support and resonate with emphases on the spiritual over the physical.

In the realm of worship, I did go through a phase, some years ago, in which worship needed to be more physical, but I’m not altogether sure my “need” was of the Lord.  These days, I’m more interested in what’s going on beyond the physical.  Physical manifestations of worship may not be entirely immaterial, but the seen should at least be subservient to the unseen.

Under the Old Covenant, God prescribed certain physical acts of sacrifice and priestly temple service.  Although prescribed details — or legislated specifications, if you will — are certainly present in any lucid consideration of the relationship between the divine and the human, I take some exception to an analysis based outright on prescription (either under the Old or New).  As one considers Joseph, Enoch, Abraham, David, Elijah, and others with hindsight, there seems to have been more than legislation at work as they related to God.

Based on the examples of worship in, e.g., Psalms, John, Revelation, I take stronger exception to any suggestion that all worship, as an act of the spirit and/or body, was somehow eradicated with the coming of Jesus.  The worship of believers in Jesus Christ, like immersion and basic meals and the assembly of Christians, seems to me to have been something they simply, naturally did (a lot), without the need for the apostles et al to write about it at every turn.


Adoring, worshipful response is natural — and, I would say, anticipated and desired and right. (Personally, I’d stop short of saying worship is “commanded” or “demanded”; I hear those words as needlessly negatively charged in this age.)  I do think God continues to seek worship of the proskuneo sort.  Note Ps 69:32, Ps 70:4, and 2 Chron 16:9.  While the “seeking” of the last verse may be understood variously, as seen in various translations, attributing to God the notion of “seeking” doesn’t for me render Him heavy-handed.  I don’t think we paint God as some sort of tyrant or egomaniacal being when we understand Him as desiring worshipful response.

Until He moves me on, I’m content with exploring the ways and means of proskuneo — because it seems good for me, and because I’m convinced it pleases God.  Worship may ultimately be pleasing to Him specifically because it is something I choose, whether I want to think of Him as asking for it or not.

Probably not merely incidentally, I take Revelation (after chapters 2 & 3) as primarily presenting a timeless picture of the eternal kingdom, and I hang some of my worship “hats” on the hooks shown in chapters 4, 5, and 19:6ff. I presume that the active proskuneo occurring there indicates that worship is a timeless assumption for the believing community.

In the meantime, I’m not at all content with my efforts or with the corporate worship I experience most often (yesterday’s prayers seemed either presentational or flaccid, and the songs rather lethargic and uncommitted) . . . but I keep trying to worship, as I believe I will eternally.

Worship: affirmation or action?

Living, glorifying, worshipping        Vertical/horizontal redux

After reading the above recent posts on worship, John, a reader from Texas, wrote, in part:

Jesus himself identifies the worship which God desires from us.  And in identifying it he contrasts it with the worship which the woman had in mind when she asked him to tell her the proper place to perform it.  . . .

Jesus . . .  stated that the time was coming, and now was, when true worship would not be performed in either of those locations but would be done in spirit and in truth.  In spirit and in truth is in contrast with the worship the woman inquired about.  The truth part rested in the nature of the sacrifice contrasted with the shadow of the truth that was represented in the woman’s worship, and also in that performed in Jerusalem.  Various animals were sacrificed. . . .  Jesus himself was the truth that those animals only represented.  The worship the woman asked about was performed by humans’ physical acts of slaying the animals and then performing the required work on them.  The worship God desired and still desires, is not physical but is spiritual.  It was done for us, by Jesus, and all we can do is accept it as being full recompense for our own sins.  The worship God desires has nothing to do with our actions.  It is not in some mysterious way related to the way we treat others or how we live daily.  It is spiritually accepting Jesus’ redeeming work as being imputed to us in place of our own soiled righteouness.

In response, I would again state up-front that a general misconception of worship has done inestimable damage to the theologies and belief systems of countless believers.  This misconception has worship a) consisting in a sequenced event/”service” and b) existing solely within the confines of a church edifice.  Worship is primarily a verb, not a noun that we go to, or sit through, waiting for others do it for us.  It is quite possible to go/attend “services” for decades without ever truly worshipping.

Certainly, I track with John (quoted above) on the radical difference Jesus was ushering in.  Yes, the location-bound model was to be eradicated:  “in spirit” stands in contrast to “in a specific location,” i.e., Jerusalem.  But why would the “truth” aspect be encapsulated in a faith-acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice when that acceptance doesn’t involve proskuneo?  I think it is more logical to assume that “in truth” = “truly.”  In other words, worship “in truth” is not something else done or felt “in truth,” but it is still worship, with one new emphasis on genuineness or  actuality.  Truly worshipping, then, would be the same as actually worshipping.  Put yet another way:  in John 4, Jesus did not say, “No longer will the Father want worship” or “Instead of worship, the Father will now want _____.”  Rather, He said, “The Father desires worship in new/renewed ways.”

So what is this worship?  The antecedent word is “proskuneo,” and proskuneo connotes action, or at least action of the spirit (the latter may be more preferable to some, for reasons of personality preference, or for reasons of distinction from Jewish practice) in relation to God.  Bringing the theologically charged word “work” into this discussion by calling attention to “work performed” on the animals seems tenuous, but it is appropriate to draw some distinctions been New-Covenant worship and that of the Old.  Under both major covenants, though, worship is an active-verb thing that appears more closely related to adoration and homage than to mentally/spiritually affirming the Ultimate Sacrifice.

By no means do I intend here to minimize the value of the inner faith-response to our Messiah’s Sacrifice — far from it.  It could very well be that one who is spiritually affirming Jesus’ death as the finished, atoning work of God is, in fact, engaging in proskuneo of the spirit.  In other words, the vibrant human spirit in tune with God’s grace is probably energetically worshipping spiritually whether she thinks she is or not.

Here’s an additional, larger-context thought — something I learned from a deeply committed disciple who also happens to have a doctorate in missiology.  (If I had read more of John’s gospel in large chunks, i.e., more contextually, I could have picked up on this myself, because it’s not embedded very deep.  The above-quoted friend John has also alluded to it.)  Simply put, it is that, in John’s gospel, Jesus is truth.  So, worship “in truth” (John 4:24) might be, to some extent, worship “in the truth that is personified in Jesus.”  This would still seem to speak of an action, not merely a mental or spiritual acknowledgement of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Our worship — our proskuneo — could be said to be made more full, more intimate, more relationally meaningful because of the grace and truth expressed in Jesus and the New Covenant.

Addendum:  If I might go out on a limb here … I don’t think the worship “baby” should be thrown out with the time-clock-punching, “accuracy”-driven “worship service” bathwater of the CofC (or of any similar group).  Some of us, myself included, may be inclined toward framing worship in terms of a response to information — which would seem Campbellite (rational) in orientation.  But just because certain church groups have been incorrectly handling aspects (when they thought they had “right” worship down pat) doesn’t mean that anyone, as s/he is evolving, should shed the essence of worship.  It just means we keep trying to enact the core idea, without all the shadowy stuff from the intervening decades/centuries.