My Right to Worship
Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the hearts. Proverbs 21:2 NASB
Right – “What is truth?” asked Pilate. He might as well have asked, “What is correct?” In his eyes, the truth and the cultural norms were relative. He only echoed what Solomon said centuries before. Everyone thinks he is right.
Something quite amazing happened in the Reformation. The Protestants (those who protested) threw off the yoke of a dictatorial hierarchy. They reacted against the hypocrisy and corruption of the Catholic Church and proclaimed themselves free from that oppression. But on what basis did they make this bold move? On the basis of the priesthood of the individual believer. In other words, Protestantism adopted as one of its pillars of faith the idea that every man has the right to interpret Scripture for himself. No longer the exclusive preview of the Church, each believer could now address Scripture as if it were an individual encounter with God. The meaning of the text is the meaning for me!
This is merely a variation of Solomon’s insight, applied not to moral or immoral acts but to exegesis. It has this further consequence: when we assert that each individual is the final arbiter of the meaning of the text, we essentially embrace the Greek view of human existence. In the Greek view, men are individuals in the world. Their ultimate purpose and worth is established by their uniqueness. In this world, I am myself and myself alone. My identity is not tied to any particular group, ethnicity or ancestry. While my origins might be inextricably interwoven in the events of the past, who I really am is determined by my own distinctiveness. It doesn’t take much insight to notice this element in our culture when it comes to sports, politics and economics. But it takes a much deeper look to realize that the Reformation actually promoted this same singularity. That fact that I can come to God on my own and according to my understanding is based on the view that at the very bottom I am separate from all others.
We are inclined to relegate this verse from Proverbs to moral considerations, but it has much greater implications. Think about this: the Hebraic view of worship is derived from the conviction that “cultic acts are the source of all life and prosperity for those who share the cult. Therefore creative, purposeful preparation is necessary, on the part of God as well as the worshipper, to guarantee the success of the rite.”[1] Let me explain. If I am Hebraic in my thought and action, I do not worship God according to my interpretation of the relationship or the text. I worship God according to His exact instructions. Anything else is blasphemy and sin. Why? Because in order for me to participate in the cult (the normative worshipping group), I must follow the performance rituals God prescribes. If I want to experience life and prosperity, God tells me what to do. If I choose to do something else, I am essentially telling God that worship is whatever is right in my own eyes. Unlike the view of Protestantism, the community under YHWH establishes the proper understanding of the text. That means the authorized spokespersons (the priests and the prophets) instruct me in proper worship. To vary from their instructions is to step outside the cult – and potentially forfeit the benefit for all.
It is difficult for us to imagine a culture so dedicated to specific instructions that any variation would be an abomination. We are the product of 500 years of thinking that worship, like Scripture, falls within the rights of the individual. But this kind of thinking is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It is reactionary – and Greek. And dangerous.
So, how much of what you do when you worship follows God’s exact instructions and how much of it has been formed by what was right in the eyes of men?
Topical Index: right, yashar, level, Reformation, Protestant, worship
[1] Koch, kun, TDOT, Vol. VII, p. 96.
Skip, you said: “Unlike the view of Protestantism, the community under YHWH establishes the proper understanding of the text. That means the authorized spokespersons (the priests and the prophets) instruct me in proper worship”. That is why I unabashedly have said in the past and will continue to proclaim it here, (to the dismay and chagrin of some-perhaps even yourself) as well as to those who have ears to hear, that you are a modern day prophet… and I’ll now add priest-given my evolving understanding of their important role and function in the community. Thank you for the faithful instruction in the community standard that has been, if not lost, then certainly forsaken and is now being restored, so that we may please Him and fulfill our purpose. Looking forward to what’s next and new…errr, uhhh, to the now and old? Shalom, Michael
So are you saying the Reformation was wrong and evil and not of God, but of satan or just mans self centeredness? I am trying to understand, but having a really hard time. We can’t all be scholars on Hebrew and I enjoy your daily readings, but do you attend a Jewish synagogue or what? Are you telling people to leave Protestant churches? Thank you.
Whoa! All I am saying is the one of the underlying tenants of the Reformation is based on a Greek view of human individuality and that this leads us to a place where we justify worshipping anyway we wish. Please don’t expand this to the ENTIRE Reformation. Like all human movements, good and bad are both there. The question is whether or not we have enough insight (and courage) to see the differences.
I come from a Calvinistic / Puritan background and I have to say that I never saw the royal priesthood of the believers like you say that Protestantism views it Skip. I can therefore see why Desiree is disturbed by this.
I understand and agree with the point that you are making. But to use the argument that Protestantism teaches that “the priesthood of the believer” means that I decide what the Bible means for myself, seems to me to be untrue.
This is part of Calvin’s commentary on 1 Petr:2:5 “A holy priesthood It is a singular honor, that God should not only consecrate us as a temple to himself, in which he dwells and is worshipped, but that he should also make us priests. But Peter mentions this double honor, in order to stimulate us more effectually to serve and worship God. Of the spiritual sacrifices, the first is the offering of ourselves, of which Paul speaks in Rom_12:1; for we can offer nothing, until we offer to him ourselves as a sacrifice; which is done by denying ourselves. Then, afterwards follow prayers, thanksgiving, almsdeeds, and all the duties of religion.”
Anybody that has read Calvin extensively would know that Calvin would agree with your statement: ” I worship God according to His exact instructions.”
Interesting. But the historical truth is the Calvin did NOT worship God according to God’s instructions. Calvin was an anti-Semite. He did not worship on the Sabbath nor follow the feasts as outlined in Scripture. If he actually believed that God’s instructions were eternal, and not subject to re-interpretation by the believer, then how do you explain his rejection of the requirements in the Tanakh? While Protestantism might not directly teach that the priesthood of the believer means each one of us becomes our own interpreter of the text, this is the end result of the philosophy of individualism. Explain, please, how the idea of the priesthood of the believer avoids this conclusion. Does the priesthood of the believer teach that I have a unique relationship with God apart from tradition or the influence or authority of the community? I would say, “Yes,” this is what moved the Reformation forward against the authority of the Catholic Church. Does the priesthood of the believer claims that I have individual access to God and that His Word speaks to me individually? Does this doctrine not assert that God’s Word is uniquely given to me so that I might enter into fellowship with Him? Where do I find the authority of the community in this idea? Where do I find the role of the priest or the prophet? How does this idea prevent me from considering MY view as the ultimate and final measure of MY spirituality?
Skip you said that Protestantism threw off the yoke of Roman Catholicism because on the basis of the current interpretation of what priesthood of the individual believer means. I doubt that any reformer from that time would agree that they believed what you say what that means.
They threw off the yoke because RCC was teaching that one is saved by doing good works, penance etc. etc. and not based on faith. When people started to read the Bible for themselves, they realized that the Bible wasn’t teaching what the RCC was teaching them. They were put on stakes for this and burned to death. I greatly doubt that anyone had the idea that “I want to decide truth for myself” in the back of their mind and let yourself be burned to death for that. [I am not implying that given oneself over to be killed makes you have the truth]
One cannot make a blanket statement and sweep all of Protestantism under the rug by stating that the philosophy of individualism that is espoused by current “Christianity” was also the cause of the change during the Reformation.
Just because Luther became an anti-Semite later in his life because the Jews [rightly so] didn’t want to accept a Jesus that is devoid of Torah, and just because Calvin had anti-Semitic tendencies, doesn’t prove that they made their bold move based on the priesthood of the individual believer.
Just because today Christianity might universally believe that the priesthood of the believer means that I can decide for myself what is truth, doesn’t mean that the reformers did believe this. You start with the presupposition that that is what “priesthood of the believer” means. And then you proceed to state that that is what the people at the time of the Reformation believed it to be. I would love to see some quotes from them to prove that they intended this meaning.
Geneva notes to 1 Pet 2:5: ” Continuing, he compares us now to priests, placed for this purpose in the spiritual temple, that we should serve him with a spiritual worship, that is, with holiness and righteousness: but as the temple, so is the priesthood built upon Christ, in who alone all our spiritual offerings are accepted.”
John Wesley: Ye – Believers. As living stones – Alive to God through him. Are built up – In union with each other. A spiritual house – Being spiritual yourselves, and an habitation of God through the Spirit. An holy priesthood – Consecrated to God, and “holy as he is holy.” To offer up – Your souls and bodies, with all your thoughts, words, and actions, as spiritual sacrifices to God.”
I have to say that whether I quote the Calvinist Calvin or Geneva notes or the Arminian John Wesley, they all understood the priesthood of the believer to be in relation to sanctification. How I live a holy live unto God. It has nothing to do with deciding truth for myself.
By the way I would like to point you to John Wesley’s comment about “in union with each other”…..
And just because they misunderstood the ceremonial part of the law as being done away with because they believed it pointed to Yeshua and we should therefore not keep it anymore, doesn’t mean that they believed this because of the individual priesthood interpretation of today. They had that erroneous doctrine already in the RCC.
I think you are missing the point here. I am not saying that the Reformers themselves taught an epistemological individualism. I am saying the implicit in the idea of the priesthood of the believer is an epistemological individualism. That it took centuries for this implicit idea to emerge does not diminish its incorporation in the Reformation. The Reformation was a reaction to two important things – the Catholic stance on indulgences and the Catholic corruption within the Church. Luther rightly rejected both of these, but his view of man, heavily influenced by Augustine’s view of sinful nature, led to an idea that man’s inherent corruption affected his noetic as well as his moral being. Therefore, God’s act of election empowered the individual believer to receive illumination from the Holy Spirit insuring correct understanding of the Word. The Reformers may well have viewed this only in terms of sanctification and salvation, but the implications are far deeper. And in fact the Reformers didn’t “misunderstand” the ceremonial law (as if there were such a distinction), they flatly rejected it as they endorsed the Church’s replacement of Israel. Luther’s word On the Jews and Their Lies makes this abundantly clear. Luther expected Jews to convert to his Christian doctrine. When they did not, rather than ask why he summarily counted them as apostate and proposed a program for their elimination. OF course, this was already part of the European ethos and had been for 1000 years, but that does not excuse Luther’s writings.
I want you to think beyond the doctrines of the Reformers, beyond their theological claims. Ask what these claims mean for the nature of man, the idea of truth, the logic of evidence. Behind it all is the idea that man is totally devoid of correct rational power until he is enlightened by God, and once enlightened, he is able to see the truth through the power of the Spirit. In what way does this prevent me from concluding that as long as I feel the Spirit’s presence, I have evidence of the truth?
Thanks Skip. You gave me lots to think about already 🙂
Just a few weeks ago, when I showed somebody that the Bible teaches mutual submission, not just submission of the woman to her husband, he basically said that that couldn’t be true. The Spirit showed him the truth therefore I couldn’t be right. That ended the discussion. 🙂 So you do have a valid point.
I would love to hear what you think what “being a holy priesthood” really means and whether you think we have a personal relationship with God. [to me 1 John 2 seems to speak of knowing Him]
I always get strange faces when I point out that we know that we know Him, if we keep the commandments. It doesn’t say that we are supposed to have some kind of spiritual experience to understand that we know Him. But doesn’t this still mean we have a relationship with Him?
The Reformation view of Torah is enigmatic, to say the least. Calvin was in and out. His sermons on Deuteronomy are a far healthier view of the Torah than his Institutes. It took another 100+ years for the Puritans to begin the recovery of Torah, only to get sidetracked by wanting to use politics as the means of establishing the kingdom of God on earth – and Pietism, which turned Christianity completely inward to the Holy Spirit and away from the written, external, revelation. Thus, for example, the Westminster Larger Catechism has a healthier expression of the Torah than Calvin.
The problem of the Reformation stemmed from the division of the law into moral, ceremonial and judicial divisions. No one at any time has been able to provide a clear definition of these three divisions. And it is the divisions, both before, during and after the Reformation, that has helped lead people astray on the Torah.
In this, Christians have followed the pattern set by the Pharisees that the Messiah criticized so much. The Pharisees made their traditions more important than Torah, even though their traditions were an attempted explanation of Torah. The problem? the idea that man’s higher ethical consciousness can figure out a hierarchy in Torah, determining which of the laws are more important than others.
That same problem exists today as it has in the past. Some people will make an issue over the correct day of the Sabbath, but neglect the weightier matters of the Torah. These they should do, without the neglect of other parts of the Torah.
Thus, the challenge for all of us is comprehensiveness. Do we really hold to a comprehensive Torah, or are we trying to juggle some into a higher position than others? Because usually such juggling involves choosing those laws we find “easy” while rejecting those that require more effort or might challenge particular sins in our life.
A great point – and one reiterated by the Sages who spoke about observing the smaller of Torah commandments with the same intensity as the greater ones.
Skip,
“The question is whether or not we have enough insight (and courage) to see the differences.” – including the groups in the Reformation itself.
The Calvinistic and Lutheran wings of the Reformation shut the door on the right of private interpretation with their Confessions of Faith, as did the Church of England with its Thirty-Nine Articles. The Anabaptist wing of the Reformation, however, is the real genuine homeground of the right of personal interpretation, which lead to Pietism – the idea that the Messiah should be called by his first name rather than “Herr” (Lord).
As a boy, I was dressed in my “Sunday best because I was going into the presence of the King of kings and Lord of lords. Now, we dress how we like, worship how we like, having removed most of the symbols of the faith from the front of the meeting room, whether it is a “church” building, a renovated factory site, or a family home.
This change comes from a downgraded view of the Messiah. For whatever reason. And only a restoration of the Kingship of the Messiah will restore his Torah (rule) over us.
You’re right about “shutting the door on private interpretation” through the confessions and creeds. But the confessions and creeds moved away from the Torah as well, often endorsing changes in text interpretation by shifting to cultural forms of worship (e.g., Shabbat). You’re right again, however, about the Anabaptist movement and its impact on modern evangelicals. One need only notice the ABSENCE of creed and confession in modern evangelical churches to understand how far they are from Reformation history, let alone Torah observance. We follow Jeroboam and create our own religion for serving YHWH.
For a long time I have held a theory – unprovable, I suspect. For several hundred years the Christian church tried to act in unity in determining its theology. It’s formal statements were often ignored by the bishops. But by and large, Christianity defined itself by the early creeds at the representative councils.
But once the church split east-west, the idea of unity and cooperation went right out the door, and we already begin to see “the right of private opinion” of some of the church was to take precedence over those not represented at all. That was 11th century. And you can trace the steady decline, with a few reversals, of Christianity from about that time. The development of the universities, the recovery of Greek philosophy via the Muslims saw the exponential rise of neoplatonism within Christendom. It had always been there, but now gained a new lease of life.
And there has been nothing but trouble ever since.
Hey Desiree,
I had to un-learn being an “all or nothing/black and white” kind of thinker…you know…if “this” is right then “that” has to be wrong…if “this” is true then “that” is false. If we are seeking truth then we grow in truth and that takes a lifetime…the problem is most people are content to believe other people’s truth and not seek it for themselves. Don’t be afraid of ideas outside of what you have been taught. Whenever I’m confronted with something I can’t understand, I ask questions and if I still don’t get it, I set it to the side and move on to something else.
This is tough. So different than what I am used to. Good to think about but tough for me. Not that I disagree. I dont. My mind has been fixed for so long. I have dismissed “ritual” other than my own for so long. Thinking like a Hebrew in a Greek culture has proven difficult and refreshing, confusing and stabilizing. Thanks.
and de-stablizing too, I suspect. All of this comes with investigating what happens in cultural shifts.
For sure!
Skip – a quick question on another topic: how can I locate a word study of yours given only the relevant verse, in this case John 1:17 (the case of the non-existent ‘but’ as I recall)?
Skip, Can we, should we, follow the idea of community or prophets defining what is acceptable worship to what is acceptable halakah (maybe that’s what you are saying and I just didn’t get it).? Everytime I explain it this way to my friend (priests and prophets/community determine truth) I get the response that this is legalism. Even when I point out that I am not following certain things in order to be saved but because Im saved, they still feel legalism is at play here and want to stand on understanding (their own?) of the basic underlying principle of love as being superior to any cultic prescriptions. In other words, if they can’t see love as essence of any Yah’s commands, they believe they aren’t to be expected to follow it in a prescribed way. Probably not making myself clear but do you see the conumdrum I get into?
You are clear enough. Those you speak about mistake instruction for legalism. They want the Greek idea of freedom – that is, absence of restraint and authority. They want what they want – and they want to be the final arbiters of what is true. Nowhere in Scripture do you find such an idea. God’s community has a hierarchy. So does the “Church.” Yeshua is the ONLY head, which implies that all others are under Him. Therefore, there is a hierarchy. And that also implies that the one at the top sets the rules for the community (just as any King would do). But in the age of Greek democracy, we want to believe that WE determine our own rules. Extend that to all and you have chaos. The man with the biggest gun rules. Those who want to deny the place of authority and hierarchy have neither considered the clear teaching of Scripture not thought through the consequences of living without authority and hierarchy. Ask your friends if they really want to live in a world where there are no commandments. What would that world look like? They will probably respond, “Oh, no. We only need the commandment to love.” Really? The New Testament has 1086 commands in it. If we are going to follow Yeshua, don’t we need to keep them? Or is it just “what you feel in your heart”?
Brad Scott once said, the only laws that Christians want to do away with are God’s laws. They follow traffice laws, etc. and do not have a problem with it.
In order to get the right answers, we must ask the right questions.. None will ever ever know the capitol city of Montana by asking “what is two plus two?”
Pilate was asking the right Person, and came so close.. (Close Encounters of the Divine Kind) but “if only” (how many of these moments have I had?) he had (in the beginning) asked the right question.
Pilate, not “what is truth?,” (John 18.38) but a “more gooder(?) question might have been (should have been?)- WHO* is truth? For as we have later come to learn, truth is a Person, the Person of the LORD Jesus (who is the) Christ.
And just in case we missed this on the first ‘go round’.. we might do well to remember ( we always do well to remember) the words of our Savior (and LORD)- ~ I AM the Truth ~
Pilate, (or Joe or Jane) you want to know the Truth? Look then, no further.. for you have found Him.. The (unseen) ONE (right in front of you) who is (not only) the Truth, (but also) the Way and the Life..
Regarding Worship, this I found at: http://www.regionschristiancenter.org/the-rabbis-son/rabbis-son-study-archives/ under Chayei Sarah – Wednesday:
The “law of first reference” means basically that in this first reference to and description of “worship” lies the secret to both the heart of what it means to “worship” and the kernel for all truth about what “worship” is.
In Genesis 22:54 we were told that shortly after arriving at Mount Moriyah Avraham told his servants:
“Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there.
V’nishtachaveh [We will worship]
The person Torah depicts as engaging in the first act of true worship that is
described for us is not a king, or a priest, a musician, or for that matter a person of
any particular worldly talent, title, or exalted status whatever. He is just a servant –
– just a very, very humble man with a servant’s heart.
Perhaps that is our first clue.
Perhaps the first and most important secrets of true worship are humility and a
heart that desires to serve rather than to be served.
Do you think of scheduled meetings in tax-exempt buildings?
Do you think of clergymen in robes, or matching tallitot/yarmulke ensembles, or
fancy 3-piece suits, preaching sermons to business owners and factory workers and
secretaries and housewives?
Do you think of stained-glass windows and religious symbols?
Do you think of musicians and singers of on a platform exhibiting their talents for
average Joes and Jane’s who sit there wishing they could play an instrument and
sing like the ones on the platform?
Now do you understand what I mean when I say that in modern religious circles
the term ‘worship’ is overused and misunderstood?
If we in our time are to return to the ways of the Patriarchs – the ancient path of
intimate relationship with the Holy One and of lives shaped by His Precious Words
– is it not essential that we cast aside our post-modern clichés of religious thought
and practice, seek out the Patriarch’s definitions of spiritual things, and thereby
learn their secrets of how a man is truly intended to live as a “friend of God”,
united with Him through an eternal covenant written on the heart.
The person Torah depicts as engaging in the first act of true worship that is
described for us is not a king, or a priest, a musician, or for that matter a person of
any particular worldly talent, title, or exalted status whatever. He is just a servant –
– just a very, very humble man with a servant’s heart.
“worship” in its purest sense.
Vayikod ha-ish vayishtachu l’Adonai
And the man bowed himself and worshiped the Holy One.
Vayomer baruch Adonai Elohei adoni Avraham
And he said, “Blessed be the Holy One, the God of my master Avraham,
asher lo-azav chas’do v’amito me’im adoni
who has not forsaken his lovingkindness and his truth toward my master.
anochi b’derech nachani Adonai beyt achei adoni
As for me, the Holy One has led me in the way
to the house of my master’s relatives.”
[Genesis 24:27]
Since this passage contains the first descriptive usage of the verb worship it
provides us a benchmark by which to measure any worship practice.
But What About That Other Stuff We Do?
The author’s purposes in pointing this out of course are simply to stir a thirst in
people for real and meaningful worship, and to call people to the deeper truth of a
worship lifestyle. What I hear Torah telling us is that worship the Holy One in
spirit and truth does not require, and is not about, instruments, melodies, dances,
sermons or scheduled ‘worship’ services.
What I hear Torah saying is that the more we begin to live a sh’ma lifestyle, the
more we ‘bless the Lord at all times’, such that His praise is continually within our
mouths, and we worship Him with every breath we breathe, every move we make,
every word we speak, and even every thought we think.
What I hear Torah saying is that we are to be on earth like the serafim are in
Heaven, who fall down before His Throne and cry “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Holy
One God Almighty!” at every movement He makes, at every word He speaks, at
every deed He does – and sometimes, it appears, just because their hearts fairly
leap within them at the sheer pleasure of being in His Presence, and seeing His
Glory.
So while I continue to play instruments, sing, dance, wave banners, etc., because it
is the way we do things in Twenty-first Century religious circles I will, the Holy
One willing, never again settle for just playing melodies, singing songs, raising or
clapping hands, and listening to sermons.
And I will never again, the Holy One willing, allow myself to mislabel such things
as ‘worship’.
Thanks so much Luzette. You have added to all our understanding.
We should thank Bill Bullock –
Still, what is God’s exact instructions when it comes to worship and where does tradition start? I hope you will write some more on this subject.
This much we do know – we will have to follow the instructions that apply when and where there is no Temple.
we are the temple.
In the O.T. God had a temple for His people. In the N.T. God has a people for His temple.
~ Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? ~ (1 Corinthians 3.16)
“In Genesis 22:54 we were told that…”
Hi Luzette,
Could you please check this reference, I’m having trouble finding it. Thanks!
Hi Warren
Yes, sorry it should be Gen 22:5.
The 4 is for the following footnote: 4 This is the same Hebrew verb translated as ‘worship’ in such passages as Psalm 22:27 [“All the
ends of the eretz shall remember and turn to the Holy One. All the relatives of the nations shall
worship before you”.] and in Psalm 29:2 [ “ . . . worship the Holy One in the beauty of holiness], and
Psalm 95:6 [“O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Holy One our maker.”],
among many others. The closest Greek verb is proskuneo, Strong’s Greek word #4352, pronounced
pros-koo-neh’-o, which is used twice in John 4:24 [“God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must
worship [him] in spirit and in truth.”].
Is “worship” to be defined narrowly or broadly? Since all that I am or have is devoted to God, I think of worship as unending and involving my entire being and all for which I am responsible.
A nice thought, but wouldn’t it be more relevant to ask how the Bible defines worship? What would we learn if we investigated the words the text uses – in Greek and Hebrew. Isn’t the idea that worship is the unending involvement of my entire being in devotion to God just as individually interpreted as the idea that worship is singing praise and worship songs for 45 minutes before we take that offering and hear the sermon? Yes, there is an aspect of “worship” broadly understood that means complete devotion to the Lord, but is that all it means. Is that not once more an individualized exegesis?
It appears we have a pattern of the form of worship that will be in the Messianic Kingdom in Ezekiel 40-48. After that time period it appears we have a glimpse of worship in the new heavens and new earth when Isaiah tells us:
“For just as the new heavens and the new earth that I am making will continue in my presence,” says Adonai, “so will your descendants and your name continue. Every month on Rosh-Hodesh and every week on Shabbat, everyone living will come to worship in my presence,” says Adonai. – Isaiah 66:22-23 (CJB).
Both these passages of Scripture seem to say that worship will still be patterned according to what is written in the Torah. I have found that this concept is surprising and foreign to the understanding of most of my Christian friends. Maybe we should start getting ready for it now.
Greetings all,
Skip,
Some questions/protests 🙂 :
1. If the community under YHWH decided what proper worship was/is, and we further this truth to today, I see several problems emerging. Firstly there are more than 64 000 “christian Churches” who are all (save maybe 1 or 2 ?) not doing worship the right way. Telling then, to the few who want to worship the right way, that the community(chuch) decides whats the right worship because we dont have individual right to interpret scripture wouldnt help them get it right?. Any person wishing to do the right thing would be “forced” to join a church (community) Imagine Lot joining people in Sodom because he is alone in worship?
In my experience, true followers of Yeshua are always in a tiny tiny minority who are very scattered and seldom or never become an Edah. Guidance by the holy Spirit will always lead different people in the same direction.
2. wouldnt the word ‘priesthood’ mean that people would sacrifice for their own sins? Is the word priesthood the right description for what you say the protestants did when individually interpreting scripture? Isnt “personal relationship with god” a closer description? Since the ‘Hret’ was torn in the most holy? Book of Ivrim (Hebrews) makes this clear, since Christ was the last Kohen for all time, chapter 7?
3. Hierarchy. Every believer should hold the head of the body individually, and serve eachothers as brothers. and, the man is the head of the woman, and YHWH the head of the man. Is there any other order within the Edah or family?
Thank you, and pardon my grammar and spelling, English is my second language.
By the way, I use and recommend the HallaluYah scriptures ‘Bible’ :
http://www.halleluyahscriptures.com/
The day that God called me, set me apart was the most treasured day, the very grandest memory that I hold in the depth of my heart, soul, and mind! The day is unequaled … I left a life of sin, entrusted my life to God and He helped me to walk away from one life-style and into a new life of following after Him. It was an opening doorway into a new creation …
Aphorismenos -Greek work for “set apart”!!! apo = “from” horizo = “to determine, mark out” and denotes to “separate”.
“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through Whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His name among the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ …” Romans 1:1ff
This word -aphorismenos- has been taught to mean that when we are set apart we are separated in other words – off horizoned. Imagine standing in a spot – we look around and what we see and experience within this environment is what we know. God picked us up and placed us on a different spot and now what we “see” and what we “know” are now new. Our perspective has been changed – we are new. He has separated us from what we once were. Thank You, Lord!
As a new believer I was terrified – there was much to learn, to relearn about life. His Spirit within me was sufficient … He taught me much. It was hard because there were consequences from choices made in the old life that plagued my heart … much confessing (still confessing!) God is faithful and His love endures forever. He is a gentle Father. And a great listener too!
But now too I not only have become an adopted daughter with the Father, but also a new member of the His family, of His household, of His temple. This is where I have struggled to find a place ever since … some 35 years. This verse in Proverbs “Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart.” In my heart all I have ever wanted to do is what He desires and has planned – I need to get off my own thinking and allow Him to do His work through me. I can’t decide. He decides. In this new place where God has brought me there seems to be so much antagonism; shouldn’t we be about the business of the gospel and not so much about what we think about things. There is soo much dysfunction everywhere – why does it need to be found in the family of God? I long for Heaven!!! where Truth shall reign!