Month: August 2023

Why “Worship” Is Too Broad

I was conversing with someone at church who relayed the statement another made about worshipping in their car while the radio played on the Christian station. After they told me what was said, I replied, “I think the term ‘worship’ is too broad. There are three Greek terms translated as ‘worship’ in the New Testament, and they each denote something different that our word ‘worship’–which has become a catch-all term for anything we consider to be worship.”

The first thing we need is a real revolution in our relation to language ….  It simply no longer occurs to us that everything that we have all known for so long, and all too well, could be otherwise—that these grammatical forms have not dissected and regulated language as such since eternity like an absolute, that instead, they grew out of a very definite interpretation of the Greek [language].

Martin Heidegger

Andrew McGowan addresses this in his book, Ancient Christian Worship. The form for a wedding pronouncement as far back as 1549 entailed these words when the groom placed the ring on his bride: “With this ring I thee wed; this gold and silver I thee give; with my body I thee worship; and withal my worldly goods I thee endow.” Certainly, we’re not talking about the sort of worship one gives to God! McGowan observes that at that time, the sharing of wealth was worship.

Here are the terms we see in the New Testament.

  • Proskyneses—This term spoke to a person’s posture before another more worthy than they. We “bow” our heads for prayer when, decades ago, men would kneel. In some congregations, people stand during the reading of the Bible. In denominations, some will prostrate themselves at certain times. Our posture is reflective of our attitude. Some argue that we don’t have to have any particular posture but should be the posture of one’s mind and heart. However, our physical posture sometimes moves our mind and heart to be in sync. When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped [proskunesen] him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (Acts 10:25–26 ESV)
  • Latreia—This term was used regarding cultic forms of worship and the accompanying tasks. Anna, the prophetess, worshiped [latreuousa] “with fasting and prayer” (Luke 2:37). In Hebrews, the term is used in this particular vein as well when referring to the worship in the Temple and Tabernacle (Hebrews 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10).
  • Leitourgeo—“liturgy” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word used in the Bible several times. In Luke 1:23, it’s translated as “service” to describe Zechariah’s priestly service in the temple. It’s also used in sacrificial, worshipful contexts as “offering” (Philippians 2:17) and “worship” (Hebrews 9:21). We see it explicitly in Acts 13:2.

We have taken several terms and boiled it down to one word, “worship.” However, first-century Christians understood that it included one’s physical posture, a particular task or act performed, and a ritualistic nature to what was done. In some ways, we use the term correctly, but we may also use it as a catchall for what we believe is worship. The issue may not be resolved so easily, because even Augustine of Hippo encountered the same problem.

To make offerings and sacrifice, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves . . . is the worship [cultus] that is due to the divinity . . . and since no Latin term sufficiently exact to express this in a single word occurs to me, I shall avail myself, where needed, of Greek. Latreia, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word “service” [servitus]. But that service that is due to humans, referring to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, tends to be referred to by another word in Greek, whereas the service that is paid to God alone by worship [cultus], is always, or almost always, called latreia in the usage of those who wrote down the divine oracles for us. So if we only used the word “worship,” it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for we also speak of “worship” of humans, whom we celebrate with honors, whether in memory or in the present.

City of God 10.1.2

Leviticus 19:28 and Tattoos

The picture is of an eighty century Sudanese Christian woman whose mummy shows that she had a tattoo.

For disclosure, I have five tattoos. I didn’t get them before I was a preacher, but only in the last few years. No, I’m not having a mid-life crisis. I always wanted tattoos, but my dad told me to wait until I was older so I wouldn’t get something I would regret. I don’t regret any of them. On my left arm are three: the chi/rho symbol flanked on each side with alpha/omega. This was the symbol used by Emperor Constantine’s soldiers on their shields. Just beneath that one, the second is Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew because that was the first verse I memorized while taking Hebrew classes. Under that is in Roman Numerals the date that I met my wife. I suppose you might say that my left arm is the arm of antiquity. On my right arm are two. The first is the seal of my tribe, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws. Under that is a tribal symbol that tells the story of our people.

I know some fellow Christians are opposed to tattoos, and they invoke Leviticus 19:28, which reads, “You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (NRSV). Robert Alter offers this note, “The polyvalent Hebrew noun nefesh often means ‘person,’ but in some contexts it refers to a dead person or corpse, and the implication of mourning here points to that meaning” (The Five Books of Moses, p. 630). My SBL study Bible simply says, “Pagan mourning rites.” Marking oneself as a sign of mourning was meant to convey a heightened expression of sorrow (Jer. 16:6; 41:5).

Dr. David Bernat observes that the noun translated as “tattoo” only appears here in all the Hebrew Scriptures. Its root, moreover, indicates writing of some kind but is unspecified. Abraham ibn Ezra (c. 1089-1167) interpreted with the connection to mourning, as have others I’ve mentioned above. Agreeing with this position was Moshe Isaac Ashkenazy (c. 1821-1898). His theological explanation was:

The reason for tattooing was to remember the beloved dead, and they would carve the person’s name or picture on their hand or arm with a needle…so they would be before them always…and this is a bad practice, since it denies the survival of the soul after dead…since according to our faith, after a short time, we will see the other person again after death, we should not try so hard to have keepsakes, and those who are particular about this, to the point that they cause pain to their own flesh with this harsh act, show that they are not confident that they will see their departed loved ones again, and if so, they are deniers of the immortality of the soul.

Here’s the thing: I could provide more rabbis and scholars who hold this view. Nevertheless, as a Christian, the law is no longer something by which I am bound in Jesus. I am justified by faith in him and not the keeping of the law. Furthermore, Christians who invoke this passage, if they are to remain logically consistent, must observe everything contained in Leviticus. Also, in keeping with the premise, what about plastic surgery or any other modifications one makes to the body?

In early Christianity, tattoos were degrading and reserved for criminals and outlaws by Roman Law. It was a form of public punishment, like wearing the scarlett letter. Some early Christians claimed that their tattoos appeared as a miraculous experience that referred to the wounds of Christ or the early martyrs (e.g., Macrina). The Montanist sect took Revelation 7:3 literally and would tattoo “slaves of God” on their foreheads. Coptic Christians have tattooed themselves as far back as the eighth century. Apparently, they branded crosses on their foreheads, temples, and writsts. After the Muslim conquest of Palestine and Israel, Christians were tattooed by the state with a cross on their inner right wrist. Pilgrims who go to the Holy Land often commemorate their experiences with a tattoo of a cross on their inner wrist. History also attests to medieval Christians receiving tattoos upon making pilgrimages to the Holy Land. In fairness, some of the Church Fathers were of the opinion that they should be prohibited, so there isn’t a uniform view throughout early Christianity and even into late antiquity.

If anything, I would view it as a matter of Christian liberty. If you don’t want them, don’t get them. If you get them, make sure it isn’t something that would be offensive to God. I know some will invoke “the body is a temple” passage, and that’s fine. But tell me you eat healthy and that you never played a sport that affects your joints and wellbeing. If we’re to interpret the passage in that vain, I’m sure I could use it against anyone throwing it at me. Let’s just leave it to personal choice and reserve judgment for things that really matter.

Translation is Interpretation

Translators have to make judgment calls all the time. Sometimes they hit the nail on the head, and other times they don’t. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the job isn’t the easiest and they do their best. Let’s take one passage as an example: 1 Thessalonians 4:4

NIV: That each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable. 

NASB: That each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor. 

I would translate it as, “To know each one of you his own vessel how to acquire/possess in holiness and honor.” The term “vessel” was often used concerning a wife in antiquity because she received the seed of her male counterpart in sexual intercourse (cf. 1 Peter 3:7). Simply put, Paul may be giving instructions on acquiring and having a wife. Since the vessel was utilized as a receptacle, we see it elsewhere in Scripture: Paul was God’s chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), and indeed he received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). Believers, too, were vessels meant for honorable use while unbelievers were for dishonorable use (Rom. 9:21; cf. 2 Tim. 2:20–21). The honorable were receptors of the Holy Spirit like Paul (Rom. 8:9–11) and mercy, while the dishonorable were receptors of wrath (9:23). Since her husband ruled the wife in ancient Rome, she was considered his possession. Therefore, the proper acquisition of a wife demands the husband avoid passion. One reason this interpretation is plausible is based on verse six, which discusses exploiting a brother or sister.

Passion was the dishonorable loss of self-control, according to the ancients. As one scholar put it, “Vices of excess bring shame upon those who commit them [1 Cor. 7:35-36; cf. 6:18].” The active form of decorum referred to a dignified appearance obtained through the control of elimination of all passions, particularly those relevant to drinking alcohol, overeating, and sex. Pleasures overindulged in were seen as filled with passion and ugly practices. What was Paul advocating? Paul likely encourages that men regard women as valued. Perhaps even Christian equality, friendship, and mutual openness. 

This was counter to the Greco-Roman view:

For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households. (Demosthenes 59.122; ca. 382–322 BC)

Avoid impurity to the utmost of your power before marriage, and if you indulge your passion, let it be done lawfully. But do not be offensive or censorious to those who indulge it, and do not be always bringing up your own chastity. (Epic. Ench. 33.8; ca. AD 55–135)

While it was not unusual for Roman citizens to have multiple sexual partners, homosexual encounters, and engagement with temple prostitutes, Christians stood out precisely because of their refusal to engage in these practices.

“One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives” (Tertullian, Apol. 39). 

 “[Christians] share their meals, but not their sexual partners” (Diogn. 5.7).  

Christians “do not commit adultery nor fornication” and “their men keep themselves from every unlawful union” (Aristides, Apol. 15).

In his defense to Octavius, Marcus Felix (c. third century) contrasts the sexual ethic of the pagan world with that of Christians:

Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers is allowed. Marriages with sisters are legitimate among the Egyptians and in Athens. Your records and your tragedies, which you both read and hear with pleasure, glory in incests: thus also you worship incestuous gods, who have intercourse with mothers, with daughters, with sisters. With reason, therefore, is incest frequently detected among you, and is continually permitted. Miserable men, you may even, without knowing it, rush into what is unlawful: since you scatter your lusts promiscuously, since you everywhere beget children, since you frequently expose even those who are born at home to the mercy of others, it is inevitable that you must come back to your own children, and stray to your own offspring. Thus you continue the story of incest, even although you have no consciousness of your crime. But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all (31).

Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that he isn’t talking about having a wife. The other interpretation would be how one uses his or her own body in holiness and honor by avoiding fornication. Either interpretation is in keeping with Christian doctrine and morality. Yet, you see why some translations would prefer body to vessel.