symbolism

Israelite Worship’s Relevance for Christian Worship

by

Because the God of Israel and the God of the Christian church are the same God, it is not surprising that their patterns of worship have strong similarities. Christian worship has much to gain from the study and appreciation of the worship of ancient Israel.

Visual Impact

In worship, evangelicals in particular have tended to overemphasize the audible aspects of worship to the exclusion of the visible aspects. Primarily in the Lord’s Supper the vitality of tangible and visible presentation has been retained. The Israelite cult is “sacred art.” Only recently has the church begun to grasp the power of acted-out faith and worship in drama. Contemporary worship patterns need a new awareness of the impact of the visible, which is often more effective than the audible. Dramatic presentation of our faith offers a new and creative channel through which the re-presentation of history may be accomplished and the dynamism of the Christian faith may be preserved, so that we may bridge the time and space gap of two thousand years.

Symbolism

Closely related to the visual aspect of worship is the area of symbolism. The temple in Jerusalem was filled with symbolism, not merely as decorative art, but as a means of re-creating history. The ark of the covenant, the central cult object, stood in its semidarkness as the throne of the invisible King Yahweh. The altar of incense, standing before the Holy of Holies, continually emitted sweet-smelling smoke to re-create the theophany of Sinai where Yahweh appeared “in a thick cloud.” The great freestanding pillars outside the temple, at least according to one interpretation, served as mammoth incense burners so that the whole temple came to represent Sinai. The trumpets sounded in the liturgy were more than musical instruments; their sound re-created the thunder of the Sinaitic theophany. It is not necessary to install incense burners in sanctuaries, but an increased realization that cultic symbolism re-creates, re-presents, actualizes, and activates history is necessary. With the renewed emphasis on liturgy and worship, the church can learn much about the place and purpose of creative symbolism from the Israelite cult.

Participation

The Israelite cult was, as the Norwegian exegete Sigmund Mowinckel states, a place where something happened, a fact that is beginning to prompt renovations in church architecture. Renewed emphasis on worship as action and participation by the whole congregation has encouraged the construction of circular buildings with the Communion table at the center. Startlingly, a Northfield, Minnesota, architect has proposed that except for its size, the best analogy for church architecture is the Japanese tea room. The architect Edward Anders Sovik says, “Like a church, the tea room is not a place for private mediation, but for dialogue and certain actions in which human relationships are established.” (cf. E. A. Souvik, Architecture for Worship [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1973], pp. 76–77). This statement is similar to the ideas of Mowinckel, who spoke of the cult as the “visible and audible expression of the relationship between congregation and deity” (Sigmund Mowinckel, Religion and Kultus [Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1953], p. 13). Thus, the recovery of the dynamism of Israel’s cult may influence our traditional conceptions of sacred architecture with renewed emphasis on the worship as visible and audible, as expressions of relationships, as an event in which “something happens.”

Flexibility

Insight into the Israelite cult grants Christian worship increased flexibility. Old Testament students know that many of Israel’s worship patterns were adapted along the lines of Near Eastern culture, and even the Jerusalem cultus is a compromise between Yahwistic and Jebusite cultic patterns. Israel could and did adopt forms from her contemporary culture, introduce them into her ancient patterns of worship, and baptize them into her distinctive Yahwism. This freedom to employ non-Christian elements in Christian worship must be recovered. While some have viewed attempts to introduce jazz and modern dance into worship as anathema, these experiments are harmonious with the Israelite point of view. The increased use and adaptation of twentieth-century art and music forms offer new and exciting challenges for creative revitalization of Christian worship.

Conclusion

If the God of Israel is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the church claims he is, then to contend that he chooses to be worshiped in similar patterns is not difficult to affirm. The central purpose of both Israelite and Christian worship is to re-present creative history by means of audible and visible expression, a re-presentation that culminates in active response. Perhaps one reason the Christian church has lost much of its vitality in the twentieth century is that it has lost the art of worship because it has divorced itself from the sense of the history that affected its salvation. Recovering that historical status is part and parcel with the revitalizing of the drama of worship.

Introduction to Symbolism in Biblical Worship

by

All worship is symbolic, even those intuitive encounters with the holy that seem to bypass the rational process, directly impacting the worshiper’s consciousness. Symbolism must enter in once the worshiper begins to think about such an experience or to share it with others, for language and thought are symbolic processes.

Symbolic Character of Worship

Even in those churches that have opposed the use of traditional symbolism, especially visual symbols, worship remains highly symbolic. Such churches are oriented toward linguistic symbolism, with a heavy emphasis on the spoken word and a minimum of liturgical action. Moreover, the visual plainness of the auditoriums in such churches is itself a symbolic statement about the spiritual character of Christian faith. Regrettably, like all symbolism, these things can be misunderstood. The starkness of the meeting room can convey the impression that there is no compelling depth or mystery in the worship of God. The concentration on the spoken word creates a focus on the speaker and those who share the platform with him or her, resulting in a human-centered, rather than God-centered, worship experience. The lack of “liturgical” response, in whatever form, can reduce the involvement of the worshiper to that of a spectator. When these things happen, we are far removed from the biblical understanding of worship.

All language, including that of worship, is symbolic, for words are not the things they represent but communicable representations of them. Failure to understand this can create problems for the interpretation of Scripture. Many biblical expressions are literally symbolic; that is, they are word pictures rather than descriptions of something directly visualized. This applies to biblical accounts of the experience of worship, such as those of Isaiah (Isa. 6) or of the dedication of the temple. When we are told that “the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord” as the ark of the covenant was brought into the temple, so that “the priests could not stand to minister” (1 Kings 8:11 nasb), we should not take this for some sort of visual representation of the Lord’s presence that we might wish to emulate in our worship today. The “glory” (kavod) of the Lord, although often associated with the imagery of radiance and light, is his “mass” or “weight”; it is a word picture for the overwhelming, “heavy” sense of the presence of God on this significant occasion, a presence that can be as powerful today in the worship of the new covenant community.

Symbols communicate because of the truths associated with them; what may be highly expressive for one community of worshipers may have another meaning, or none at all, for another community, where the associations are different or lacking altogether. A symbol does not serve its purpose unless its users share the same conventional framework of understanding. This is why an appreciation for covenant structure is so important for the interpretation of Scripture; the covenant provides the frame of reference that gives meaning to many of its symbols. For example, when Christians worship the Lord as King, this is not simply the ascription of dominion to him, but a pledge of loyalty in a covenant relationship, which has implications for the worshiper’s behavior and for his or her faithfulness to other worshipers.

Biblical symbolism always directs to an action of God, especially God’s action in establishing and maintaining the covenant. Humankind itself, in God’s image, is a symbol of God’s management of creation. Ancient kings often erected images of themselves at the borders of their territory to indicate that travelers were entering their dominion. God placed human beings on earth as images that declare to the principalities and powers his authority in the universe. Human beings, however, are not mere signposts of God’s dominion; as living beings who have been given the “breath of life”—God’s own breath—(Gen. 2:7) they participate in the reality to which they point. Thus the greatest and truest symbols have a universal validity because of the fulness with which they embody spiritual reality. “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule … over all the earth” (Gen. 1:26). This is especially true of the corporate gathering of people to worship the Lord; the very existence of such groups in the world is a powerful, symbolic statement of God’s dominion and purpose.

Sometimes individuals in the Bible receive a new name as a symbolic statement about the Lord’s intended action. Appearing to Abram in a renewal of his covenant promise to make him the father of many nations, God changed his name to Abraham (Gen. 17:5). Jacob was given the name Israel, “God rules,” as a reminder of his struggle with the Lord at the brook Jabbok (Gen. 32:28). Both Isaiah and Hosea gave names to their children that were to be symbols or signs to Israel of the Lord’s impending judgment on the nation (Isa. 8:3; Hos. 1:4–9). When Simon confessed his faith in Jesus as the Christ, Jesus gave him the name Peter (Cephas in the Aramaic version), saying, “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). In a sense, the renamed person became a walking symbol.

Symbol and Reality

Functionally, the symbol stands in the place of the symbolized reality as the worshiper responds to it. For this reason, it is easy to mistake the symbol for the reality. However, symbols that call attention to themselves defeat their own purpose. The most effective symbol is the least ambiguous, that is, the least likely to be confused with that to which it points while still able to represent it. Thus, light might be a more effective symbol of the presence of the Lord than a physical object such as a temple. The temple may convey majesty and dignity, but one might confuse it with a confining, localized residence of God; light, on the other hand, while representing the energy and creative power of God, is not so easily localized. But all symbols have their drawbacks; light has no revelatory content, being only a medium, so it is only the association of light with the Lord in biblical worship and doctrine that fills it with symbolic content for the Christian.

Because Israel tended to focus on the symbol instead of the reality to which it pointed, many visual symbols used in the worship of the Lord were eventually lost. The bronze serpent, a reminder of God’s intervention in behalf of his people in the wilderness, had to be destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). The ark of the covenant eventually disappeared, and the Solomonic temple itself, which the people came to regard as a talisman of God’s protection (Jer. 7:4), was demolished. Symbolic expressions were often lost upon the Israelites. When Yahweh commanded that his words be written on their foreheads and right hands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8), they interpreted the directive literally and made phylacteries containing strips of parchment on which the passages containing this command were written to wear on their bodies. The prophets Isaiah (Isa. 44:12–19; 45:20) and Habakkuk (Hab. 2:18–19) ridicule the heathen practice of bowing down to inanimate objects of gold, silver, and wood fashioned by the worshiper himself. (An astute pagan might have responded that the idols were symbols of a mythological and demonic reality.) Paul understands this in his warning to the Corinthians about participating in pagan feasts and eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 10:19–21).

When Aaron introduced his casting of a golden calf as the God who brought Israel up from Egypt (Exod. 32:4), he was not referring to the calf but to the invisible deity thought to be enthroned on the animal. The pagan god Ba‘al was portrayed as riding a bull, and Aaron simply adapted this imagery to the worship of Yahweh. In the same manner, when Jeroboam cast two bulls and placed them in Bethel and Dan for Israel to worship (1 Kings 12:26–29), he intended to make thrones for Yahweh. The problem was that he used a ba‘alistic image, which had a different frame of reference, and led the people into idolatrous worship. Yahweh’s distinctive symbol was the ark of the covenant housed in the tabernacle and later the temple; as a rectangular box, it was less likely to be confused with the deity.

Dynamism of Biblical Symbolism

Symbolism can take the form of human action. Bowing before the Lord is a dynamic representation of the covenantal relationship between Yahweh and his people in which he is the great King and they are his vassals. Celebration of the feasts included such symbolic acts as building tabernacles from tree branches, waving sheaves before the Lord, and sending the scapegoat into the wilderness. The prophets also engaged in symbolic acts. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea all had ministries characterized by pictorial representations of the content of their prophecies.

It is important to understand that Israel’s symbolism was dynamic; it involved actions and words rather than static objects and required the context of human interaction. Words exist only when they are spoken, and actions when they are performed. Even the words of the book of the covenant were to be read aloud to the people. When he instituted the Lord’s Supper, or Eucharist, Jesus said, “Do this,” not, “Look at this” (1 Cor. 11:24–25). The eucharistic symbols point beyond themselves to the reality of God’s action in Christ to redeem his people (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:26).

The cross is not only a visual symbol but has become a verbal symbol as well. Early Christians did not make physical representations of it, mounting it on buildings or wearing it around their necks, but proclaimed it. As a symbol, the cross represents the entire drama of the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of Christ. A visual symbol can become a verbal symbol. In the Old Testament blood was a visual symbol of sanctification as the priests sprinkled it on the furniture of the tabernacle and even on the people. However, in the New Testament the blood of Christ becomes a verbal symbol as it is used in the apostles’ preaching and teaching to refer to the atoning sacrifice of the Cross.