If the premise of the article was to worship publiclly at a building designed or that purpose I would agree. But the author is very specific that buildings are not what he is talking about. It’s not a glorified, sanctified location but it’s the practice of public worship. The Gate is the public square, it is where commerce takes place it is the center of public life in that culture.
“Under the law, the place of public worship was holy, but we have no reason so to account any place of public worship under the gospel; and this will be manifest, if both we inquire what were the grounds of that legal holiness in the tabernacle or temple, and withal observe that none of them can be applied to any place of worship under the gospel.”
As I said, I am still working through this one. I agree that there is no appointed, “holy” place required for NT worship. I also agree that worship should be in the public square. God is worthy to be worshipped publically so that he is glorified and honored. Yet in our finite wisdom we have hidden ourselves away inside the guilded cages we call chruches. If anyone is to see Christians worshipping then they must attend a “service” in a building designed for that purpose. That was not how the irst century saints practiced their faith. And what goes on inside the four walls of a “church” building cannot be considered “Practicing one’s faith,” either.
I think the continuous reference to ordinances took me for a loop. The author appears to love rules a lot. It strikes me as very works-oriented.
Sorry- my comment wasn’t focusing on a physical building either. I was thinking allegorically. Gates were a place, like you said, where business was conducted and people came to worship. Gates (to me) are symbolic of God delighting in the holy and the profane, as long as he is the center and driving force.
I think the article left me with the impression of someone focusing on doing stuff in church well- which is OK. (I mean, if you’re going to do something for God, might as well do a good job at it. )
It seemed like the emphasis was devoted to church work, whereas I think the reference to the Gate had a broader application. Ironically, as broad as the application seemed to me, the author’s misinterpretation (in my mind) is like aiming at the side of a bus – and missing. lol