Now with respect to this piece from Robert, I strongly agree with his overall direction and with his conclusion that in the NT, our worship is the whole of our lives, and I also believe it is important to understand the point in Hebrews that Jesus has fulfilled and satisfied what the OT temple activity was about.

However, I think it is not justifiable to translate “leitourgos”/“leitourgia” as “worshipper”/“worship”, but instead “minister”/“ministry” or “server”/“service” are appropriate words. The “leitourg-” words are used consistently where one person/group etc does something unto another [God etc], for the benefit of a third person/group. “Worship” is never used like this, but is always the simpler situation of a person/people doing things unto the honoured one [God etc]. With “worship” there is no third group. I believe Robert is correct in seeing that Jesus fulfils OT temple cult, and that this means that we should NEVER construe what we do in church as continuing the OT temple cult. I think it is curious that many modern evangelicals are (rightly) careful to reject the notion that our pastors are “priests”, but yet are content to speak about what we do in church using OT temple vocab.

(One other simple distinction, by the way: in biblical use, “worship” is always action; “praise” is words. If the two sometimes occur together, “praise and worship”, that does not mean that the two words can be equated, otherwise we should have to equate “black” with “white”.)

So I think it muddies the waters to say that “in the New Testament, worship is not so much something we do, but it is first of all and mainly something Jesus Christ does for us!”
I’d rephrase it this way: The NT is first of all and mainly concerned with what Jesus Christ does for us; our worship is our whole lives responding to that, or more properly, responding to Him!