First of all, I believe you’ve slightly mis-characterized my position. My claim is not that the Father and the Son occupy precisely the same position of authority. All trinitarians acknowledge that the Father commands, and the Son willingly submits to those commands. My understanding is that this difference in position between the two of them, has no bearing on the honor to which either is worthy from man. By way of analogy, wives are under the authority of husbands, but are not, therefore, as mothers, entitled to less honor from children than are fathers. Christ's worthiness of worship is in no way limited by his submission to the Father's will.
I believe, furthermore that you’ve missed the force of some of the evidence. It is true that in Rev. 4:1-5:11, the Father and the Son are being rendered "similar" acts. I would point out, first of all, that with respect to some of these words and acts, the Son seems to be receiving (only, of course, in this particular instance) even more glory than the Father. But more importantly, in 5:13-14, both the Father and the Son are rendered the exact same words and the exact same acts at the exact same time. I do not see how, in that particular instance, any distinction can be made between what is done to the Father and what is done to the Son. They are merely compound direct objects of all that is said and done there.
I do acknowledge that there are some distinctions between the earlier instances in which the Father and Son are being honored separately, but I believe you've placed upon them undue significance.
Second, you point out that in these passages, the Father’s praise is predicated on creation, but Christ’s on redemption, and claim that, therefore, the Son's honor is limited. If this kind of distinction, however, is probative of a less than absolute worship, then we must conclude that the Father's honor is likewise limited. After all, he is not, in these passages, credited with redemption. In short, I don't see how the different grounds for praising the Son and praising the Father mean that one is being worshiped and the other is not. Differences do not equal limits.
You argue that Christ's glory is lesser, because it is said to have been given to him by the Father. You compare this to the honor that was bestowed upon the ancient kings of Israel.
In general, I have to say that your general definition of worship strikes me as less than adequate. You seem to define it as "that honor which is only appropriately given to God the Father" which definition, of course, begs the very question. Is worship really defined only by the person honored or the deeds which are praised, or are there certain words and acts that are inherently worshipful? If I were to bow down before my neighbor, make a burnt offering to him and praise his name, would it be any less worship if I did so because he had made an excellent cheesecake?
All the host of heaven fall down before the Lamb, they offer him incense (prayers) and sing to him with harps; they declare his worth and attribute to him honor, power, and glory. All creation then declares with one breath, that both he and the Father are worthy of everlasting blessing, honor, glory, and dominion. Any definition of worship that is not satisfied by these elements seems to me to be utterly meaningless.
7 comments:
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your response. Rather than respond to the entire post all at once, which would make for a very long post, I'll break it down a little bit.
You said, "But more importantly, in 5:13-14, both the Father and the Son are rendered the exact same words and the exact same acts at the exact same time. I do not see how, in that particular instance, any distinction can be made between what is done to the Father and what is done to the Son. They are merely compound direct objects of all that is said and done there."
Here is where your logic fails. I had said earlier, "in every case that Jesus is rendered proskuneo, I believe it can be adequately argued that it is out of respect for his position as the messianic King." But what about when he is being 'worshiped' in the same act along with the Father?
Well, 1 Chronicles 20:29 says, "And David said to all the assembly, Now bless Jehovah your God. And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah, and the king." (ASV) So here we have both Jehovah and the king of Israel being rendered "the exact same acts at the exact same time." Is there any distinction made between what is being done to Jehovah and what is being done to the king? Many commentators think so.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says, "Worshipped the Lord, and the king - They did reverence to God as the supreme Ruler, and to the king as his deputy." The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary says, "Though the external attitude might be the same, the sentiments of which it was expressive were very different in the two cases - of divine worship in the one, of civil homage in the other."
The Septuagint uses the word proskuneo here with God and the king as its direct objects. Take a look at how LXX-translator Brenton handles this passage: ". . . they bowed the knee and worshipped the Lord, and did obeisance to the king." The italics there are his, which are meant to show that he added the words "did obeisance." Thus, even though the same word, same act, at the same time is used of God and king, Brenton and others have no problem seeing a distinction based on the relative position of the two recipients.
So let me ask you, do you see any distinction between the 'worship' Jehovah God receives and the king of Israel receives in this passage (1 Chronicles 29:20)? If so, why? If not, does that mean that the Israelites worshiped the king the same as they did God?
Thanks,
TJ
Teej:
Wouldn't it be fair to also ask you whether you consider Jesus and David to be equals?
Yes, if all we had in Rev 5 was that both the Father and the Son received proskuneo at the same time, it would be far from conclusive that Christ was being worshiped.
But note that, as I said, the Father and Son are merely compound direct objects of all that is said and done here.
This is quite different from what happens in I Chronicles 29:20. For example, while David was included in the physical act of prostration, he was most certainly excluded from the blessing that proceeded it and the worship that followed it. In Rev 5, however, Christ is subject to no such exclusion. In fact, he is explicitly made the recipient of the same blessing as the Father.
As a mere physical act rendered both to God and David, the prostration certainly had different meanings. I suppose that if that is all we had in Rev 5, it would be easier to make such a distinction here.
It's much more difficult, however, to see how the words the worshipers use could be assigned different meanings. Every created thing which is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them with one voice (the very definition of univocally) attribute to the Father and the Son blessing and honor and glory and dominion, and these forever and ever. This statement allows for no distinction of meaning or extent.
Hi Brad,
I guess I'm a little confused with the point of this. In your 'Statement of the Question' thread, you said, "if you could demonstrate that the proskuneo Christ accepts is of the same kind and degree as the Father (which I shall attempt to do), you would have defined, to a certain degree, the sense in which he is theos." So you believe that because both the One sitting on the throne and the Lamb receive "the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever," this defines the type of proskuneo they offer?
In that same thread, you concluded, "What makes the Father worthy of absolute worship? Is it his Fatherness? or his Godness? and if his Godness, is the same Godness shared by Christ even though, admittedly, the Fatherness is not? This is what I'm trying to prove." I have shown in the last thread that throughout Revelation 4 it is indeed the Father's Godness that makes him worthy of the worship he receives. When offered praise, he is explicitly recognized as the Almighty God, but this is not the case with Jesus. Rather, he is recognized for his role as the Lamb, the one who conquered by being slaughtered. Where do any of his 'worshipers' recognize him as the Almighty God in Revelation 5, or elsewhere in Revelation?
TJ
Hi "looking upward",
That is a fair question. David refers to Jesus as his Lord, so Jesus was exalted higher than David. (Luke 20:42-44) Still, Jesus' kingship is beneath God's. (1 Corinthians 15:27,28)
TJ
TJ,
I've censored the last three comments to preserve the continuity of the thread and to relieve myself of the embarrassment they were causing me.
To answer your question, those honoring the Lamb in Revelation do not call him Almighty God. Nevertheless, they give him worship that is only appropriately given to God.
TJ,
Reading over your last comment again, and my previous comment to which you were responding, I understand your confusion a little better. I'll provide a more substantive response shortly.
Post a Comment