Some time ago, I was having a conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses about the deity of Christ. It's difficult at times to know just exactly what these folks believe on this subject. Sometimes it seems that when they are arguing against the trinity, they are proceeding from a deep misunderstanding of the doctrine, apparently thinking that trinitarians believe Jesus and God the Father are the same person.
Of course, JW's are unorthodox in their belief that Christ is a created being, but still they are willing to attribute some sort of deity to him. So other than the question of his origins (of no small significance) what's the essential difference between the two views? We both agree that Christ is not the same person as God the Father, and we both say that Christ is in some sense divine.
Until this past interaction, I had never quite been able to put my finger on the precise distinction. Were the metaphysical categories of trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses just a bit different? Did the orthodox merely have a better grasp of Greek philosophy? Was there really any practical difference between the two views? The essential point of difference, however, was presented to my quite plainly in this last discussion, when it occured to me to ask, "Of course, you worship Jesus, don't you?"
I was surprised by the shock with which the woman answered, "Oh no! We worship only Jehovah." Whoa. Here was a difference, a very practical difference. Whatever the Witness believe about the divinity of Christ, they do not believe he is worthy of worship. In other words, they haven't the slightest clue as to who he really is, and are Christians in no sense of the word.
As a result of this conversation, I did some study on the verb proskuneo, the most common word for "worship" in the Greek New Testament. I must admit, I was somewhat surprised at the clarity with which the orthodox understanding of Christ's deity presented itself. The scriptures teach in no uncertain terms, that Christ is worthy of worship in the same way that God the Father is worthy thereof.
The word proskuneo is unquestionably the word describing the worship appropriately offered to Jehovah God and to him alone; apostles and angels adamantly rejected it for themsleves. Yet Christ, in the days of his flesh and after his exaltation, willingly receives it; indeed, men and angels are specifcally commanded by God to give it to him.
2. This act is not appropriately done to men or angels but only to God.
Jehovah will share his glory with none other (Is. 42:8), yet he has shared his glory with Christ from before the foundation of the world (John 17:4-6). Man and angels are to honor God as they honor no other, yet all are to honor the Son, even as they honor the Father (John 5:23). It is in this very practical sense, that we must understand the deity and the divinity of Christ: He is most worthy of our worship.
12 comments:
Very good, Brad.
Thomas
Thank you, Thomas.
While I appreciate the thought put into this post, it seems to me that you're being a bit too rigid with what the Greek word proskuneo means. It can mean worship in an absolute sense, which is how it is used of God, or it can be used in a lesser sense, meaning giving obeisance, prostrating oneself before a superior.
For example in the LXX version of Genesis 23:7, Abraham is said to render proskuneo towards the people with whom he was doing business with. Yet at Genesis 22:5 he does the same act towards Jehovah. It is clear that Abraham wasn't worshipping the people the same as he was God, he was simply bowing to them as a sign of respect.
And again in 1 Kings 1:23, the prophet Nathan renders proskuneo to King David. This was in no way improper. And if King David could receive this act, certainly Jesus, who is greater than David, could in the same way. So it cannot be proven that Jesus was claiming to be God on the basis of proskuneo.
TJ
TJ,
Good point. The LXX does use proskuneo in the way in which you suggest. The New Testament, however, seems to use the word in this more restricted sense.
That is, in the NT, the prohibition against treating any other than God in this way is emphsized much more heavily. (#2 in the post)
Even if the LXX sense is the same, however, perhaps the fact that Abraham and Nathan treated mere men in this way is not the clearest proof of its propriety?
Thanks for commenting.
Hi Brad,
I'm not sure that proskuneo is used in a more restricted sense in the NT. Of the many uses of proskuneo in the NT, virtually all translations render it, in some places, in a lesser sense than absolute worship.
For example, at Revelation 3:9 the resurrected Jesus has John write to "the angel of the congregation in Philadelphia" that he "will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not . . . come and bow down before your feet." (ESV, emphasis added) The Greek word for "bow down" is a form of proskuneo. Certainly Jesus wasn't going to make them render absolute worship to other creatures, just bow before. So it would seem that proskuneo carried the same range of meaning from the LXX to the NT.
Thanks,
TJ
TJ,
Yes, this is a pesky passage. And I confess, it does prevent this from being a completely air tight argument. Once again, however, I'm not so certain that the passage actually condones the behavior.
Admittedly, the fact that Christ will actually be the one causing the saints' enemies to fall down at their feet, seems at first glance to imply that such an act would be proper.
I might argue, however, that Christ, through this great revelation, was actually the one causing John to fall at the feet of the angel in Rev. 22:8, but still the angel admonished him not to do it.
I guess the question is, when Christ finally does (or did) cause the enemies of the saints to bow at their feet, what ought their response to be? Are they to accept it, as Christ did, or reject it, as the angel did?
Assuming arguendo, that the NT does present both senses of proskuneo, and maybe asking you to tip your cards a bit, do you think the scriptures anywhere indicate that Christ is worthy of proskuneo the sense of highest worship?
Hi Brad,
In respect to proskuneo in Revelation 3:9, Robertson's Word Pictures here states, "The Jews expected homage (not worship in the strict sense) from the Gentiles, but it will come to the Christians at last." I would say that the translations that render the word with something less than "worship" here tend to agree with Robertson that something more along the lines of "homage" is meant.
And again it seems to me that this lesser sense of proskuneo is being used in Jesus' parable about the king who cancelled the large debt owed to him. Jesus said that "the slave fell on his knees before him [the king]." (Matthew 18:26, NRSV)
As for the propriety of this act, Jesus is the one who states that this act is performed for the human king and he seems to in no way condemn it, quite the opposite actually. After the slave performs the act and asks for more time, the king is moved to pity for the slave and hears him favorably. In harmony with this, all of the translations I have checked don't use "worship," but rather "prostrated," "bowing," etc.
You asked for my thinking on proskuneo in relation to Jesus. As you brought out, Jesus told Satan that it is written that we should worship God. When Jesus refers to God here, he is referring to his Father, Jehovah. (cf. John 17:1,3) Jesus was not talking about himself, saying that he should be given worship. So when the angels render Jesus proskuneo, it would not be in the sense of absolute worship, which is reserved for Jehovah, but rather in the sense of bowing down and showing respect for his exalted position given him by Jehovah God. (Philippians 2:9-11)
Likewise, 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 (or King-designate), much like David recieving the act as King and even performing it himself for King Saul. (1 Samuel 24:8, which is 1 Kingdoms 24:9 in LXX) When the Roman soldiers mockingly performed this act for Jesus, it was not because they thought he was calling himself God, but rather the "King of the Jews." (Mark 15:18,19) So I think there is more than enough evidence that a king, especially one installed by God, can properly receive a form of proskuneo without being God himself.
TJ
TJ,
Assuming you're interested in continuing this conversation (which, by the way, I'm finding very stimulating)I would ask you:
1. Do you think the reason the angel corrected John in Rev 22:8 was because John was rendering him absolute worship? If not, why was the act inappropriate?
2. Can you define for me what it is that distinguishes proskuneo in the limited sense from proskuneo in the absolute sense? In other words, how in scripture can we tell when one is honoring one as mere man or worshipping him as God?
3. And finally, can you point to a particular act of homage or a particular attribution of worth which would be appropriate when offered to God the Father, but inappropriate when offered to the Son of God?
In other words, is there really any reverential act that one could perform toward the Son that would cause God the Father to say, "Enough, that glory is reserved for me alone."? If so, what would that act or attribution be?
Hi Brad,
I'm enjoying the discussion as well. You have asked some interesting questions and I'll do my best in answering them. I'll start with your second question.
You asked, "Can you define for me what it is that distinguishes proskuneo in the limited sense from proskuneo in the absolute sense? In other words, how in scripture can we tell when one is honoring one as mere man or worshipping him as God?"
Since proskuneo has a range of meaning that is not sufficiently covered by any one english word, the translator must rely on the context of the passage, and the greater context of the Bible as a whole, to guide him in selecting which aspect of the word will be brought out in the english rendering. I would think that most would agree with me that the word "worship" is used exclusively of God in our language today. Thus, most every translation chooses an english word or words that imply something less exclusive at places like Revelation 3:9, Matthew 18:26 and in the LXX translations of Genesis 23:7, 1 Kingdoms 24:9, etc.
Relying on context of course brings a level of interpretation to the text, and indeed I find some translations to be more consistent in their interpretation than others. When it comes down to it, I don't feel that anything definitive can be said either way about Jesus' identity based on this act being rendered to him, other than the fact that he is exalted enough to deserve it. Whether or not he is God must be decided upon other evidence from the Bible.
In your first question you stated, "Do you think the reason the angel corrected John in Rev 22:8 was because John was rendering him absolute worship? If not, why was the act inappropriate?"
In reading the passage, it seems to me that John, beside himself because of the fantastic visions he had just seen, fell down in an act that was very close to worship, which explains the angel's warning. This brings to mind that angel worship was evidently a problem in the early Congregation, to the point that Paul had to warn against it. (Colossians 2:18) There's also the fact that anointed Christians are in line to become kings themselves, and will actually judge the wicked angels. (1 Corinthians 6:3) So whatever the case with the angel, John's act was at the very least approaching an improper act and the angel cautioned him to worship God, who, based on the context, is the Father (a distinction is made between "God" and the "Lamb" in verse 3).
You asked, "And finally, can you point to a particular act of homage or a particular attribution of worth which would be appropriate when offered to God the Father, but inappropriate when offered to the Son of God?"
I can't think of a particular act apart from this particular aspect of proskuneo and latreuo (a form of sacred service) mentioned in Matthew 4:10. As for a particular attribution of worth, off the top of my head I can think of a couple of things which Jesus said is unique about his Father. In response to being called, "Good Teacher," Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18) Though Jesus was not bad, he recognized that his Father was the ultimate standard of goodness. And in John 17:1-3, Jesus referred to his Father as "the only true God," mentioning himself separately.
TJ
TJ,
Pardon my slowness; this was moving week for me. I do intend to respond to your last comments.
Brad
No problem Brad, take all the time you need. I hope your move went well.
TJ
Still haven't forgotten you, TJ.
Post a Comment