Back to TJ

A while back (it feels like an awfully long time ago) I offered some arguments in support of the claim that Christ is worthy of divine worship. I approached the issue using only occurrences of the word proskuneo in the New Testament, presenting the claim as if it were, on this basis alone, an open and shut case. Along came TJ, however, and pointed out some weaker points in my argument. In fact, to paraphrase the comments of one friend, TJ appeared to be applying a boot to my nether region.

I confess with some embarrassment that TJ has presented some legitimate counter arguments which I should have anticipated and addressed from the very beginning (something about which I’m always warning my students). It’s no fun to look bad in an argument; it’s much worse to give someone an occasion to maintain a diminished view of the glory of Christ. Dealing with an issue as significant as this, I should have exercised more care. I sincerely apologize and will do my best to remedy the situation.

TJ maintains that the authors of the NT use the word proskuneo in such a way as to suggest that it can be appropriately performed toward beings that are not divine and that, therefore, Christ’s continual acceptance of that act is insufficient proof of his deity. While I am not prepared to abandon the proskuneo argument completely, I am willing to concede, for the sake of discussion, that it is not, perhaps, as conclusive as I had first claimed.

There are, however, a number of other passages the context of which clearly portrays Christ as receiving, with the full approval of the Father, what can be no other than divine worship. I am just as convinced, therefore, that Christ is worthy to be worshipped in the same manner, by the same means, and to the same extent as God the Father. I’d like to break my blogging fast with an attempt to present, if I can, a more carefully reasoned defense of this claim.