In Revelation 4 and 5, Christ's worthiness to receive divine worship is evident from the honor he receives individually, and from the honor he receives simultaneously with the Father.
He is honored, just as the Father had been, by the cherubim and heavenly elders (5:8; 4:9).
These fall down before him, just as they had fallen down before the Father (5:8; 4:10).
He is sung to with harps and incense (prayers), something not said to have been done to the Father (5:8-9).
He is praised in unison, just as the Father had been, by the cherubim and heavenly elders, but these are now joined by millions of additional angels (5:11; 4:9-10).
He is declared worthy, just as the Father had been, to receive glory, honor and power, but in addition, he is also said to be worthy of riches and wisdom and might and blessing (5:11; 4:11).
He is praised, along with the Father, by "every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them" (5:13).
He is declared, along with the Father, to be worthy of the blessing, and the honor, and the glory and the dominion for ever and ever (5:13).
He is worshipped (proskuneo), along with the Father, (5:14).
I'll put the ball in your court, TJ. I am interested to know how you can read these passages and still conclude that Christ is not worthy of the same worship as the Father. How, in light of these verses, can any meaningful distinction be maintained between the honor of which the Father is worthy, and the honor of which the Son is worthy, especially when, in these latter verses, the worshippers are praising them both with the exact same words, and the exact same acts, at the exact same time?
And based on these passages, how can it be maintained that there is any limit on how much glory and honor we are to give Christ? What more could one possibly do to him or say of him than that which is done to and said of him here in the very throne room of the Father?
6 comments:
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the detailed explanation of your reasoning. You wanted to know how I can maintain a meaningful distinction between "the honor of which the Father is worthy, and the honor of which the Son is worthy, especially when, in these latter verses, the worshippers are praising them both with the exact same words, and the exact same acts, at the exact same time." Furthermore, you asked how it can be maintained that there is any limit in the glory and honor Jesus receives in light of this evidence.
Your argument is based on the premise that similar, specific acts are rendered to both the Father and the Son, and so this identifies them both as holding the same position of authority, namely being God. The problem that I see with this view is that it fails to consider the fine distinction made between the position/role of the Father and the position/role of the Son that the context demands.
In the preceding chapters of Revelation, the resurrected Jesus is said to have a God over him, the Father. "He [Jesus] has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father." (Revelation 1:6) "I [Jesus] have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God." (Revelation 3:2) "He who overcomes, I [Jesus] will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (Revelation 3:12) So the Father certainly occupies the position of 'God.' But if Jesus occupies that same position, how is it that his Father is the God of him? Does God have a God?
In looking at the same chapters, Jesus' role is described as something quite different from 'God.' For one thing, Jesus acknowledges that he has received authority from this God and Father. (Revelation 2:27) At Revelation 1:6 John calls for "the glory and the dominion forever and ever" to be given to Jesus. But notice that he is not here recognizing Jesus' role as God, but rather he is recognizing him as the one "who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood." (Revelation 1:5) It is in this role that Jesus is worthy of such glory. In the very same sentence, as quoted above, John says that Jesus' Father is his God. So let's take a look at how Jesus and his Father are understood in chapters 4 and 5.
Starting in chapter 4, it is observed in verse 8 that the "four living creatures" identify the the one on the throne (the Father) as "the Lord God, the Almighty." Thus, when they give him "glory and honor and thanks", they are doing so recognizing him in that role. (Revelation 4:9) Likewise, when the twenty-four elders "fall down before Him", they do so with the recognition that he is "our Lord and our God". (Revelation 4:11) He is worthy of such an act due to the fact that he "created all things, and because of [his] will they existed, and were created." Let's compare this with the acts Jesus receives in chapter 5.
When Jesus receives the sealed scroll, "the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb." (Revelation 5:8) Did they do this because they recognized Jesus as the Almighty God? No. Rather, they recognize his role as the one who was "slain, and purchased for God with [his] blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9) Again, when the angels join in and say that Jesus is worthy to "receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing", this is not due to his being God, but due to his fulfilling God's purpose by being slain. (Revelation 5:12)
So the participants in these acts are very aware of the differing roles that the Father and Son occupy. The Father's role is greater than the Son's, he (the Father) being identified as the Almighty God. Therefore, there is a limit in the glory and honor being given to Jesus in this passage. He is not recognized as the Almighty God, but rather as an agent (albeit the most important one) in the fulfillment of God's purpose. This harmonizes perfectly with what is said at Philippians 2:8-11:
"Being found in appearance as a man, He [Jesus] humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
When such glorifying acts are rendered to Jesus, we should recognize it is always in the context that he holds a relative role to God the Father, who put him in that position. This is not unlike the ancient kings of Israel receiving proskuneo and glory and honor from God-fearing men. They never received it as God, but always in the relative role that God exalted them to.
Lastly, you asked, "What more could one possibly do to him or say of him [Jesus] than that which is done to and said of him here in the very throne room of the Father?" He would have to be rendered the same acts, but with the recognition that he is God Almighty, not an exalted servant of God; this would be "divine worship" in the absolute, not a relative, sense.
I apologize for the length of my response, I hope it was clear enough to understand my position.
TJ
Hi Matt,
I'm not sure that this argument has much to do with the topic at hand, and you have not presented any evidence here to support it (though you provided a link to a long article), but I just want to point out that it can easily be established that Jesus acts as Jehovah God's agent or representative in carrying out his will. (John 5:30) Thus when Jesus acts on Jehovah's behalf, it can be said that Jehovah himself did it.
Such agency is literally found throughout the Bible, and not just with the Father and Son. For a good example, first read Matthew 8:5-13. In this passage, it plainly tells us that a certain army officer visited Jesus in person, spoke with him, and displayed great faith. But now if we turn to the parallel passage found at Luke 7:1-10, we find that the army officer did not personally approach Jesus, rather "he sent forth older men of the Jews" to act and speak on his behalf. This does not mean that these Jewish men are the same being as the army officer, but simply that they acted as his agents.
TJ
Hi Matt,
Thanks for explaining your views further. I personally won't interact with them further in this thread because they aren't focused enough on the type of worship Jesus receives in Revelation 5, and I'm afraid that particular topic will get lost in all of the above.
Do you have a blog in which we could discuss your more generalized argument?
Thanks,
TJ
I agree wholeheartedly with Matt's conclusions, TJ, especially concerning the role of our respective presuppositions in this matter. I am, however, willing to continue wranglng...I just have to finish my Contracts readings first (talk about niggling questions).
Hi Matt,
That's fine if you don't wish to discuss this any further, though I think there are some crucial points that both you and Mr. Wright have overlooked (I did read most of what's at the link you posted, including the conclusion). I wouldn't describe the rational discussion Brad and I are having as "wrangling." In an open discourse where both parties with opposing viewpoints are willing to be intellectually honest and patient, the result can be very beneficial for everyone involved. You are correct that everyone brings their own presuppositions to the text (and even presuppositions of other group's understandings of the text), I find them in your posts as well, but that is exactly why it is helpful to have others to balance our personal viewpoints out, or at least to test their strength. (Proverbs 27:17)
Brad-
Perhaps after our discussion of proskuneo, we could discuss a few of Matt's conclusions above. Still, the reason for our entire discussion is that you were trying to locate the fundamental difference between your view of Jesus and the Jehovah's Witnesses' view of him. I have a suggestion as to what this may be, which I think would also get to the root of the proskuneo situation. But I'd like to wait to bring that up until we have finished discussing your arguments in relation to Jesus and proskuneo.
Thanks,
TJ
Hi Matt,
Well I'm glad that you have formed an opinion of the evidences offered during the course of the proskuneo discussion, even if it differs from mine. That's your right to do so. Many people today couldn't care less about anything Bible-related. I don't think the discussion is yet concluded, so there may be more to consider.
The historical development of christology is another area where much of the so-called 'unorthodox' evidence is ignored or greatly distorted in many of the commentaries and other books dealing with the topic. On top of that, it is usually taken for granted that first-century christians were be thinking in post-Nicene terms. Maybe this discussion will eventually gravitate towards that area and we can get into it a bit.
Take care,
TJ
Post a Comment