Worthy of Worship? Statement of the Question

I want to make clear from the outset that I am not trying in these posts to prove the divinity of Christ. In perhaps an overly simplistic sense, there is really no need to do so. The Greek word describing a divine being is theos. And as it says in John 1, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the theos, and theos was the word.” Jesus Christ is clearly called theos in scripture; therefore, the fact of his divinity is beyond question.

The trouble, of course, arises in our attempts to define that divinity. Some of this difficulty results from the various senses in which the word theos is used in the New Testament. By far, the most frequent use of the word is as a personal name for God the Father. But it is used in a few other senses as well. It is used of angelic beings, for example where Satan is called the theos of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). In John, the judges of Israel are called theoi because they had received the word of Jehovah (10:35). And, of course, theos is the word used to refer to false gods invented by the imagination of men. So in what sense is the word used of Christ? What does it mean that Jesus is theos?

Trinitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are in agreement that Christ is much more than a false god or a merely human judge and that he is worthy of more glory than any other angelic being. Each would agree, furthermore, that when scripture calls Christ theos it is not saying that he is identical with God the Father. Despite what I’ve heard some Witnesses say, Trinitarians emphatically deny that Christ and the Father are the same person.

So what are the differences, then, between the two conceptions of Christ’s divinity? There are several, and over these differences much ink and much blood have been shed over the centuries. In these posts, however, I want to focus on a single distinction, one that in my estimation ranks among the most important: when Trinitarians profess that Christ is theos, they mean that he is worthy to be worshipped as God. Witnesses deny this. So the question upon which I want to focus is this: is Christ theos in the sense that he is worthy to receive divine worship?

Herein, however, arises another complication. Our English word, “worship” is not the translation of a single Greek word. There are several words so translated in our New Testaments. Of these, the word most frequently underlying such a translation is the word proskuneo. If this were as far as we looked into the matter, we would appear to have another open and shut case, for in the scriptures, Christ is frequently, in fact over and over again, said to receive this act. As I pointed out in my first post on this issue, he receives proskuneo from men on earth and in heaven; he receives it from angels in heaven by the express command of the Father.

But here is where a final complication presents itself: a credible case can be made (and has been made by TJ) that although proskuneo is often, perhaps even usually, used in the scriptures as a reference to what we would call worship, it is not always used in this way. It is true that when used in a certain sense, proskuneo describes and act that is to be rendered to God alone. For example, when tempted by Satan to proskuneo him, Jesus refused, saying that it was God who was worthy thereof (Matt. 4:10). And in Revelation, John is warned not to proskuneo the angelic messenger; he is told instead to proskuneo God (22:5). This is also the word frequently used to describe the worship wrongly given to false gods.

As TJ has pointed out, however, there are some instances, especially in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where proskuneo is used of an act which seems appropriately performed toward mere creatures. Abraham is said to proskuneo the elders of the Hittites (Gen 23:7) and David does so to Saul (I Sam. 24:8). Even in the New Testament, there is one use of the word that seems to carry this lesser sense. In Revelation 3:10, Jesus tells the saints that he would cause their persecutors to proskuneo at their feet, implying perhaps, that such an act would have been appropriate even though performed before mere men.

So then, there is a proskuneo that is only to be given to God. There appears also to be a proskuneo that is appropriately given to mere creatures. The question, then, is what is the line that distinguishes the two? What is the difference between proskuneo in the limited sense and proskuneo in the absolute sense? And once that distinction has been established, upon what side of that line do we find Christ? That is, when Christ receives proskuneo from men and the highest angels at the command of the Father, is he merely being honored as the most important angelic being, or is he being worshipped as God?

And now I can make a more complete statement of the precise issue I wish to address. Jesus Christ is clearly theos and clearly worthy of proskuneo. The question is whether he is theos in the sense that he is worthy of this highest kind of proskuneo. That is, is Jesus worthy to be worshipped as God? This the Witnesses deny, and I am compelled to affirm.