TJ,
I can’t get past it: the highest angels and heavenly elders fall down before Christ with harps and golden bowls filled with incense (which symbolize the prayers of the saints) and sing songs of his worthiness. Then, joined by all the angels in heaven and every other created thing in the universe, they attribute to him everlasting blessing and honor and glory and dominion. They end by falling down before him and rendering him proskynesis.
As you have pointed out, there have been instances in which particular men and angels have received a lesser kind of proskynesis, one that did not rise to the level of worship. But surely, you have to admit that no one besides Jehovah (be he man or angel) had ever before appropriately received anything approaching the scope or extent of reverential treatment here rendered to Christ. I challenge you to point to a single instance that even begins to compare.
When the Israelites did such things to Jehovah, whether or not they used the name “God” in a particular instance, they were worshiping Jehovah. When the Canaanites did such things to Baal, whether or not they specifically credited him with creation, they were worshiping Baal. When the Romans did such things to Caesar, whether or not they recognized other divine persons to which he was submissive, they were worshiping Caesar.
If, therefore, you’re going to claim that those doing these same things to Christ were not, in fact, worshiping him, your burden of proof is going to be quite heavy. I think you’re going to have to do more than point out that Christ is not here called “God” (for elsewhere he is clearly so called). And I think that you’re going to have to do more than point out that he is not here credited with creation (for elsewhere he is clearly so credited). And I believe that you’re going to have to do more than point out that he was submissive to the will of the Father (because I don’t see how that changes anything).
10 comments:
Hi Brad,
Thanks for summarizing your view of the discussion. It can be helpful to take a step back and look at where we are.
You said, "you have to admit that no one besides Jehovah (be he man or angel) had ever before appropriately received anything approaching the scope or extent of reverential treatment here rendered to Christ. I challenge you to point to a single instance that even begins to compare."
Of course no other creature can be compared to Jesus fully and the reverential treatment that he receives (though many biblical persons prefigure him, including the anointed kings of Israel), but why is this? It is precisely because God exalted him to that highest position below himself. "God highly exalted Him [Jesus], 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." (Phil. 2:9-11)
Jesus did not receive this degree of reverential treatment before God exalted him. And even now that he does receive it, it is always "to the the glory of God the Father" who installed him in that position of lordship. Thus, when one praises and glorifies Jesus out of recognition of his role as king, he praises and glorifies the God who put Jesus there. This is why Revelation 4 and 5 has never posed any problem for Jehovah's Witnesses, as it highlights Jesus' role as the primary agent in the outworking of Jehovah's purpose. Jesus is the Lamb, the one who sacrificed himself to vindicate Jehovah's name and sovereignty, prove Satan a liar, and save mankind from sin and death. For this, Jehovah God exalted Jesus to his right hand and put all of creation in subjection to him.
One particular problem for advocates of the Trinity—as is the case in most of these texts—is why would all of creation praise and worship God the Father and Jesus in the absolute sense, while ignoring the Holy Spirit? Does he not deserve the same? This takes us outside the scope of a strictly Jesus-centric discussion, but this should be just as important, should it not?
You said, "I think you’re going to have to do more than point out that Christ is not here called 'God' (for elsewhere he is clearly so called)." Yes, but as you admitted in another thread, others are called 'gods' in the Bible in a limited sense. I would contend that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but 'god' in a more limited sense as well. Surely the most exalted person in the universe, save God the Father himself, could be referred to with such a title if mere humans could.
The problem though is that you had said at the outset, "What makes the Father worthy of absolute worship? Is it . . . his Godness? and if his Godness, is the same Godness shared by Christ . . . ? This is what I'm trying to prove." In Revelation 4 and 5 I see the Father's "Godness" clearly defined, whereas in the case of Jesus, it is his role as the Lamb of God that is emphasized. I believe that it is straightforward that it is in this role that he receives the praise and proskuneo, not due to his "Godness".
You had continued above, "And I think that you’re going to have to do more than point out that he is not here credited with creation (for elsewhere he is clearly so credited)." I think it may be time to enlarge the boundaries of the discussion a bit, as it can be argued that Christ's role in creation is as the agent through which God created, though he was not the source of creation himself. I have tried to stay as focused on the chapters in Revelation as possible, but it may be helpful if we explore the Bible's entire testimony of Jesus' role. This is just a suggestion.
Thanks for your patience with me as no doubt it is difficult for both of us to come to terms with and fully understand each other's position.
Take care,
TJ
So are you saying that prostrations and harps and golden bowls of incense and prayers and songs of praise and attributions of eternal blessing and honor and glory and dominion and proskynesis are not presumptively worship? Or do you believe that you've rebutted this presumption?
Hi Brad,
Basically what it comes down to is this, Jesus said, "it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matthew 4:10) Do any of these acts in Revelation 5 (giving blessing, honor, glory, etc.) violate what is written there if Jesus is not God? I don't think so.
I have shown that two persons can be rendered proskuneo at the same time in two different senses if the context demands such, and I think that Revelation makes it clear that Jesus' identity is very different from God's.
So my answer is no, I don't see Jesus accepting anything here that is said to be exclusively God's. The point of the vision is to show the heavenly court in all its glory, and this includes showing the resurrected Jesus in all of his glory as the exalted Lord and King of God's Kingdom. His is no mere honorary title, but Jehovah has placed him just below himself and has given him real power and glory. But it would be going too far to class him as the Almighty God, when throughout Revelation he calls his Father 'my God' and only the Father is explicitly called the Almighty God.
Thanks,
TJ
Sorry to be repetitive, but I would like to pin down your opinion on this one point. Do you or do you not acknowledge that in any other context, these actions would, in and of themselves, constitute worship?
Hi Brad,
I do not believe that these actions would necessarily constitute worship in any other context. These words are not used that rigidly. For example, 2 Samuel 14:22 says, "Joab fell with his face to the ground to pay him honor, and he blessed the king [David]." Should we interpret this as absolute worship directed toward David? Obviously not.
TJ
What about songs of praise on harps, offerings of incense, prayers, and attributions of eternal blessing, power, honor, and glory?
Hey Brad,
The songs of praise on harps is fitting for the one who conquered and therefore was found worthy enough to open the seals on the scroll. I don't see any reason why this would require absolute worship or that Jesus must be God because of this.
The bowls of incense, which means the prayers of the holy ones, isn't said to be offered to Jesus. The incense highlights the 24 elders' role as priests. Notice in their song to Jesus whom they serve as priests, "You [Jesus] have appointed them as a kingdom and priests to serve our God." So it seems that the 'incense' is offered to God and not to Jesus.
As for the "eternal blessing, power, honor, and glory," again this would all seem to fit for the one whom God exalted above everyone. Right there in verse 12, those in heaven acknowledge the reason why Jesus deserves this: "Worthy is the lamb who was killed to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and praise!" They highlight, not his Godness, but the all-important task he completed that God sent him to do, which resulted in his exultation. All of creation sings out for these things to be given to God and the Lamb forever. Why? Because this will fulfill what has been promised, "the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people . . . it will stand forever." (Daniel 2:44) Jesus has been appointed king of this kingdom, so he plays an extremely important role in God's purpose, forever.
TJ
TJ,
I fear we have reached the point at which our presuppositions are making fruitful dialogue too difficult (not that this has been completely unproductive; I've learned a lot). Still, it bums me out a little.
I had set out to refute your point about the incense in Rev. 5 being offered to the Father rather than the Lamb, but I felt like I was trying to come up with an argument proving water to be wet. (I don't doubt you've felt the same way at times.)
Suffice it to say, I don't see how the context makes that interpretation possible: the bowls of incense are an inextricable aspect of the honor being rendered specifically to the Son, and the creatures and elders are clearly not the priests that Christ purchased from the nations and made to reign on the earth.
I will end with one point that I mentioned earlier, but that we never got a chance to discuss in much detail. After that, I'll give you the last word (though I will reserve the right to summarize my perspective on the discussion in a later post).
You have said at least twice that Jesus' glory was given to him by God, and that he did not possess this glory before God exalted him. I think this is directly contradicted by the scriptures:
I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you gave me to do. So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. John 17:5 NWT
Last word is yours.
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the reply. You said, "the bowls of incense are an inextricable aspect of the honor being rendered specifically to the Son, and the creatures and elders are clearly not the priests that Christ purchased from the nations and made to reign on the earth."
In the previous chapter, chapter 4, we learn this, "In a circle around the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on those thrones were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white clothing and had golden crowns on their heads." (Revelation 4:4) This matches well with what we learn about those bought from the earth. (cf. Rev. 6:11; 20:4) Revelation 5:10 speaks of their reign over the earth, not the physical location of the king-priests (also see how epi with the genitive is used at Rev. 9:11; 11:6).
In any event, the verse in question merely says, "Each of them had a harp and golden bowls full of incense (which are the prayers of the saints)." It simply doesn't say that the incense is offered to Jesus. It would make little sense if it was, since Jesus is himself a priest to God. (Hebrews 4:8-10)
You said, "You have said at least twice that Jesus' glory was given to him by God, and that he did not possess this glory before God exalted him. I think this is directly contradicted by the scriptures."
I wanted to get to this point in the last thread, but I didn't. We know that Jesus existed as a spirit person in the heavens alongside God before he came to the earth. (John 1:1; Phil. 2:5-7) We know that, "there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. The glory of the heavenly body is one sort and the earthly another." (1 Cor. 15:40) It was this glory, the glory of receiving back a spirit body and being in the presence of God, that Jesus asks for since his earthly tasks are near completion. (John 17:4) And he did "became a life-giving spirit" after he died. (1 Cor. 15:45)
His subsequent exultation, wherein God placed him on the throne of God's Kingdom, was an honorary position that he did not have before. It is in this position that others sing him praises and so forth. So John 17:5 does not refer to Jesus receiving back his title as King or Lord and the glory that goes with it, since he did not have these before.
TJ
TJ,
I pray the same for you as I pray for myself: may God grant us to know the mystery of God, even Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Take care, and feel free to drop by any time.
Brad
Post a Comment