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.

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.

Short Break

Solus Christus will be back on line as soon as finals are over next week. To say that I'm looking forward to that day would be an understatement.

Some Lines Attributed to Sir Walter Ralegh

...From thence to heaven's bribeless hall
Where no corrupted voices brawl,
No conscience molten into gold,
Nor forged accusers bought and sold,
No cause deferred, nor vain-spent journey,
For there Christ is the King's Attorney,
Who pleads for all without degrees,
And he hath angels, but no fees.

When the grand twleve million jury
Of our sins with final fury
'Gainst our souls black verdicts give,
Christ pleads his death, and then we live.
Be thou my speaker, taintless pleader,
Unblotted lawyer, true proceeder;
Thou movest salvation even for alms,
Not with a bribed lawyer's palms...

From The Passionate Man's Pilgrimage (1604)

My Question for Full Preterists

I have, on this blog, occasionally discussed issues related to the eschatological position known as preterism. This is the view that the vast majority of Old and New Testament prophecies were actually fulfilled in the first century in connection with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. With some of these ideas I am sympathetic. I am usually careful in these discussions, however, to distinguish my beliefs from the position called “full preterism”, that is, the view that ALL biblical prophecy (including the final judgment) was fulfilled in the first century.

Recently, a friend from church asked me if I could come up with a question to challenge the “full preterist” view. Being rather occupied with my recent move, I thought I would try to kill two birds with one stone and use her question as the prompt for this week’s SC post. I apologize in advance that it is a somewhat skeletal response.

There are several good biblical points to be made against “full preterism”, but the following observations are what finally led me to reject this position and to fix my mind on the so-called “partial preterist” view. The problem with full preterism is that it is forced to conflate sets of events that are really quite distinct and to make events contemporary which were clearly to be separated by a long period of time.

Revelation 20 prophesies as future events two distinct judgments of Satan and two distinct resurrections, both of which are very different in character from one another and both of which are separated by at least a millennium. The first judgment of Satan is a temporary restraining. He is bound with a chain and cast into the abyss, but only for a thousand years (v. 3). At this first binding of Satan, the first resurrection also occurs (v.5). This first resurrection is limited to the tribulation martyrs (v. 5). They, and only they, come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years (v. 4). The rest of the dead do not raise until the thousand years are finished (v. 5).

It is not until after this millennium has passed that the final judgment of Satan and the final resurrection take place, and both of these are very different from their prototypes. This second judgment of Satan, which follows his thousand year imprisonment, is not, like the first, a temporary binding in the abyss, but an eternal assignment to the lake of fire (v.10). On the heels of this judgment, comes the second resurrection (v. 5), which, no longer limited to the saints, is now universal, bringing before Christ’s throne all who have ever lived and died (vv. 12-13). Those who are not found in the book of life join Satan for eternal punishment in the lake of fire (v. 15).

Again, full preterists are forced to say that each of these judgments of Satan and each of these resurrections were to take place, at the most, within a decade of one another. Some even say that the second judgment and second resurrection are merely re-descriptions of the first.

My question, then, for full preterists is this: Given the clear differences in character and the thousand year interval between these two judgments of Satan and these two resurrections, how can all these events possibly be said to have taken place in the first century and at roughly the same time?

One Last Blog

I've decided to open up one more blog (the last, I hope). This one will be a bit more personal and a bit more random: family updates, occasional poetic quips, etc. Check it out: I've posted a cool picture of my kids.

I've been wanting to post some stuff like this for a while, but didn't want to clutter up this blog with non-theological material (trying to be audience sensitive). So here's the rundown: Solus Christus will be dedicated to theological, primarily Christological topics; At the Crossroads is for those interested in practicing or teaching the trivium; and Life in Shiloh will be more for personal stuff. Links to each are in the side bar. God bless.

Let all the Angels Worship Him!

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.

1. Proskuneo is the term used in the New Testament for the worship of Jehovah God. It is what God seeks from his people (John 4:20-2). It is what the Jews and proselytes traveled to Jerusalem to do offer God in the temple (John 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24-11, Rev 11:1). It is what the convicted sinner offers God in the Christian assembly (I Cor. 14:25). It is what the elders in heaven do to Jehovah (Rev. 7:11; 11:16; 19:4-5) It is what angels call for men to do to Jehovah (Rev. 14:7; 15:4). It is what the angels themselves do to Jehovah (Rev 7:11).

2. This act is not appropriately done to men or angels but only to God. It is specifically what Satan demanded of Christ, and specifically what Christ answered was to be offered to God alone. (Matt. 4:9; Mark 4:8; Luke 4:9). It is what idolaters wrongly do to false gods (Acts 7:43; Rev. 9:20; 13:4-15; 14:9-11; 16:2;19:20). The apostles refused to accept it on the basis of their only being men (Acts10:25). Even angels rejected it, commanding that it was to be done to God alone (Rev 19:10; 22:8-9).

3. Nevertheless, throughout the New Testament, Christ repeatedly accepts proskuneo from mortal men, from perfected spirits of men, and from the highest angels. He accepted it from men during his earthly ministry and after his resurrection (Matt. 8:2;9:18; 14:33, 15:25; 18:26; 20:20; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He accepts it along with God from the elders and cherubim in heaven (Rev. 5:14). And he accepts it from all the angels of heaven by the express command of God (Heb 1:6).

Now the obvious question is: how could Christ have accepted an act that he himself testified was only to be given to Jehovah God? He could not have done so without claiming himself to be that very God. Here we have a very specific explanation of what the scriptures mean when they tell us that Jesus Christ is God. Is he the same person as the Father? No. But Christ, the Son of God, is worthy of the very same service, the very same honor, and the very same worship as God the Father.

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.