(click for image credit)
Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007 Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.
Interesting title, no?
Some Christians will think it true but trivial.
Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.
Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.
I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)
But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?
No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard:
and this one:
I would add that in Revelation 5, the “worship” offered to both God and to Jesus is plainly fully religious worship, and not some other, lesser sort of honoring.
My recent public presentation was on a similar theme. Stay tuned for videos of the conference and screencast versions.
Print 
PDF
Aside from the Rev. 3:9 passage… isn’t it at least debatable as to whether being other than YHWH are *properly* worshipped? That is… isn’t Buzzard here noting descriptions instead of prescriptions?
Dale
Is there any difference between “religious” & “cultic” worship? If not, how does this statement support the NT language findings of NT Greek scholars like Dunn:
[Bold mine.]
I take it that “cultic” worship is something done in the setting of a religious service, or at least a group, typically on some sort of regular schedule. I guess this would be a type of religious worship. I don’t think religious worship can be given any tight definition – it is just a sort of honoring, the kind which should be given to God or to a god.
I don’t know that there was much “cultic” worship in NT assemblies – perhaps some sort of opening or closing prayers were standard, some hymns. But there was no sacrifice, no developed liturgy, no “services” as now understood, and no special class of priests to do it all. Let’s imagine that they start off with giving of thanks to God the Father, and to the Lord Jesus – that prayer could be called an act of cultic worship, and also (the more generic term) religious worship. I guess the “love feast” could be called cultic worship – a meal dedicated to Jesus, and to God.
Note that Dunn, on the pages cited, doesn’t make too much of the linguistic facts you note – I think that is right. Not every difference of terminology shows an important ethical or theological distinction.
No – in the language of the Bible kings etc. are properly “worshiped” – given that this English term now means *religious* worship, one could argue that a better translation in those cases would be honored or bowed down to. (The main Greek term used literally means this last.)
“No – in the language of the Bible kings etc. are properly “worshiped” (honored/bowed down to)”
Could you point to some verses?
“Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the Lord your God.” And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and paid homage to the Lord and to the king.” 1 Chr 29:20, ESV
Note: “paid homage to” – the translators don’t want to say “worshiped,” but I believe it is normally so translated.
http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/29-20.htm
Dale
But most of Dunn’s book deals with “linguistic facts” on theologically loaded terms like “worship”, “prayer”, etc., so I don’t know what you mean by the above comment.
I think the observation he makes regarding the very technical, specific NT Greek terms having to do with “religious/cultic” worship should be hilighted in our discussions. To say “Jesus is plainly fully” worshipped in a “religious” sense is not textually accurate.
What’s wrong with just saying what the text says?
Is that the only verse, other than the one in Revalation? I’m assuming you get that worship here is prescribed from the tone of the verse and the fact that when they paid homage, they weren’t stopped from doing so.
Is this your thinking?
And if worship can properly be given to exhalted beings, wouldn’t that include the angel who rejects worship in revelation and tells John to worship God?
“don’t know what you mean by the above comment.”
Suppose you have two kids, and both play baseball. Whenever one gets a hit, you say “Great!” Whenever the other gets a hit, you say “Fantastic!” Now, someone point this out. “What distinction are you making” they demand. None, you say. It’s just a habit.
Xavier, if you’re claiming that the NT distinguishes two kinds of worship or honor, and says that one can be given only to the Father, and the other to both Father and Son – then it is up to you to say what this distinction is (what exactly is the difference?), and also show us where the distinction is made or presupposed. Based on what Dunn says, I don’t see any such distinction.
Not prescribed – rather, it is assumed to be OK. No – there are a number of such verses. You can look them up – hit the Strong’s Concordance.
No, I don’t think that worship can be given to any “exalted being”. I think it is wrong to worship angels. Stay tuned for a relevant post on the biblical concepts of idolatry.
Dale
I don’t think this analogy is relevant since we’re talking about the Father and His Son.
Thought I had. : / Let me try again…
The language of the NT Greek seems to be clear on the distinction of the 2 when it comes to “religious/cultic” worship that is given only to God the Father. So reserve must be made when we state that Jesus is worshipped in a religious/cultic sense as well.
Hi Xavier,
Re: the baseball analogy, the point is all about words
You want to say that cultic worship should be given only to the Father, right? But that would include prayer and hymns – Dunn p. 30. But he agrees that there is evidence of both being given to Jesus by the early church. Look, e.g. at p. 57. Dunn admits this. But he wants to minimize *the amount* of cultic worship given to Christ. That may be right. Certainly, the early church did not confuse Jesus with God.
Dunn’s book is a conceptual mess. He’s great at carefully reading the texts, but not so great at systematic thinking. After he’s told us that Jesus was given cultic worship, see his agonized, unclear conclusion on 150-1. He ought to say: Yes, early Christians did worship Jesus, and then consider how they did so, and what this does and doesn’t imply about Jesus and God.
Dale
Its not me bro. I am just appealing to what the NT writers have to say about this topic.
Agreed. But the simple point I make when quoting him is the findings he, and many other Greek scholars make, regarding the distinction between proskyneo & latrevo and what this has to do with Christian worship of both the Father and the Son.
Again, I think reserve or further definition should be made when we talk about any sort of “religious” worship that may be given to the Son in the NT.
Yeah, I would agree with Xavier above. The analogy is not really equivalent. To have two kids in your analogy is to assume equal or equivalent relational classes. Not so with Father and human son.
I think many apologists (we included) approach this issue from the wrong way around. On the one hand the mere fact that latreuo is rendered to Yahweh the Father alone, which also stands out by its absence with regard to Jesus, indicates the difference in approaching Father and son. Not only that, but that the respective statuses of Father and son determine the extent to which worship is rendered. So, it is not the proskyneo in itself rendering Jesus ontologically identical to God (it’s simply false), but his subordition and functional identity with God determining the extent to which proskyneo should be given. The whole “worship” thing to prove Jesus’ “deity” is in my opinion a non sequitur.
Jaco
Which is supported by the distinction the NT Greek places on the word “worship”.
Re: comments 15 & 16: I think we agree. If you want to use “worship” to mean a kind of honor appropriate to the Father alone, you are free to do this, and I have no objection.
Both of you were distracted by my analogy; the point is just that not every difference of word use points towards some underlying distinction.
Will talk more about worship and different kinds of worship whenever that talk of mine gets posted online; Xavier – you remember that at the end I talk about some ways in which acts of religious worship may differ.
Dale
I think the textual evidence shows that “religious/sacred” worship language is used for the Father only. What that means in relation the Son being worshipped as God’s Messiah is where we have to be careful and note the textual distinction.
It’s worth bearing in mind that proskuneo has a wide range of meanings. Liddell & Scott’s lexicon mentions:
1) Make obeisance to the gods or their images, fall down and worship, do reverence
2) Especially of the Oriental fashion of prostrating themselves before kings and superiors
3) (later) Kiss, greet, welcome respectfully.
These are distinct meanings – in other words, when a writer uses proskuneo her/she means one of these definitions and not all 3 of them combined. The translator has to pick which one he thinks is appropriate, given the context etc. Option 3, I suspect, post dates 1st Century, and might not be a valid option for Bible translators…
This explains why, in Rev 3:9 proskuneo (prostrating themselves before kings and superiors) is proper, but the proskuneo (make obeisance to the gods, worship) to the angel in Rev 19 is not. (I’ve indicated which definition of proskuneo seems to be applicable in brackets).
Interestingly, Jesus uses proskuneo (prostrating themselves before kings and superiors) in his parable of the slave who owed a king a fortune – in Matt 18:26. The slave falls down before the king to beg for mercy – clearly not an act of religious worship.
That Jesus receives proskuneo does not necessarily mean he received religious worship. In view of his statements in Matt 4:10 and Jn 4:23 I would argue that he thought that the Father alone should receive proskuneo in the sense of ‘worship’ whereas the proskuneo he accepts is of the ‘prostration before kings and superiors’.
Obviously, this is just an interpretation. But it has in its favour the fact that does not cause Jesus to contradict himself, which would be the case if he accepted worship after having uttered Matt 4:10 and Jn 4:23…
Just my 2 cents
Andy
Its a stretch to base this on the usage and meaning of proskyneo in and of itself. As I have written above, the more technical and stronger latrevo word group brings this distinction out more.
I’d call it an interpretation rather than a stretch
I agree that latrevo makes a strong distinction in that it is never applied to Jesus, although some might argue that such an argument from silence is not in itself conclusive.
The point I was trying to make, probably clumsily, was that proskuneo does not necessarily mean ‘worship’ in the religious sense and that translators are (and often do) quite justified in rendering it ‘prostrate before’ or ‘obeisance’. IOW, proskuneo being applied to Jesus is not evidence that he was ‘worshipped’ as God either when on earth as a man or during his appearances after the resurrection. Add to this the facts about latrevo that you, and Dunn and others, make and it presents a strong picture that Jesus was not worshipped, in the sense that we would use ‘worship’ today…
The examples I have quoted of Jesus using proskuneo tend to, I think, fall in line with Liddell and Scott’s definition of proskuneo as ‘worship’ and, therefore, I see proskuneo as a word of, maybe, richer meaning than latrevo in that it can mean religious worship, but it can also mean a non religious act of prostration to a human being… Such richness of meaning means we have to take the context into account, and many translators think that because Jesus is the object of proskuneo then it means ‘worship’ rather than prostration…
However, in Matt 28, we see the disciples offering Jesus proskuneo amidst doubts, which to my mind strongly indicates prostration rather than worship…
Andy
Andy
Dale
Sir Anthony referred to God as being’ the ultimate object of worship ‘- and no verses are more relevant than Revelation Chapter 15 verses 2-4.
Here we see The song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb ,being ‘bundled’ and sung to the Lord God Almighty.
Surely it is evident rthat the latter is the ultimate object of our worship?
Is it unreasonable to suggest that if the Lamb were one of the persons who comprise the Trinity, that it would worshipped instead of being a worshipper?
Is it not evident that “The Lamb’ is NOT the Lord God Almighty?
Blessings
John
Andy
What’s an argument for silence? Your unclear here.
I think it could simple be said that Jesus is proskyneo as Messiah and not God. Otherwise we make it difficult for “people out there”. The theological distinctions inherent in latrevo should be reserved to the “inner” biblical scholarship dialogue.
An argument FROM silence ( not for silence) is when you base an argument or a conclusion from the fact that there is a lack of evidence. For example, “the Bible mentions nothing about guns, therefore…”.
Any argument based on a lack of evidence is inherently weak, because silence is not the same as a definite stance on something. A counter argument that takes the opposite position could be viewed as just as strong…
Andy
Yes, thank you, I mistyped. I know what it means just asking what you were referring to as an argument from silence.
That latrevo is never directed at Jesus… Whatever argument you make from that is, effectively, an argument from silence. I’m not saying that it’s not significant, indeed I think it is an important piece of evidence that Jesus is not Almighty God. But it’s not decisive in itself…
I also think it is necessary to address which form of proskuneo is directed to Jesus, because the lexical definition does allow proskuneo to mean religious worship…
Andy
Andy
There are 2 words in the Koine Greek used in reference to worship, as you and I have pointed out proskyneo is the generic term but latrevo is a very specific and therefore significant term for “religious/cultic” worship; which is the topic at hand. i.e., is the worship rendered to Jesus in the NT “fully religious”?
Only when the CONTEXT is in relation to the one God of Israel, YHWH. Not due to its “lexical definition” per se.
Xavier
Before I post further I want to clarify that I fully agree with you – proskuneo as religious worship should only be directed to YHWH/the Father.
Nevertheless, there is a danger of assuming what we have to prove, for there are examples of proskuneo being used in the religious sense, when not directed to the Father. True, they are in the false religious sense, but proskuneo in and of itself does not distinguish between false and true religious worship. Exampls of this would include Acts 7:43, Rev 19:10 and Matt 4:9
Therefore, to prove the point that religious proskuneo is properly given only to the Father, I chose to cite Jesus’ own words in Matt 4:10 and John 4:23, where the context is definitely religious proskuneo going only to the Father and that true worshippers worship only The Father. Ergo, if proskuneo is offered to Jesus it has to be of the non-religious kind for it to be proper, otherwise Jesus would be contradicting himself, etc.
So I think that, maybe, we are on pretty much the same page, but with the details differing. I think it also reflects my background – I work as an IT developer and have a tendency to want to prove things conclusively without begging any questions, resorting to circular reasoning or making any weak assumptions…
Andy
Andy
I think you just answered your own question here…FALSE worship, be it religious or not, is not VALID. Therefore, this particular argument IS from silence. :p
And yes, great last points you made. TOTALLY AGREE!!!
Xavier
Getting back to the topic, I note that in Buzzard’s interesting videos he sticks to translating proskuneo as ‘worship’ rather than translating it as prostration/obeisance when the context is non-religious proskuneo. To my mind, although his arguments are good, they would be better and more concise if he acknowledged and took advantage of the fact that this word has two distinct meanings.
With regard to Rev 5, it’s interesting that when the elders fall down and worship in v14, the account does not say who that worship was directed to. Ok, the lamb is acknowledged and praised in the preceding verses, but that does not automatically mean he was included in the worship of v14, especially given the extended context of chapter 19 where John it told ‘worship God’. Could it be that John does not say who chapter 5′s worship is directed to because there is no need to… Such worship would, in his eyes and in the context of the book as a whole and the scriptures as a whole only be directed to YHWH so there is simply no need to clarify it in v14.
I accept this is interpretation that can neither be verified not refuted by the grammar of v14. I would so, tho, that the burden of proof rests with this who claim that v14 shows religious proskuneo was being directed to God AND to the Lamb, as this would be a unique event that is at odds with, indeeds contradicts, the rest of scripture…
Andy
Andy – what, then, do you make of Rev 5? (See previous posts on that.) Would you claim that in that scene no religious worship is being given to the exalted Jesus?
You’re certainly right that proskyneo can be used for religious worship or just for what you could call honoring or civic worship.
Note that John 4:23 doesn’t say that only the Father should be worshiped.
About Matt 4:10:
Suppose you lived in a Kingdom where it was the law of the law that one would always bow to the King, and never to anyone else. This goes on for quite some time. Then one day the King announces that you must also bow to his son, the prince (and future king, one presumes).
Would you object, on the grounds that one should only bow to the King?
Off with your head!
*The King himself* has just told you to bow to the Prince. So it just can’t be any sort of betrayal, treason, or disloyalty to do this. Rather, so bowing would be an act of *obedience to the King*.
Back to Matt 4, why not say:Jesus correctly quotes to Satan the divine policy then in force. But after his resurrection and ascension, it is clear that Jesus deserves not only honor as Messiah and God’s Son, but also religious worship, as head of the church and the world, raised to God’s throne. It is clear because God has so raised him, and given him the name which is above every name, etc.
Dale
My position re Rev 5 was in my previous post, paragraph 2… To summarise it, no I don’t think the verse explicitly states who the worship is given to – see above for the fuller viewpoint.
Re John 4:23, true he does not explicitly say that ONLY the Father is to be worshipped, but there is a lot implicit in the statement “the TRUE worshippers will worship the Father…” (i.e false worshippers worship someone else). I am aware that negative inference can sometime be fallacious, but in the absence of Jesus or the Father making the statement “it’s ok to religiously offer proskuneo to the Son…” I for one would hesitate to do so…
Similarly with Matt 4 – to complete your Philippians quote – “in the name of Jesus every knee should bend (prostration, proskuneo) … to the glory of God the Father” – it’s clear to me that Paul had in mind worship directed to God in the name of Jesus…
You said “Back to Matt 4, why not say:Jesus correctly quotes to Satan the divine policy then in force. But after his resurrection and ascension, it is clear that Jesus deserves not only honor as Messiah and God’s Son, but also religious worship” I would answer that whether Jesus deserves it or not the deciding factor, but rather whether God has actually now authorised religious worship of the Son. Obviously there are no clear cut verses (i.e. ones that don’t permit another explanation) that explicitly give this authorisation, or there would be no need to debate this.
If there were instances of Jesus being given and accepting latrueo then, again, there would be no need for any debate. But only proskuneo is offered to and accepted by Jesus.
You said: “Suppose you lived in a Kingdom where it was the law of the law that one would always bow to the King, and never to anyone else. This goes on for quite some time. Then one day the King announces that you must also bow to his son, the prince (and future king, one presumes).
Would you object, on the grounds that one should only bow to the King?”
In that case there would be no objection… Now all we need is a verse that actually announces that regarding Jesus and I will do it
I’ll keep my head on, if I may. I’m planning on using it some more…
Andy
Sorry about the typos in the previous post – must learn to proofread…
“I would answer that whether Jesus deserves it or not the deciding factor” should be:
I would answer that whether Jesus deserves it or not is not the deciding factor
Andy
Thanks. The real issue is understaing WHO THE OBJECT of the worship is. If you are to be involved in worshipping the Lamb, it is clear that you do not worship him as God but as the Messiah. It is rather FORCED to insist that in Rev 5.14 the “prostation” there is ONLY to God and not to the Lamb also. Since in v.13 “praise and honor, glory and might” are offered BOTH to God and to the Lamb. How UNNANTURAL then to create a distinction in v.14.
The main point: God has commanded worship of His own Son. Not because THAT Son is God himself but because God requires honor to be given to the Son as to the Father.
Anthony
You wrote: “The main point: God has commanded worship of His own Son. Not because THAT Son is God himself but because God requires honor to be given to the Son as to the Father.”
I wasn’t aware of a specific scripture commanding worship of the Son. I am aware of proskuneo offered to Jesus, both prior to and after his resurrection.
You also wrote “How UNNANTURAL then to create a distinction in v.14″
Maybe, but it’s still an assumption to conclude the elders are offering religious worship to the Son. In other words, it’s not in itself conclusive proof…
Andy
Andy
I would add to my previous post that I fully acknowledge that, taken on its own, the verse can easily be interpreted as as worship directed to both God and the Lamb. I am pointing out that the verse does not say who is the object of worship here, neither the English translation nor the original Greek makes any definite indication.
Grammatically, in the original Greek, one could (I hasten to add that I would not) argue that the four living creatures were the object of worship, as they are mentioned immediately before the elders offering worship. We ‘know’ that would be a wrong interpretation, not because of the Greek but because of the context of the Scriptures.
In the same vein, we can interpret that the Lamb is here offered worship, but we cannot prove it from this verse and the context of Scripture as a whole casts doubt on this interpretation. As I stated above, this verse could also be interpreted as the elders offering religious proskuneo to The Father alone, and that certainly would be in harmony with scripture as a whole.
I am happy to concede that this verse could be interpreted either way, but it comes close to begging the question to cite this verse as PROOF that God has commanded us to offer religious worship to the Son. That conclusion would be stronger than the evidence in this verse and the absence of other verses explicitly supporting this conclusion AND the presence of other verses (in Revelation 19 and the rest of Scripture) that contradict this conclusion cast enough doubts in my mind to say that the case has not been proven.
Andy
Proskuneo means worship and is offered to God and some other human beings, including Jesus.
The worshipers are indeed worshiping God and the lamb and the people worshiped God and the King in 1 Chron 29:20.
The issue is NOT trying to find a word for “religious worship”. Just know that only the Father is God and prayer is offered to God and sometimes Jesus.
Paul thanks Jesus and Christians call on the name of the Lord Jesus.
No need to quibble over the words. Just know that God alone is the Father.
Hi Andy, thanks for the comments. Substantially I agree with Anthony on this, but I’ll add a few thoughts.
I’m afraid that it just doesn’t say what you want it to.
ESV:
“so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
This is saying the purpose for which God has raised him: to get universal submission and praise. Is this enough of “a specific scripture commanding worship of the Son” for you?
If you say these do not constitute religious service, then I would like to know what you think religious service is.
What I see there is:
direct object of worship: Jesus
indirect object: God
If you give me $5 to give to, I don’t know, Mitt Romney, then you have given me money (yes, to pass on). You might insist that *really* you only gave it to Mitt (through me), but that’s quibbling over words. The $5 was (for a time) in my very hand, having just come out of yours.
I recommend looking at the work of Larry Hurtado on the theme of “devotion to Jesus” – he documents how all our information points to the earliest Christians did things that we would all call “religious worship” with respect to Jesus.
Dale
The problem with Hurtado and others like Bauckham is that for them “religious/cultic worship” means worship to “God/god”. And although they correctly observe that Jesus was worshiped throughout the NT but the NATURE of that worship was not “cultic”, hence, “religious”. This is something James Dunn counters very ably, I feel, when dealing with the NT language of “religious/cultic” offered to the Father ONLY:
Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? p 15, f. 29; 17, 113. [CAPS mine]
Anthony
You said
“Proskuneo means worship and is offered to God and some other human beings, including Jesus.”
This is where we differ, and your statement either overlooks or ignores the fact that lexicons give two or three distinct meanings to proskuneo. But I’ve explained that in my earlier posts to this thread…
“No need to quibble over the words.”
I don’t view myself as quibbling over words – I’m just pointing out a simple fact – proskuneo means more than one thing and to munge all of its distinct meanings into one word – worship – is incorrect.
Dale – I will post an answer to your last post sometime this week…
Hi Dale
With regard to John 4:23, I stated that the phrase ‘true worshippers worship the Father’ had implications. At the very least it implies that if there are true worshippers, there might also be false. I accept I may be reading other implications into this.
However, with regard to Phil 2:10, I don’t think that it says what you think it says. I note that the ESV, along with not a few other translations, render this “AT the name of Jesus every knee will bend”, as though he were the direct object of worship. However, this is extremely tendentious, as I will demonstrate below.
Firstly, the Greek here is: ?? ?? ???????, which is the preposition: EN, the article in the dative: TOW, the noun in the dative: ONOMATI.
This expression EN TOW ONOMATI occurs in the following verses in the NT, and except where otherwise indicated, is translated in the ESV as “in the name”:
Mark 9:38, Mark 16:17, Luke 9:49, Luke 10:17, John 5:43 (twice), John 10:25, John 14:13, John 14:14, John 14:26, John 16:23, John 16:24, John 17:11, John 17:12, John 20:31, Acts 3:6, Acts 4:10 (by the name), Acts 9:27, Acts 9:28, Acts 10:48, 1 Cor 5:4, 1 Cor 6:11, Php 2:10 (at the name), James 5:10, Jas 5:14, 1 Pet 4:16 (in that name)
Acts 4:10 could be rendered “in the name” without changing the meaning and 1 Pet 4:16 renders EN as in, but renders the article as ‘that’ rather than ‘the’.
Thus, the ‘odd one out’ is your proof text, Phil 2:10 where EN is rendered ‘at’, rather than ‘in’. Translated that way, it appears to make Jesus the object of worship, as you have argued. However, as can be seen from the citations above, this is the only time where the ESV renders this phrase in this way and there is nothing at all different in the Greek grammar of Phil 2:10 that distinguishes it from the other verses.
Commenting on this construction (EN with dative), Liddell & Scott’s Lexicon states that ‘at’ is a valid translation of EN only where the context has to do with Place or Location. The examples it gives for this is “broken off at or by the shaft”. A brief word search of the other 130 instances of where the ESV translates EN as ‘at’ show adherence to this – examples are 1 Cor 11:34, Eph 1:20 and Phil 1:1. I can, of course, supply the whole list if anyone wants to see it…
The evidence above points to this: the ESV has translated Phil 2:10 in a way that is contrary to the way it usually translates EN TOW ONOMATI. It is contrary to the lexical meaning of EN to translate it as ‘at’ unless it refers to a place. The ESV translators well know this, as can be seen from the 130 other times it translates EN as ‘at’, all of which have to do with a place or location. I would not accept that the name of a person can be a place.
Therefore, I would argue that Phil 2:10 should be translated as ‘in the name of Jesus every knee should bend … to the glory of God the Father’. The bending of the knee is to the Father, but in the name of Jesus.
I don’t think your illustration re the $5 is relevant to this – worshipping the Father in the name of Jesus is not giving Jesus the worship to pass on to the Father.
I would define religious proskuneo as worship offered to the entity you accept as your God, whereas ‘prostration’ proskuneo is the act of bowing/prostration before someone that you acknowledge as being superior to you. If I was presented to the Queen (I’m in the UK) and I bowed to her, that would be an act of proskuneo in the non-religious sense.
Sorry, the Greek text didn’t submit properly. ?? ?? ??????? should be EN TOW ONOMATI
Andy
Are you suggesting that these 2 would somehow LOOK different? Religious worship as compared to non-religious worship. How so?
Xavier – good question. Answer is they *might* look different. IOW I might prostrate myself before God when praying and that would be an act of religious proskuneo. But I might also worship God by silently offering praise to him whilst out for a walk. Still religious proskuneo but not outwardly visible to onlookers.
Liddell & Scott list, under their religious proskuneo entry “to make obeisance to the gods, fall down and worship, worship, adore”. The second entry then speaks of “the Oriental practice of prostrating before kings and superiors”
So there is a connection between both definitions, in that one MIGHT involve prostration. The second definition always involves prostration.
What seems to be the sticking point in these posts is that the two definitions are being treated as though they are interchangeable or somehow synonymous. As I said in one of my first posts, they are not. The two definitions, whilst having things in common, are mutually exclusive – where a sentence includes proskuneo it means worship offered to a god, possibly including prostration OR prostration before a person recognised as a superior.
Most translators, when seeing proskuneo offered to an ordinary person, render it as prostration, ‘fell at his feet’ or obeisance. And when they see proskuneo offered to The God/Ho Theos/The Father they, quite rightly, use the word worship.
The problems comes when the object of proskuneo is Jesus. Then the translator has to choose one of the two meanings and, from the grammar and the lexical entry, they could pick either. So we have to consider the Bible as a whole. Obviously, throughout the OT only YHWH properly receives worship. There are indicators in the NT where I think Jesus speaks in line with the OT position, such as Jn 4:23, which Dale disputes is inferring what I think it’s inferring. However, the Revelation 19 scriptures command John to ‘worship God’, when he mistakenly offers worship to the angel. I think this has a bearing on understanding who is worshipped in Rev 5:14. The angel could have told John to worship God and/or the Lamb. But he doesn’t. Could that be significant?
When I asked Dale to demonstrate one scripture that explicitly commands/authorises worship of/to the son, he offered Phil 2:10, which I hope I have shown above is not as clear cut as modern, trinitarian, translations would like their readers to think. At the very least, it can easily be interpreted as not meaning that Jesus is the object of worship, when a consistent, accurate translation is used. Rotherham’s, the ASV and Young’s Literal Translation, among others, all translate Phil 2:10 as ‘in the name of Jesus’ in case anyone thinks I’m going off into unchartered territory here.
If I were making a translation of the NT I would ensure I consistently distinguished between the two forms of proskuneo. When God or The Father is the object of proskuneo I would translate it as ‘worship’. When the object of proskuneo is not God the Father I would stick with prostration or a synonym of prostration.
For Rev 5:14 I would use worship because the preceding verb piptow means to fall down and might seem superfluous if the proskuneo on offer meant prostration. Then again, there are some bible examples of redundant expressions, especially in the OT, so I suppose one could say of Rev 5:14 ‘the elders fell down and prostrated themselves’, but that seems wooden to me. As I stated before, the object of devotion is not stated in Rev 5:14, and I don’t accept as a valid argument that the ‘natural’ assumption it includes the lamb is conclusive. The verse is open to interpretation and I have stated my case above…
Andy
So, in other words, its a stance of the heart thing.
Could you explain yourself here since we know that men/angels/false gods are worshiped in BOTH senses of the word throughout the Hebrew scriptures.
One last thing, do you know Hebrew or Koine Greek? If so, are you a teacher?
Andy
What about Heb 1.6?
Xavier
I think Dale will agree that the issue (Philippians 2v10) is one of ‘domain’
I’m absolutely sure that the One Supreme God -who dwells in unapproachable ligh- does not ‘bow the knee’ to anyone.
It is the angels in heaven who are now ‘below’ the newly exalted Christ and bow to him.
So the ‘domain’ is ‘all of Creation excluding the Creator.”
Hebrews 1v6 confirms this view.
Trinitarians keep reiterating the jaded view that it was God who ‘emptied’ himself (Philippians 2 ) – while it must be evident that-
-the first Adam ,who was made in Gods image- tried to equate himself to God (Genesis 3v5) ,and that was
the first sin,
-the ‘second Adam’ (Christ) did not make this mistake and humbled himself even to death on the cross.
I’d be interested to hear a contrary view!
Blessings
John
Xavier
My explanation is this – true religious worship in the OT is offered to YHWH. Any instance of religious proskuneo offered to anybody/anything else is false worship. Do you have an example from the OT where ‘true’ religious worship is offered to someone other that YHWH?
I know Koine Greek, but have not received formal training in it. It has been an interest of mine for 30+ years. I’m still learning – since the 1990′s the idea of Greek Verbal Aspect has come to the forefront and it has some definite implications for many verses. In most cases using it it clarifies the meaning but sometimes it subtly changes it. I’ve started working on my own NT translation, but I have limited time to devote to it. But when considering almost any NT verse, I tend to open the NA27 Greek text first and look at translations later…
I have no knowledge of Hebrew, although I have enough tools (software, lexicons and grammars) to do word studies and check meanings and grammatical constructions. However, most of the ‘disputed’ translations are in the NT, most of those revolve around trinity ‘proof texts’.
Re Heb 1:6, I think John has given a decent answer. Again I would add that proskuneo is used here and so something along the lines of “and let God’s angels prostrate themselves to him” (this is from memory, I would want to check the Greek text before finalising the translation) would be lexically and grammatically sound. Therefore it’s not a clear cut command for us to offer religious worship to the Son.
An interesting verse to compare is 2 Kings 2:15 in the LXX, where people bow down to Elisha. Guess which word the LXX uses for ‘bow down’…
John
Agreed.
Andy
Yes, “true religious worhip” in connection with YHWH: 1 Chronicles 29.20; Ps 45.6 [cp. Heb 1.8].
I must have misunderstood what evidence you were asking for then. Thought it sounded like you wanted to know where God, specifically, commands worship of His Son. Period.
Andy /Xavier
I feel very foolish asking this – but in what way are Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1 connected?
I use the NAB Bible so will refer to that.
(A) In Psalm 45
(i) We are told that this is a Psalm for a royal wedding (Israelite King to Princess of Tyre)
(ii) The name ‘god’ in verse 7 is in the lower case
(iii) In verse 8 we are told that this ‘god’ has a ‘God’ who has anointed him
(iv) This ‘god’ has lovely wives -or as the Good News Bible puts it ‘honourable women’
(B) In Hebrews Chapter 1
‘god’ has been ‘elevated’ to UPPER CASE.
The ‘unknown’ writer of Hebrews is applying verses 7&8 in Psalm 45 to Christ (Hebrews 1vv8&9)
but clearly this “God’ has a ‘God’.(v9)
How does one make sense of this?
Thank you
Every Blessing
John