Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

8 Comments

  1. Matt13weedhacker
    September 19, 2017 @ 9:28 pm

    Compare Revelation 5:10 with Revelation 1:6 and there surrounding context, and it becomes clear who is who.

    Revelation 5:10
    “And you [i.e. Jesus vs. 9] have made us to-the God of-us [i.e. the Father], kings and priests, and they will-(in future)-reign upon/over the earth.”
    http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/5-10.htm

    Revelation 1:6
    “And he [i.e. Jesus vs. 5] made us a kingdom, priests to-the God and Father of-him [i.e. Jesus] ; to-Him [dative case grammatically = the Father just prior] the glory, and the dominion/strength into the ages of-the ages. Amen.”
    http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-6.htm

    The “worship” of Jesus is because he is “the Christ”, i.e. the Anointed and appointed KING of the “KING-dom”. Notice: “King” in the word: “KING-dom”? Thus, “Christ” is: “Lord” in the royal sense, and “Lord” is the inherited title of the OT King “of Israel” (who Jesus is, and is the background to understanding the NT). The King of Israel was habitually called: “My Lord the King.” A phrase that appears over and over again in the OT.

    http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/my-lord-king-king-of-israel.html

    http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/my-lord-king-king-of-israel-anointed.html

    “Worship” as God (i.e. YHWH “YeHoWaH”), became confused with “worship” (royal sense) of the King. It is very simple.

    Not enough space here, nor do I have the time to go further into this.

    Reply

    • Rivers
      September 20, 2017 @ 8:16 am

      Matt,

      Good points.

      Rivers 🙂

      Reply

    • Sean Garrigan
      September 21, 2017 @ 6:09 am

      Good points, Matt. As a friend of mine pointed out some time back, while Rev. contains the strongest evidence for the “worship” of Jesus, in the end that evidence isn’t as strong as some people assume.

      ~Sean

      Reply

  2. Rivers
    September 19, 2017 @ 8:37 am

    Dale,

    I think the impression that you give in the first sentence in the paragraph after the quotation of the NIV translation of Revelation 5:10 is that you are taking the “serving” (which is paraphrased by the translators) and applying it to Jesus himself, whereas the more literal translations do not add “serving” and don’t suggest that the Jesus was the subject related to “our God.

    Perhaps it would be more accurate for you to say “in short, the Lamb (Jesus) is worshiped because he is uniquely worthy as the redeemer of the saints and the one who appointed them to be a kingdom and priests to God.”

    Rivers

    Reply

  3. Bálint
    September 17, 2017 @ 2:56 pm

    Hi Dale,

    I think you misread Revelation 5:10 based on a dynamic translation. This takes away from the weight of your argument.

    Consider the New English Translation: “You have appointed them as a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”

    And their interpretive footnote: “The words “to serve” are not in the Greek text, but are implied by the word “priests.””

    So “serving our God” or “to serve” is absent from the Greek (there are no significant textual variants on this, as far as I know), but even in the translations, it is intended to refer to the redeemed, not Jesus.

    Reply

    • Rivers
      September 18, 2017 @ 7:20 pm

      Balint,

      Good catch. It appears that Dale is quoting Revelation 5:10 from the NIV.

      Rivers 🙂

      Reply

    • Dale
      September 19, 2017 @ 7:02 am

      Guys, I don’t see how my point here depends at all on that translation.

      Reply

    • Aaron
      September 19, 2017 @ 3:45 pm

      The way I see it, Jesus is seen to have done a unique service to the Father by redeeming the saints and thus establishing a people presentable to God. That is not to say that translational methodology isn’t important but just that it seems to me Dale’s point isn’t undermined.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
29 × 23 =