|
Listen to this post:
|
At his blog Dr. Larry Hurtado points out that N.T. Wright never shows where, in Paul, claims are made about the man Jesus being the return of Yahweh in person. He then adds,
So, if a “return of Yahweh” isn’t evident in Paul (our earliest evidence) as a central factor, and if Messiah isn’t a sufficient category, then how to account for the remarkable “dyadic” devotional practice in question? My own proposal has been that earliest believers treated the risen/exalted Jesus as they did only because they felt required to do so by God. Note that the typical way that reverence of Jesus is justified in various New Testament texts is to invoke God’s action of exalting him and requiring that he be reverenced: E.g., Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Hebrews 1:1-4; Acts 2:36; John 5:22-23, et alia).
How then would the conviction have been formed that God had done such an astonishing thing, and now required this novel development in devotional practice? Well, my own proposal is that this conviction was formed through an interaction of powerful “revelatory” experiences (e.g., visions of Jesus in heavenly glory, etc.), prophetic oracles (declaring his exaltation), and intensive and creative interpretation of certain biblical texts (e.g., Isaiah 45:22-23; Psalm 110:1). (For further discussion, see, e.g., my discussion of the “Forces and Factors” in Lord Jesus Christ, 27-78). But, whatever the means/process, the key point is that earliest believers seem to have come quickly to the conviction that Jesus had been exalted to a unique heavenly status, had been given to share in the divine name and glory, and must now be reverenced in obedience to God.
In short, we have to reckon with two distinguishable convictions: Jesus as Messiah and Jesus as rightful recipient of cultic devotion. Both erupted early, perhaps simultaneously. But resurrection, by itself (i.e., restoration to life and a vindication of Jesus as Messiah), didn’t suffice for the latter conviction or the devotional practice in question. For that, a “glorification” of Jesus seems to me to have been necessary, a glorification understood as by God and requiring that Jesus be reverenced. (emphases added)
Here’s the whole post. A couple of observations:
- Note that this “mutation” of Jewish monotheism, that is, a change in the core religious practices, specifically in the corporate worship of the earliest Jewish Christians, doesn’t require any change in Old Testament theology. We have the one God, and the human Messiah. And the former raises and exalts the latter, effectively commanding his worship with, but in a way, under himself. Honor given to one raised goes further on, up to the raiser.
- Nor does the change Hurtado describes require the speculation that Jesus has a or the “divine nature.” If Hurtado is right, and I think he is, then it is an interesting question how mainstream catholics (or the proto-orthodox) or at least some of their theological elite – got to be so convinced (over the course of the second century) that in the ministry of Jesus there was not only an anointed, empowered, virgin-born man at work (working together with God) but also a man with a “divine nature” in addition to his human nature.
- To make the point more pointedly: it seems that what Hurtado describes is perfectly consistent with unitarian theology (aka belief in a “unipersonal” deity). Indeed, the most famous early modern unitarians, the Socinians, believed in worship of and prayer to the Lord Jesus. Hurtado’s point is compatible both with what I call “humanitarian” unitarianism (Jesus is a man, and doesn’t also have a divine nature) and with what I call “subordinationist” unitarianism, on which Jesus pre-exists his human life, as a divine Logos – and after this Logos becomes a man, then this being has both a divine and human nature. (But this Logos isn’t divine in the same exact way that the Father is; his divinity derives from the Father’s.)
- Is it consistent with trinitarian theology? It may depend on what that amounts to. But it is inconsistent with this assumption shared by many trinitarians: if any being is properly worshiped, this is solely because of that being’s essential nature. Such would make free divine actions and commands irrelevant to whom we should worship.
- What this development does require is getting rid of the traditional requirement to only worship Yahweh.
- Did they think Jesus then was a second god? No, in the monotheistic sense of “God” they still believed in only one God, the one Jesus called “Father,” whom they affirmed as the only God.
- They did think that Jesus was a second “God” – that is, a second being who can be properly addressed as or described as “God” – so long as he’s not confused with Yahweh. (Note that Paul is careful not to confuse them – see the start of all his letters.)
- Did they think Jesus was a lesser god? They wouldn’t say that. Being Jewish monotheists, they reserved nearly all god-talk for Yahweh, as a way of emphasizing his uniqueness. (See my paper coming out in May in the Journal of Analytic Theology on this rhetoric of monotheism.)
- But, by some definitions of “god,” yes, we can say that they thought of Jesus as another god, and the second greatest of gods, behind Yahweh, who was both a god in the generic sense and also the only GOD in the monotheistic sense.
- This is why 2nd and 3rd c. mainstream Christians – now largely out of the Jewish context – had no scruples about calling Jesus a “second god” (Justin) and saying that though Jesus is called “God,” he’s “different in number” than the one God (Origen), and even, many thought that the monotheistic God was literally older than this newer god (even though the latter existed before creation). (Tertullian) As time went on, with increasing emphasis they applied god-terms to Jesus, even while firmly distinguished him from the one true God. That is basically what all of them (laying aside “monarchians”) did when challenged about their monotheism – emphasized the uniqueness of the Father.
- And also note that this fits well with the total lack of theological agonizing in the NT. No one argues there about redefining God, or including more selves within God, redefining the sense in which God is “one,” or the claim that “God” now refers to a group of deities, or even assertions that Jesus is the ontological equal of the Father. The big disagreements concerned whether Jesus was the Messiah, whether indeed he’d been raised and exalted, and whether or not one could join his ekklesia without firm committing to a Torah-observant, Jewish lifestyle. Like the early Christians, we should say “Yes” to all of those!
- Is this an early “high” christology? If that means a christology on which Jesus must be worshiped yes. But if it means insistence on Jesus having the divine nature, it would seem not. Really, this “high” vs. “low” terminology isn’t all that helpful.
- This is not a recent change, by the way; Dr. Hurtado has been making his point about the early worship of Jesus for some time now.
Just to be clear, as far as I know, Dr. Hurtado has no interest whatever in helping the cause of biblical unitarian theology. He’s merely following the evidence where it leads. But, implications are implications. We’ll take help where we can get it.
Thanks Jaco, dialogue sharpens understanding, and you’ve done that. “Regardless of what I call my [fill in the gap] of Jesus, it is not rendered to him as to God Almighty.” Well said and, would more thinkers take pause to see it, our supposedly differing offers of ____ (whether “worship” or the possibly semantic variant “exaltation and praise”) to Jesus are prob. not actually far apart, though linguistically there may be some distance. And conceptually, as to the recipients, this is unquestionably clear, as you stated quite adequately. And… as for Jesus-olatry in the evangelical mvmt in the USA, like all movements it will prob. change shape over time as the original impetus is no longer threatening (social gospel and science in the first part of the 20th). I’m convinced that particular mvmt is already showing signs of pulling apart, though there will always be stalwarts. God Almighty is always bigger than mvmts that are convinced they finally got everything right…thankfully.
Charles
Thank you, Charles
I remember ministering to Muslims (Pakistani in particular) in my early 20s, and the great satisfaction I derived from our discussing scripture with them, particularly the Prophets and the Gospels. In such strict monotheistic cultures one truly experiences the Power of One as opposed to the Sufficiency of Three. The mere fact that I could discuss, for instance, the Genesis creation, Isaiah’s prophecies etc. indicated that they were different from South African Muslims who are theologically very strict. Muhammad and the other holy ones are silent and in peace in Janna. Back then worshiping or adoring or even communicating with Jesus wasn’t even an option of me (or the Pakistanis I interacted with). But, as you say, boundaries are porous and religious experience is greatly driven by one’s cultural environment.
But I do get the impression that you and I are on the same page. Regardless of what I call my [fill in the gap] of Jesus, it is not rendered to him as to God Almighty. This is so, simply because he is not-God by identity and by implication, therefore, not-God in status. That clarifies it beautifully. But there is still a powerful, yet dwindling, Christ-infatuation in the West, particularly from Evangelical Christianity.
Our interaction has been enjoyable, thank you. You are welcome also to contact me on email: talkingdonkey1981@gmail.com.
@Jaco
Appreciate the link and your thoughts. I agree with you in many respects, quite helpful actually.
Two thoughts I might add. You said, which I quite agree with, “the intention in the heart of the worshiper determining the extent of that worship.” I would take that a step further and affirm that “worship” is a loose term, hard to define, and say “the intention of the worshiper determines whether what he/she offers to the exalted being (whether God or Jesus) is worship or mere praise/adoration.” By way of example, there are friends of mine who consider themselves Jews and Muslims and who simultaneously exalt Jesus, submit to his teachings, and believe him as the only way of salvation to God (unorthodox Jews and Muslims to be sure, but they only self-identify religiously as Muslims and Jews, would never step foot inside a church or identify with Christianity in any of it present day forms.) They will also pray to Jesus and use words of praise but not only distinguish him from God, but also distinguish their words of praise and adoration and honor of God as “worship” from what they offer Jesus, which they say is not worship, but appropriate honor and praise due to his exaltation by God. It would be unthinkable to them that praises and prayers to Jesus would be “worship.” Therefore I would argue from their understanding and religious practice that there is a subjective intent of the heart involved in whether one is “worshiping” or merely offering praise to an exalted being.
Also, based on my 20 years living among Muslims in Asia, I would have to differ somewhat from your description of world-wide Islam in particular. In areas where I’ve lived as well as many areas I’ve heard of, Mohammed is actually viewed as a living intercessor, an intermediary being for salvation, for help in answering prayers, etc. You must be only describing a strict orthodox version of Islam, for religion is diverse, and religion is as you find it locally expressed, and it can be quite surprising. So when you say that Muslims or Jews do not do this or do not do that, you are talking from a historical, traditional boundary-set Islam or boundary-set Judaism, but this does not reflect the complex realities of the porous boundaries among the great religions of today. Messianic Muslims and Jews I’m in contact with also view Jesus as an intermediary figure, and rightfully offer praise and prayers to him in addition to their worship and prayers to God. All that to say, we’re in a new age, the kingdom of God is expanding in unusual ways, and former “religious paradigms” cannot contain or explain the phenomenon. So I am simply offering a qualification on how you described Jews and Muslims. And I am offering another way to understand the 1st century phenomenon of Jewish-Christians seemingly simultaneously “worshiping” God and Jesus (from us looking in on the texts from outside) — that is, in reality, they may very well have distinguished (like Muslim and Jewish followers of Jesus of today) their worship of God from the praise and prayers to Jesus, that only God was worshiped in the intent of their hearts.
Hi Charles,
Thanks for your discussion.
But tell me, where can I read more about the “third Sibylline Oracle that Adam was required to receive latreuo from angels”. I’m interested b/c it’s in Muslim tradition as well, would appreciate any direction for further study.
You are correct, that is part of the Muslim understanding of Adam’s sin. The only difference is that Iblis did not present himself as a serpent, but as a peacock. Anyway, you are welcome to check this out here: http://sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib10.htm. The text is from Sib. Or. VIII v. 585 – 594 (the [V] decayed in my memory, hence my erroneous reference to the third oracle. It should be the eighth.) Here, all would “serve” [latreuo] the human Adam. This confirms what I’ve stated in the past: worshipful activity toward something does not render that person identical to God. It is instead the intention in the heart of the worshiper determining the extent of that worship.
On another point, I think I am disagreeing in my previous response addressed to you with your point further above: “4) The cognitive impossibility of distinguishing between “communicating” with a hero and “worshiping” the hero as one exalted to God’s presence.”… Personal friends of mine from Jewish/ Muslim backgrounds don’t find it cognitively impossible, which is what got me interested in this topic to begin with, [etc.]
Think about it this way: The person you’re addressing is highly exalted. He is also invisible. You may experience his presence and you understand from Scripture that it is through holy spirit that he is present. This person is accessible through communication. It is also understood that this person desires for you to communicate with him. So your response is to address this person in speech. You may request him things, thank him for what he has done in the ancient past and in your life now. You may use expressions of glorification, adoration, etc. This is called, by every other name, worship. Now worship has a very wide semantic range, certain Greek terms included. How would this practically differ from doing the very same toward God Almighty? I see only three things: 1) intention of the heart, 2) specific content of prayers and 3) understanding the identity of the one address. And that is also the biblical model and the biblical justification for addressing Jesus in prayer. Muslims and Jews wouldn’t even go this far. No Muslim would address an exalted holy man or prophet in any way. Mohammed is in heaven, according to them, but he is dead silent. The same with Nuh, Musa, Yahyah, Isa, etc. So addressing per se of these holy ones is strictly prohibited. The same can be said about Jews. So, save my three points above, there is no distinction between addressing Jesus and Yahweh in prayer.
Do you think perhaps we have a “the meaning of worship is in the eye of the beholder” issue going on here in this debate about whether the first Christians worshiped Jesus?
I think so, yes. And it is hard to distinguish between the ancient understanding of worship and our modern understanding thereof, especially amid Evangelical noise.
Sean,
Open your eyes and go back and read the beginning of the comments of this discussion.
I asked this question on April 10, 2014 at 4:39 am
Can you cite an example of worship that the Father receives that is superior to the worship rendered unto the Son?
Jaco and John refused to answer the question and just attacked me….but of course you make no comment regarding what they did.
Notice that when I was communicating with Chris and Xavier I made no personal attack on them but was simply supplying evidence for my belief. Then Abel comes bumbling along on April 11, 2014 at 1:51 am
and writes this:
Marc
You are just a nuisance and not to be taken seriously!
Again Sean you make no comment about this either.
This kind of inconsistency is exactly what I pointed out to Charles and now it applies to you.
Trivial things like this (no matter how misguided they are) are employed in a sad attempt to dodge the truth of what the Bible teaches concerning the true identity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since you have nothing else then anything else will do.
@Charles,
While I appreciate the spirit that motivated your appeal to Marc Taylor, surely you realize that he *enjoys* doing what he does, don’t you? Asking him to take a “lighter touch” is equivalent to asking me to eat unsweetened chocolate. The reason I eat chocolate is for it’s sweetness; the reason MT employs a “heavy touch” (there’s a euphemism if ever there was one) is because that’s what he finds satisfying. Take away the sugar and I’d stop eating the chocolate. Take away Marc’s ability to engage in judgmentalism, incivility, rudeness, ridicule, etc, and Marc would simply stop posting altogether, because it just wouldn’t be any fun for him anymore.
~Sean
Pingback: Christology around the Blogosphere
Lack of adequate definitions?
I cited Danker, Mounce, Vine, Trench and many others and they all refute your heresy.
You rambled on how only God is to be worshiped. Then when you couldn’t refute the fact that the Lord Jesus receives the same kind of worship you freaked out.
Too bad your ‘belief of abomination’ could not stand up against the truth of God’s word.
It was and will always be….crushed.
Away oh heretic!
Marc
When you point a finger ,there are three pointing back at you.!!
It was the lack of adequate definitions which exposed the fraud
of Trinitarianism to me. !
You bastardise words like ‘person’ and ‘substance’ to try to prove your points.
The doctrine makes NO sense
Properly translated , there is NO scriptural support for the Trinity
If you had any shame you would cease pedalling your nonsense.!
I understand that you are phobic about Muslims – but you are as toxic as the the Wahabbees!
Go and pedal your delusions elsewhere!
Abel
Thank God I don’t live in a land of fairy tale definitions with the likes of Humpty Dumpty and you where a word means just what you both choose it to mean.
Marc
Thank goodness I don’t live in the fifteenth century with you as the master of the Inquisition!!
In those days tortured souls like you used to have a violent (and fiery)
outlet for their demons.
You really do regard yourself as a (self appointed) Christian warrior. !!! your only outlet has got to be blogs like this – and probably a long-suffering family!
Cheers
Abel
Today
If your standards are not inconsistent then why was I the only one you singled out?
I am not here for light hearted show. Over and over again the Triune God of the Bible is denied and attacked. So I will not lighten up at all. If others choose to make up their own word definitions and use that as their authority then they can play this childish game all they want but I will call them out on it.
Mr. Taylor, I was asking you to make a contribution while using a lighter touch (instead of using inflammatory words such as heresy, absurdity, etc.). I agree with you that the sarcasm above by others directed at your posts was also dismissive and unnecessary, and my standards are not inconsistent. We all could learn to communicate better.
As for TDNT and the term “heresy,” it’s fine if you want to continue to appeal to certain authors as authorities for your position. It’s just that many on this forum find these authors to be simply men, doing their best, but still writing extra-biblical theology — logical theology maybe (at times), consistent with the data selected (at times), but man-made theology all the same, and that the only inspired source documents that carry authority are the OT/ NT documents. All else is up for grabs in interpretation. So join in with good rhetoric, a touch of humor, and less concern about the damnation of human souls. There’s really no need to do “soul care” on this site, your efforts will simply be received as judgmental arrogance, despite your best heart-felt concerns and efforts.
The TDNT rightfully uses the word heretic to describe those who deny Christ’s Deity and so will I.
Those that deny the Deity of Christ are not being honest. They constantly refuse to believe how the words of the Bible are properly defined. I have given several examples of this (not even using the Greek word Kyrios) and still the denial continues. Unitarians would have us believe that somehow Danker, Mounce, Vine and a whole host of others got it all wrong. This really pushes into new levels of absurdity.
When asked what Greek experts the Unitarian cause has we are left with an empty space and a blank look.
I don’t care if the “majority” of the crowd that goes to this forum disagrees with me. There are plenty of lurkers who choose not to believe in fairy tale definitions to how words are properly defined. Arrogance comes into play when one chooses to see a word from the Bible and because of their insistence that the Lord Jesus is not God play make believe with the definitions of the words of the Bible.
A lighter touch? That’s funny you didn’t tell that to anyone else after reading the first few posts in this thread. So take your inconsistent standards elsewhere.
Jaco,
I appreciated your many points above in this post.
You wrote,
“Or how the universe suggests the existence of “Liewe Jesus.” Christianity today has been contorted unrecognisably over the centuries. Even their recipient of prayers is someone else!”
Yes, I’ve come across this too. Jesus is precious, and centers in NT soteriology, but creator? It’s a case of anthropomorphism gone haywire, men must have God the Father wearing a beard and Jesus alongside as his youthful son, and both are God. But tell me, where can I read more about the “third Sibylline Oracle that Adam was required to receive latreuo from angels”. I’m interested b/c it’s in Muslim tradition as well, would appreciate any direction for further study.
On another point, I think I am disagreeing in my previous response addressed to you with your point further above: “4) The cognitive impossibility of distinguishing between “communicating” with a hero and “worshiping” the hero as one exalted to God’s presence.” As I was arguing, I believe that one may communicate with and exalt/honor/praise a hero who has been exalted in God’s presence but cognitively distinguish that hero from God and cognitively distinguish one’s worship of God from the kind of praise/ honor/ adoration of said hero that may appear to others to be “worship”. My reasons were stated above. Yet you affirmed the points I made and expressed agreement. So if you still view it as a cognitive impossibility, I would like to know why/how so I can be helped in clarifying my own view. Personal friends of mine from Jewish/ Muslim backgrounds don’t find it cognitively impossible, which is what got me interested in this topic to begin with. (i.e. For them, God only is to be worshiped, Jesus is included in one’s worship –he is praised with speech, honored in the heart for his exalted place — but is not the object of worship, only God is, though from an outsiders point of view they may think Jesus is being worshiped if simply observing and listening). There are no cognitive difficulties for them in this.
As always, the key term in this discussion is what is meant by “worship”. For Muslim and Jewish followers of Jesus that I know, “worship” includes acts, attitude and mental assent. Acts of devotion (speech including praise, adoration as well as prayer posture) as well as attitude of the heart (expression of honor) along with mental assent (that acknowledges God as the one true God, the only true object of one’s sacred worship). Anything else spoken (praises, adoration in speech, honor in the heart or even body posture) in the context of worship directed to God that either addresses Jesus, acknowledges Jesus, or is spoken about Jesus is not “worship” strictly speaking of Jesus as an object. It is simply acknowledgment of his role in God’s salvation and rule. There is no cognitive dissonance for them, or worship confusion. Do you think perhaps we have a “the meaning of worship is in the eye of the beholder” issue going on here in this debate about whether the first Christians worshiped Jesus?
Thanks for clarifying,
Charles
Mr. Taylor,
Heresy is in the mind of the beholder, and it’s an outmoded term, really. Sounds like medieval, childish name calling. If we’re honest, we’re dealing with difficult, ancient documents that were collected and given status and authority for early believers. We cannot interview the authors to clarify. For example, even the term “kurios” in the Greek, which was chosen as the key term in the LXX to translate two key Hebrew words for God ‘Adonai’ and ‘YHWH’, has led to great difficulty, confounding our confident interpretations today. “Why didn’t they just transliterate adonai into greek, or yhwh into greek, so we’re all clear?” Yeah, but they didn’t, so we have what we have, which is a bit murky, the more one studies. Add to that an oftentimes selective and seemingly arbitrary use of OT scriptures used by NT authors, using interpretative methods no one today would allow for (i.e. ‘they can do it but we can’t’), and we are left to make cases, without absolute interpretive inspiration.
It seems Mr. Taylor that for you, in your summary, whomever in the scriptures appears to be “omniscient” and “omnipowerful” in the NT is thus God — this appears to be your interpretive assumption. The term “holiness” is also very important to you. And therefore Christ neatly fits into that, and anyone who does not agree with you is either not “objective” or is heretical. But this is your grid, your starting point, your central thesis that you’re squeezing date through (as is everyone). Yet I can’t help but think you’re not satisfied with others who disagree with you. Perhaps you belong on another board, where others are closer to your staring point, for this one is slanted in the unitarian direction and includes many who are not satisfied by traditional Christian (institutional-level) interpretations about God and Christ. No one is in awe of the authorities you cite for your interpretations. And the reality is, there are complex questions of the original text which you treat as simple and conclusive within your system of interpretation. Is your interpretive system inspired? Original manuscripts are traditionally viewed as inspired, but as far as I know, no one claims their personal theology is inspired. It’s always “this is our creed” or “this is our statement of faith”, not “this is the inspired creed summarizing the bible’s teaching of God and Christ.” What is determined by men through their theologizing is not inspired theology but boundaries for their fellowships. God-inspired original manuscripts is commonly accepted across Christian traditions, not God-inspired theologizing.
So your thoughts tend to not only be unpersuasive for the majority of this crowd, your writing style also comes across as arrogant and dismissive. The art of rhetoric (persuasiveness) involves a lighter touch in your communicative approach. Those perusing here are looking for substance and more help to answer serious questions of the original text and traditional dogma, and would appreciate a contribution.
The fact that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer/worship proves that He is God because:
1. It proves His omniscience and omnipotence.
2. It proves His absolute holiness which God alone possesses.
Of course you won’t be addressing my comments because your heresy can not be defended.
Readers might find this debate with Marc Taylor interesting. It was held in 2010.
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Danny%20Dixon%20vs.%20Marc%20Taylor%20–%20Debate%202.pdf
Marc
Why do you keep on propogating this nonsense?
Of course I agree that Jesus Christ is Lord
Of course I accept that ‘every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father
The reason for all of this is that God made it so!
God made Him Lord and Messiah.
Why do you keep chasing your tail?
You are most tiresome and I shall not be addressing your comments again.
John
1. I don’t need to depend on the KJV for Acts 7:59. So you are attacking a straw man.
a. Danker: Just as Israel was to understand her role as one of obedience to the God who saved her, so the Christian is to see the moral and ethical implications of this recognition of Christ’s claim to ownership expressed so often in such a phrase as “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus.” Out of such conviction the iron of steadfast confession was smelted. As the stones came flying at Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59) (Creeds in the Bible, page 45, c. 1966).
b. TDNT Stephen prays: kurie Iesou dezai to pneuma mou (Ac.7:59) (5:771, paradeisos, Joachim Jeremias).
c.. Mounce: Jesus is the addressee when epikalew is used in the sense of praying (Acts 7:59) (Mounce’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Call, page 93).
d. Robertson: {They stoned} (eliqoboloun). Same verb and tense repeated, they kept on stoning, they kept it up as he was calling upon the Lord Jesus and making direct prayer to him as “Lord Jesus” (kurie iesou)
http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robertact7.htm
e. Vincent: An unquestionable prayer to Christ.
http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincentact7.htm
f. Vine: Prayer is properly addressed to God the Father, Matt. 6:6; John 16:23; Eph. 1:17; 3:14, and the Son, Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 12:8 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Prayer, page 872).
g. Bruce: This is surely an early, if tacit, testimony to the Christian belief in our Lord’s essential deity (The Book of the Acts, page 171).
h. David Peterson: But he pointedly ‘calls upon’ the Lord Jesus in prayer instead of the Father, trusting him for salvation through death and beyond. Thus, he articulates his belief in the divinity of Christ. Then ‘he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them”. Jesus prayed to the Father that those crucified him might be forgiven (Lk. 23:34), and Stephen prays for the forgiveness of those stoning him, once again addressing Jesus as Lord (Pillar New Testament Commentary, Acts, page 269).
———————–
2. Peter also cites Psalm 34:8 in reference to the Lord Jesus in 1 Peter 2:3 thus your point is invalid. Furthermore, Peter teaches the omniscience of the Lord Jesus in 1 Peter 2:25 – which is necessary to hear all the prayers offered unto Him which 1 Peter 3:12 refers to – and then even after 1 Peter 3:12 he teaches the worship of the Lord Jesus in 1 Peter 3:15.
Let’s see the proof you have that 1 Peter 3:12 does not refer to Christ.
——————-
3. I never asserted that God is bowing down before Christ…another straw man of yours.
1. There are only three other passages as found in the New Testament (only by Paul) where “bow” (kamptw) is used – and everyone refers to worship (Romans 11:4; 14:11; Ephesians 3:14).
2. TDNT: kamptein gonu (gonata) is the gesture of full inner submission in worship to the one before whom we bow the knee. Thus in R. 14:11 bowing the knee is linked with confession within the context of a judgment scene, and in Phil. 2:10 it again accompanies confession with reference to the worship of the exalted Kyrios Jesus by the cosmos. At R. 14:11 kamptein gonu te Baal signifies surrender to Baal, and at Eph. 3:14 the formula kamptw ta gonata pros ton theon is a solemn description of the attitude of submission to God in prayer (3:594-595, kamptw, Schlier).
3. Thayer: to bow the knee, of those worshipping God or Christ: Ro. 11:4; Eph. 3:14; Ro 14:11 (1 K. 19:18); Phil. 2:10 (Is. 45:23) (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, gonu, page 120).
4. Vine: to bend, is used especially of bending the knees in religious veneration, Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Eph. 3:14; Phil. 2:10 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Bow – kamptw, page 135).
5. Murray Harris: Object of worship (Phil. 2:10-11) (Jesus as God, An Outline to the New Testament Testimony to the Deity of Christ, page 316).
6. Holman Bible Dictionary: Kneeling was the posture of prayer (Daniel 6:10; Acts 7:60; Acts 9:40; Acts 20:3; Ephesians 3:14; compare 1 Kings 18:42), acknowledging a superior (2 Kings 1:13 ; Matthew 17:14; Matthew 27:29; Mark 1:40; Mark 10:17; Luke 5:8), or worship of God (1 Kings 8:54), Jesus (Philippians 2:10), or idols (1 Kings 19:18; Isaiah 66:3 where blessing an idol refers to kneeling before an idol)
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?n=3696
All three passages still refute your heresy.
Marc
You never fail to disappoint!
It would take the rest of the day to follow all your ‘rabbits down holes’!
Much of what you say is vague and arguable – ‘void for vagueness’ as laywers would say.
Let me just dwell on a couple of scriptures you mention-
1 Peter 3 v 12
In the KJV this reads
“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the name of the Lord saying
‘Lord Jesus receive my spirit’ ”
This is translated from the Greek
“kai elithoboloun ton stephanon epikaloumenon kai legonta kyrie lesou dexai to pneuma mou”
The KJV version was based on the Textus Receptus which is now discredited in scholarly circles.
Note that I have left a gap between epikaloumenon and kai!
The word ‘God’ is not in the scriptures!
The NAB Bible translates the verse ‘They kept on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord saying ”
Lord Jesus receive my spirit”
This is arguable -but acceptable to Unitarians since Christ is the intercessor between God and man.
You then quote 1 Peter 3 12
“… for the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous…”
Have you noticed that in most Bibles verses 10-12 are in a different type?
Thats because the words are ‘plucked ‘from the OT. where they are addressed to God.
You now assume that the words apply to Christ!!!
You refer to Philippians 2 v 10 which has been adequately addressed in recent blogs.
Just note however that ‘every knee shall bow to those in heaven and on earth..”
refers to the risen Christ.
It was God who elevated Christ and made Him “Lord and Messiah’
The issue of ‘domain’ comes in here.. Obviously God is not bowing down before Christ.!!
Marc, I believe that you only see what you have been programmed to see -which is a pity.!
Who did Christ say he was going to in John 20?
Who is the only true God in John 17?
Who did Christ tell us to pray to?
Who did Christ pray to?
WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD THAN THE ONE CHRIST SERVED AND WORSHIPPED
Best Wishes
John
1. The Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is said to be worshiped in equality with the Father (John 5:23).
2. To “call upon the name of the Lord” is always used of worship of God in the OT. The expression is applied to the Lord Jesus in the NT (Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16; Romans 10:13, 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:22).
3. The Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is the recipient of proseuchomai (Acts 1:24).
4. The Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is the recipient of deesis (1 Peter 3:12).
5. The Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is the recipient of prayer by Stephen (Acts 7:59) and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:8).
6. The Bible teaches in several passages that Paul appealed to the Lord Jesus is prayer (1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17; 3:16) and taught the worship of Him (Philippians 2:10). Peter taught the worship of Him as well (1 Peter 3:15)
7. The Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is the recipient of latreuo (Revelation 22:3).
8. The Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is the recipient of several doxologies (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:5-6).
How anyone can say that the Lord Jesus is not to be prayed to/worshiped is simply not looking at the evidence objectively.
Hi Charles,
You are raising excellent points, and I am with you on all of them. Christians in general are in worshipful infatuation with Jesus. The man has become an idol and such worship is nothing else but “Jesus-olatry,” as James Dunn calls it. The “signifier” has become the “Signified.” Here in South Africa it is so funny to hear people in God-talk referring to “Liewe Jesus” (Sweet Jesus) as the one who made us. Or how the universe suggests the existence of “Liewe Jesus.” Christianity today has been contorted unrecognisably over the centuries. Even their recipient of prayers is someone else!
Thanks for your thoughts,
Jaco,
You wrote,
What practical alternatives would there be, other than addressing Jesus Christ in speech? I don’t think such a practice can be called anything else but “prayer” and in the context of religious practice, “worship.” What would you say?
Regarding “worship”, I would think it is quite probable that as early Jewish-Christians continued their worship of the one God of Israel in their temple worship in Jerusalem, they met in homes and modified their temple worship style. For one, the context would have been so different, without a high priest leading it. But I would argue not that the early Palestinian followers of the way modified their worship to now include Jesus as the object of their worship, rather that Jesus began to be included (short prayers of thankfulness for Jesus, praises to God for Jesus) in their worship of the one God. Probably over time Jesus began to be praised, honored, exalted directly in speech as such believers worshiped the one God and understood him be spiritually present via God’s spirit as well as possessing God-given authority and sovereignty, but Jesus was still conceptually held to be distinct from God (how could he not be held distinct? He was God’s sent Messiah in their time and context).
This development would not be difficult to imagine for monotheistic Jews of the 1st century, nor is it difficult (and this is in my personal experience) to understand when we look at modern-day followers of Jesus who are Jewish or Muslim, followers who take seriously and unequivocally the clear teachings in Torah about God is one but who follow Jesus as the way of salvation. As Jesus’ significance of Messiah takes hold conceptually, he cannot help but feature in a follower’s worship, but it’s still held to be worship of God, not of Jesus. Jewish or Muslim followers of Jesus that I’m speaking of today draw a clear line between appropriate worship of God that includes praise/honor of Jesus, and unacceptable (blasphemous) worship of God that makes Jesus an object of worship. This tension is not difficult for them to maintain, though it is very difficult for those less sophisticated who come from less strict monotheistic backgrounds (e.g. non-Jewish and non-Muslim Christians both trinitarians and unitarians). So based on my experience with modern-day believers who are able to hold this tension conceptually in their worship, I infer that it would not have been difficult for 1st century Jewish-Christians either — especially as we see so few verses even alluding to Jesus being included in prayer or worship.
Now I know that those who come from less strict monotheistic backgrounds might say, ‘hey, if Jesus is included in worship, how is that not worship of him has an object’. But those from strict monotheistic backgrounds, as I’ve said, find it quite easily to distinguish worship of God that includes honor/ adoration/ praise of Jesus without it violating the teaching that God is one. That is, God receives “worship”, as only God is allowed to receive worship, but Jesus receives praise/honor/adoration (sth similar to veneration in Catholic tradition almost, but on a higher level with some differences). So in their minds and hearts they would never consider praise and adoration offered to Jesus in prayer to be “worship” (strictly speaking). That thought would never cross their minds. For “worship” is a special and sacred act of devotion reserved only for God, but prayers, praises and adoration of Jesus can be included in one’s worship of God…it’s just that Jesus is not the direct receiver of “worship.” For Jesus cannot receive worship (in their minds and hearts) — that would be placing partners alongside of God, which would be tantamount to idol worship. So my point is that in the minds/hearts of followers of Jesus who are believers in the one true God, there can be a seriousness and sacredness and a clear boundary marker attached to the term “worship”, that its object can only be God, but at the same time Jesus can feature in that worship without threatening the God who, the object of their worship.
Thanks, your thoughts?
Xavier,
God alone is absolutely holy. In fact, it is His name (Psalm 111:9; Luke 1:49).
No one else can rightfully claim that. So your assertions fails.
a. M. William Ury: All of heaven’s hosts, Israel, and the church ascribe praise to a holy God because that idea sets him apart from everything else (Exodus 15:11; Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). Holiness is what God is. (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Holy, Holiness)
http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?n=341
b. Andrew E. Hill: The God of the Old Testament is utterly holy and thus transcendent, inaccessible, mysterious, and inscrutable (Psalm 99:3-9). But if this alone were true about God, why worship such a terrible and awesome deity? Happily, this same God is also the “Holy One among you” (Hosea 11:9), a God who at once dwells “in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit” (Isaiah 57:15). God merits worship because in his imminent presence he is able to answer those who call upon him and forgive their wrongdoings (Psalm 99:8). It was this intimate presence of a holy God that prompted heartfelt praise and worship (Psalm 99:3) and the keen desire for holy living among the people of Israel (Leviticus 19:2 ). (Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Worship)
http://www.studylight.org/dic/bed/view.cgi?n=745
c. Robert L. Thomas: It’s basic meaning of “sacred” means that God’s sacred character is one reason for universal worship of Him (Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, page 238).
d. TDNT: He and He alone is worthy to be praised and perfectly blameless, maintaining righteousness and truth without abridgment or disruption, and bringing salvation by His acts (5:492, holy-osios, Hauck).
Nowhere is Christ referred to as the Almighty?
Almighty: (1) having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God or a deity (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 41, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
Matthew 28:18 teaches the Lord Jesus is omnipotent/Almighty:
thew 28:18 teaches that the Lord Jesus possesses “all-power” in all places (heaven and earth) which is the same thing as being Almighty (see the definitions above).
a. TDNT: His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth (1:679, ge, Sasse).
b. A.H. Leitch: Christ possesses the attributes of God: omnipotence (Matt. 28:18) (2:92, deity of Christ, The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible).
c. Thayer: Christ, appointed by God the leader and lord of the citizens of the divine kingdom, is said to have all power in heaven and on earth, Mt. 28:18 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ouranos, page 465).
d. NIDNTT: The exaltation of the Son confirms that all authority (-> Might) has been given to him (Matt. 28:18) (NIDNTT 1:95, All, F. Graber ).
e. NIDNTT: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to the Risen One (Matt. 28:18) (NIDNTT 2:194, Heaven, H. Bietenhard).
f. Vine: the power of one whose will and commands must be obeyed by others, e.g., Matt. 28:18 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Authority, page 81).
g. Danker: the right to control or command, authority, absolute power, warrant
Of Jesus’ total authority Mt 28:18 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, exousia, page 353).
h. TDNT: The inclusion of heaven and earth in the saving event in Jesus Christ means that no entity in heaven or on earth can possess autonomy: Mt. 28:18. By the resurrection all power has been placed exclusively in the hands of the risen Lord (5:518, ouranos, Traub).
i. NIDOTTE: Jesus Christ, after his resurrection, was given all power in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18) (4:166, samayim, David Toshio Tsumura).
The Lord Jesus possesses all-power which is the same thing as saying the Lord Jesus is Almighty (God).
Your second assertion also fails.
Charles,
Thank you for your contribution.
Good points, I too doubt whether “worship” was offered by Jewish Christians. Hurtado’s evidence is open to multiple interpretations…he cites Jesus’ presence during the Lord’s Supper and makes a lot out of verses such as “Maranatha–Come Lord Jesus Come” and “those who call upon the Lord Jesus…” as referring to cultic worship that reveal a modification (“mutation”) to include Jesus.
Quite correct. Hurtado has a knack of perusing the evidence, elaborating on only certain points favorable to his point, and then coming to a conclusion after prematurely dismissing counterevidence. That’s Hurtado. I’ve said it before that it was never the act of worship that rendered the recipient thereof more or less divine. It’s exactly the other way around: The identity of the recipient and the status of that one associated with the identity, informed the content and extent of the worship. This whole classification business lock-jawed Evangelicals resort to have them chasing their own tails en masse. Understanding who the One and Only True God is and understanding the ancient Jewish arrangement of delegation of divine authority should put this issue ultimately to bed. But cognitive dissonance can have you chase after spectres like poor Don Quixote.
We know how Jesus’ presence was understood (similar to Paul’s being present with his followers in 1 Cor. 5:3-5) by the clear admission in Acts 2:33, namely because of his receiving God’s spirit (here several challenges for Trinitarians, since the one who receives implies his lacking what he is about to receive, it shows dependence upon the one doing the giving as well as non-equality in status or authority. All these by definition render the recipient not-God). So there’s no proof of Christ divinity by necessity here. Maurice Casey has also discussed the Maranatha expression, but coming to the exact opposite conclusion:
”[Maranatha] locates the hope for Jesus’ return in the Aramaic-speaking church. The fact that it is preserved in Aramaic in a Greek epistle shows that it was felt to be part of the church’s identity… It indicates that Jesus was viewed as a superior heavenly being, and a central figure of identity and authority to whom the church was subject. It does not, however, equate him with God.” – From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, p. 110.
Calling on the name of Jesus certainly does not amount to cultic worship. The first Christians believed Jesus to have been the most essential part of God’s plan for humanity. Jesus was the exact image of what faithful humanity should look like, which implies also reflection of divine glory. These Christians also felt it necessary to express their confession of Jesus’ role and authority in this divine plan. All four Gospels attest to the importance of acknowledging Jesus. Jesus’ authority, his role, his mediatorship (all captured in his name) are therefore appealed to, or evoked (compare Ac. 25:11 and 28:19 showing precisely this in normative settings). Hurtado is in error.
Seems to me Dale has settled his own mind that worship of Jesus is allowed if God commands it, but the whole case still rests on shaky ground… Revelation is not the firmest literature genre to settle the matter, really…Christians viewed Jesus’ role as mediator (an “icon” [gk: eikon/ image]–a window through which (or by means of) the believers offered their prayer and worship to God, but Jesus certainly not the object of the early Christians’ prayer and worship. This is a much more plausible account of the scriptures on the whole.
Correct, hence my position that Jesus as representative stood for Someone else. In the Sibylline oracles Adam stood for Someone else, hence the command to render him latreuo. The NT doesn’t even go that far – ever. The image was therefore necessary to represent the Original, hence, among other reasons, Jesus’ inclusion in prayers.
Finally, in my observation of websites promoting unitarian belief such as this one, the worship of Jesus is still held sacred…
Sure, but again the understanding of who he is and who God is, distinguish it subjectively. Remember that the early Christians felt that they could still communicate with Jesus. Jesus would still be present in spirit. What practical alternatives would there be, other than addressing Jesus Christ in speech? I don’t think such a practice can be called anything else but “prayer” and in the context of religious practice, “worship.” What would you say?
For a) it’s not relevant to unitarianism if it can be justified that God can change his mind and command worship of an agent He exalts and b) (probably more influential) the worship of Jesus is already a ‘scared practice’ in many unitarians’ own worship that won’t be modified despite the lack of evidence. And we all know concepts change easier than liturgical practices.
I don’t think there’s been a change in God’s mind. I think there were other settings from which Jesus adoration could have been gleaned, such as the angelomorphic address of “Lord,” in the temple context worshiping the highpriest as image-bearer of God, or, for the same reasons, worshiping the true Adam (Jesus). I’m not sure if the subjective experience of Unitarians worshiping Jesus is the same as when they were Trinitarians. It is not a major issue in my personal worship.
Thanks for your great thoughts. Hope to hear more of you.
Jaco
Hi Xavier
As 1 Peter 1v 4 states, believers i.e. Unitarians, come to share in the divine nature !
One might also care to look at
Romans 8 vs 14-17
Hebrews 3 v 14
1 John 13
1 Corinthians 15 v 49.
Just joking about Unitarians above!!
Blessings
Abel
Marc,
How can the Lord Jesus not be God since He shares in the same holiness that God “alone” possesses?
Because believers are LIKEWISE said to “share in the same holiness” [John 10.16; 17.21-22; 2Pe 1.4].
Can you cite an example of worship that the Father receives that is superior to the worship rendered unto the Son?
Yes, every time the Father is worshipped as the LORD God Almighty. The examples in Revelation are particularly emphatic of this since NOWHERE is Christ referred to as the Almighty.
“BDAG 755 s.v. ??????????? states, “the Almighty, All-Powerful, Omnipotent (One) only of God…(?) ?????? ? ???? ? ?. …Rv 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 21:22.”
To call upon the name of the Lord refers to praying to/worshiping the Lord and it is used in “direct” reference to the Lord Jesus in such places as Romans 10:13; 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Timothy 2:22.
1. Robertson and Plummer: This goes back to Joel 2.32, and involves the thought of faith, the common bond of all. See Rom. 10.12, 13. Here, as there, St. Paul significantly brings in the worship of Christ under the O.T. formula for worship addressed to the LORD God of Israel. To be a believer is to worship Christ (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, page 3).
2. Vincent: Call upon the name Compare Romans x. 12; Acts ii. 21. The formula is from the Septuagint. See Zech. xiii. 9; Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 4; Psalm cxv. 17. It is used of worship, and here implies prayer to Christ.
http://www.godrules.net/library/vinc…ncent1cor1.htm
3. R.T. France: It is striking first to note the ‘definition’ of Christians in 1 Corinthians 1:2 as ‘those who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’. Not only does the phrase itself indicate that prayer to Jesus was a normal and distinguishing characteristic of Christians in the 50’s, but ‘to call on the name of the Lord’ is a regular OT formula for worship and prayer offered to God (Gen. 4:26, 13:4; Ps. 105:1; Jer. 10:25; Joel 2:32, etc.) (“The Worship of Jesus – A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?”, Vox Evangelica 12, c.1981, pages 19-33 -> The quote here appears on page 28 under 3. “The Letters of Paul”).
4. Spicq: “Let every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord,” that is, God. Such is the object of faith profession and worship: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” Henceforth, Christians are those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, who worship his divine majesty and implore his sovereign protection (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Lord, 2:350).
This calling upon the name of the Lord in reference to the Lord Jesus is cultic worship. See April 10, 2014 at 7:26 am
Furthermore it has already been shown that Christ is the recipient of latreuo. See April 10, 2014 at 4:14 pm
So for you to assert otherwise is really pathetic when the evidence so clearly teaches what you deny..
In John 5:23 honor does mean worship.
1. One of the ways the Lord Jesus honored the Father (John 8:49) was by praying to/worshiping Him (Matthew 11:25). Since God is honored by our prayers and worship of Him so too then the Son is honored by our prayers and worship of Him. Refusal to pray to/worship the Son dishonors the Father.
2. Both Danker and Thayer cite John 1:23 and Acts 15:8 with John 5:23 demonstrating that the Greek word “kathws” (even as) means equally in John 5:23 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, kathws, page 493), (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kathws, page 314).
3. Robertson: Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonoring Jesus is dishonoring the Father who sent him (8:49; 12:26; 15:23; 1 John 2:23). See also Luke 10:16. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship.
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=5
4. Vine: the duty of all to honour the Son equally with the Father, 5:23 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Honour, page 561).
5. Murray Harris: Object of worship (John 5:23) (Jesus as God, An Outline to the New Testament Testimony to the Deity of Christ, page 316).
6. Wesley: That all men may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father – Either willingly, and so escaping condemnation, by faith: or unwillingly, when feeling the wrath of the Judge. This demonstrates the EQUALITY of the Son with the Father. If our Lord were God only by office or investiture, and not in the unity of the Divine essence, and in all respects equal in Godhead with the Father, he could not be honoured even as, that is, with the same honour that they honoured the Father. He that honoureth not the Son – With the same equal honour, greatly dishonoureth the Father that sent him.
http://www.studylight.org/com/wen/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=5
7. Guzik: That all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father: This is a further claim to deity. If the Son were not God, then it would be wrong to honor the Son just as they honor the Father. It also means that if we do not honor the Son, we do not really honor the Father either.
http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=5
8. D. A. Carson: The reason why the Father has entrusted all judgment to the Son is now disclosed: it is so that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. Whatever functional subordination may be stressed in this section, it guarantees, as we have seen, that the Son does everything that the Father does (cf. notes on vv. 19-20); and now Jesus declares that its purpose is that the Son may be at one with the Father not only in activity but in honour. This goes far beyond making Jesus a mere ambassador who acts in the name of the monarch who sent him, an envoy plenipotentiary whose derived authority is the equivalent of his master’s. That analogue breaks down precisely here, for the honour given to an envoy is never that given to the head of state. The Jews were right in detecting that Jesus was ‘making himself equal with God’ (vv. 17-18). But this does not diminish God. Indeed, the glorification of the Son is precisely what glorifies the Father (cf. notes on 12:28), just as in Philippians 2:9-11, where at the name of Jesus every knew bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, and all this to the glory of God the Father. Because of the unique relation between the Father and the Son, the God who declares ‘I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another’ (Is. 42:8; cf. Is. 48:11) is not compromised or diminished when divine honours crown the head of the Son. Granted that the purpose of the Father is that all should honour the Son, it is but a small step to Jesus’ conclusion: He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him. In a theistic universe, such a statement belongs to one who is himself to be addressed as God (cf. 20:28), or to stark insanity. The one who utters such things is to be dismissed with pity or scorn, or worshiped as Lord. If with much current scholarship we retreat to seeing in such material less the claims of the Son than the beliefs and witness of the Evangelist and his church, the same options confront us. Either John is supremely deluded and must be dismissed as a fool, or his witness is true and Jesus is to ascribed honours due God alone, There is no rational middle ground. (Carson, The Gospel According to John [William Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.], pp. 254-255).
Jaco,
Good points, I too doubt whether “worship” was offered by Jewish Christians. Hurtado’s evidence is open to multiple interpretations…he cites Jesus’ presence during the Lord’s Supper and makes a lot out of verses such as “Maranatha–Come Lord Jesus Come” and “those who call upon the Lord Jesus…” as referring to cultic worship that reveal a modification (“mutation”) to include Jesus. The same scriptural evidence can just as easily be interpreted to show that Jesus served a mediatorial role in early Jewish-Chrsitian worship or prayers, not the object of their worship or prayers. And can even a legitimate case be made that Palestinian Jewish-Christian worship practice modified to this extent?
Honor, praise, adoration given to Jesus by early Christians? Probably. Cultic worship? No… scant evidence that can only be stretched or inferred. On the contrary, too many clear teachings upholding the worship of God alone, particularly by Jesus himself.
Seems to me Dale has settled his own mind that worship of Jesus is allowed if God commands it, but the whole case still rests on shaky ground. For “honor the son” does not necessarily mean “worship the Son”, and where’s the “command”? Is the case shut and closed based on a vision in apocalyptic literature (Revelation) to silence the matter, that God commands worship of Jesus? Not convincing. Revelation is not the firmest literature genre to settle the matter, really. Dunn’s “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus” lays it all out in much more realistic terms than Hurtado (with whom he dialogues), that the early Christians viewed Jesus’ role as mediator (an “icon” [gk: eikon/ image]–a window through which (or by means of) the believers offered their prayer and worship to God, but Jesus certainly not the object of the early Christians’ prayer and worship. This is a much more plausible account of the scriptures on the whole. Hard pressed to find God commanding worship of Jesus anywhere in scriptures.
Finally, in my observation of websites promoting unitarian belief such as this one, the worship of Jesus is still held sacred…proponents of unitarians such as Dale are already weighted down heavily over the issue of the trinity that they won’t take this one on, and perhaps understandably so. For a) it’s not relevant to unitarianism if it can be justified that God can change his mind and command worship of an agent He exalts and b) (probably more influential) the worship of Jesus is already a ‘scared practice’ in many unitarians’ own worship that won’t be modified despite the lack of evidence. And we all know concepts change easier than liturgical practices.
Your thoughts?
Charles
In worship the Father is the recipient of glory, honor and power in Revelation 4:11 which are the same words ascribed to the Son in worship in Revelation 5:12.
No difference.
The reason why you and everyone else can not find even just one difference is because….there isn’t any.
Because God is absolutely holy He is to be worshiped (Revelation 15:4) and since the same meanings of words used for the worship of God apply equally to the Lord Jesus this proves the Lord Jesus shares in the same level of holiness that God “alone” has.
Time for those that deny the Lord Jesus is God to throw in the towel.
.
Marc
“can you cite an example of worship that the Father receives that is superior to the worship rendered unto the Son”
Yes
The Father is worshipped as God
TheSon is worshipped because The Father has elevated Him.
Revelation 4
v8 ” …….. Holy Holy Lord God Almighty who was and is and who is to come”
v 11″ Worthy are you Lord our God to receive Glory and honour and power for
you created all things….”
Revelation 5
In the assembled throng was a :Lamb
v 9 They sang a new hymn
Worthy are you to receive the scroll for you were slain with your blood you
ourchased for God”
(Interested to hear how you define God here?)
Christ was worthy because the Lord God Almighty deemed him so- and was
worshipped for precisely the same reason.
Marc, you are tiresome, even to a normally patient personlike myself!
Admit the simple truth -it really is so simple!
Abel
Abel,
Cite the specific passages in Revelation 5 and 6 you are referring to. Be specific.
Admit defeat when you couldn’t even answer both questions I asked in my previous post? Get real.
Here they are again:
1. How can the Lord Jesus not be God since He shares in the same holiness that God “alone” possesses?
2. Can you cite an example of worship that the Father receives that is superior to the worship rendered unto the Son?
It’s time to throw away this heresy you cling to once and for all.
Marc
You are just a nuisance and not to be taken seriously!
Two of the scriptures you quote (1 Peter 3.12 and Revelation 15.4) are plucked direct from the OT and refer to YHWH
.Your references to Revelation 20 and 22 are highly contentious cannot be used to prove anything.
A previous contributor has referred to Revelation Chapters 5 and 6.
It is in these chapters that we find the most powerful imagery of the Heavenly Kingdom.
In Chapter 5 YHWH is being worshipped as the creator of the heavens and the earth.
In chapter 6 Christ is being worshipped as a result of being made Lord and Messiah -BY GOD.
Is the Lamb depicted as being among the assembled throng the same paerson as ‘the one who sits on the throne.?
Your ramblings seem to lack any sense of proportion – you just ramble on quoting scholars you admire
(nee worship) without exercising your critical faculty.
Why not just admit defeat and call it a day?
Abel
Xavier,
Is there another passage in Revelation that will demonstrate by its syntax that the Lamb is being referred to when it reads “Him” in Revelation 22:3?
Revelation 20:6 reads:
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. (NASB)
According to verse 4 the “Him” of Revelation 20:6 refers to the Lamb.
Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (NASB)
Revelation 20:6 then lets us know that the Lamb is included as the recipient of latreuo in Revelation 22:3.
Since I just provided an example from the Book of Revelation to support my assertion can you provide one from the same book that supports yours?
There are plenty of scholars who agree that both God and the Lamb receive latreuo in this passage.
a. TDNT: The servants of God bear on their foreheads the seal of God, the name of Christ and God. This protects them against divine judgment, against the apocalyptic plagues, Rev. 7:3; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4 (4:635, metwpon, Carl Schneider).
b. TDNT: As Victor He is the Lord of lords and King of kings (17:14; 19:16), celebrating His marriage festival with the community (19:9) and ruling His own as partner of the throne of God (22:1, 3) (1:341, arnion, J. Jeremias)
c. Vine: to God and Christ ( “the Lamb” ), Revelation 22:3 (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Serve, page 1021).
d. Robertson: “Their” (autwn) means the wrath of God and of the Lamb put here on equality as in 22:3 (Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Revelation 6:17).
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=65&ch=6
e G.K. Beale: That “they will serve him” likely does not refer only to God or only to the Lamb. The two are conceived so much as a unity that the singular pronoun can refer to both. This may find a parallel in 6:17b…possibly in reference to both God and the Lamb (see on 6:17; cf. also 11:15). That both are sitting on only one throne and together form one temple (21:22) enhances their perceived unity (The Book of Revelation, page 1113).
f. G.R. Beasley-Murray: But observe: his servants serve him. Whose servants, and who is served? God, or the Lamb, or God and the Lamb? It is difficult to interpret the statement in reference to the Lamb alone, who is the immediate antecedent of his. Still more difficult is it to refer to God alone. We must assume, therefore, that the third alternative is correct: God and the Lamb are viewed as a unity in so real a fashion that the singular pronoun alone is suitable to interpret them.#1
Footnote #1: So Holt, who observes that the same phenomenon is observable in 11:15, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever…’ The unity is the reason why the Christ is seated on the throne with God. ‘The Christ stands in God’s place, without thereby removing God himself to an unapproachable distance; they melt into a unity of function. God’s role as Lord over the world and Regent of the end time has at the same time become that of the Christ’ (op. cit., pp. 202f) (The Book of Revelation, page 332).
g. R.T. France: not only is Jesus (‘the Lamb’) regularly associated with God in His glory and sovereignty (e.g. Rev. 7:14-17; 11:15; 12:10; 14:1, 4; 20:6; 21:22f.; 22:1-4)#29 but worship and praise are offered to Him equally with the Father (Rev. 1:5f.; 5:8-14; 7:9-12; 22:3).
Footnote #29: Note the remarkable use of singular pronouns to refer to ‘God and the Lamb’ in 22:3f.; cf. 11:15; 20:6. (“The Worship of Jesus – A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?”, Vox Evangelica 12, c. 1981, pages 19-33 -> This quote is found on page 30).
h. Robert L. Thomas: The singular pronoun autw capitalizes on the unity of the Father and the Son (cf. John 10:30). It is difficult to see this priestly service rendered to one of the two persons to the exclusion of the other (cf. 11:15) (Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary, page 486-487).
Concerning Isaiah 45:14 unsaved people may not know it is wrong to do this (Acts 10:25, 26). In fact, even newly saved people are apt to make this mistake – Naaman in the house of Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18).
The Lord Jesus receives deesis in 1 Peter 3:12. Why limit it to Paul alone?
Furthermore, He receives proseuchomai in Acts 1:24 so why simply focus on only one word for prayer? Look a all the evidence.
Also from my post from April 10th concerning Revelation 15:4:
Because God is absolutely holy He is to be worshiped and since the same meanings of words used for the worship of God apply equally to the Lord Jesus this proves the Lord Jesus shares in the same level of holiness that God “alone” has.
So my two questions are:
1. How can the Lord Jesus not be God since He shares in the same holiness that God “alone” possesses?
2. Since Jaco and John are unable to answer this question I pose it to others as well:
Can you cite an example of worship that the Father receives that is superior to the worship rendered unto the Son?
Xavier,
Marc Taylor is not looking for evidence in support of our position. He’s looking for endorsement of his. If we can’t endorse his position, he’s not interested. Bro., thanks for your great points, but they mean to Taylor as little as scientific evidence of a round earth to a Flat-earther. It’s an exercise in futility and we indulge him by continually trying to break through the doctrinally roasted brain. I think we should let him have his sweet dreams.
Marc,
I think you strain Rev 22.3 to say Jesus is being latreuo there since this is followed by “HIS servants latreuo HIM”. So unless you’re Oneness its hard to see how this refers to Jesus. Especially in light of the fact that the word is EXCLUSIVELY used for God the Father ALONE throughout the NT:
• Where the subject is God (Mat 4:10; Luk 1:74; 2:37; 4:8; Act 7:7; 24:14; 27:23; Rom 1:9; Phi 3:3; 2Ti 1:3; Heb 9:14; 12:28; Rev 22:3);
• used in an absolute sense (Act 26:7; Sept.: Deu 6:13; 10:12; Jos 24:15);
• To offer sacrifice, to worship (Heb 9: 9; 10:2; cf. Sept.: Ex 3:12; 7:16).
“…there is no instance of latreuein [to do religious service to] which has Christ as its object.”
Wainright, The Trinity in the New Testament, p 103.
“It is equally notable that [the Apostle Paul uses] the normal prayer terms (deomai, deesis)…to God and NEVER to Christ… [He] is neither simply the content of the thanksgiving (the phrase is dia with the genitive “through”, not dia with the accusative “on account of”[cp. Col 1.16]), NOT ITS RECIPIENT…Such UNIFORMITY in Paul’s usage should certainly make us HESITATE before asserting that Paul ’worshipped’ Christ, since the evidence MORE CLEARLY indicates otherwise.”
Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p 257-260 [CAPS mine].
Furthermore, we know from the OT that worship in general was given to humans and angels almost as much as YHWH Himself. The strongest example being Isa 45.14 where the nation of Israel will be worshipped and PRAYED to by others:
“They will worship [Israel] and pray [palal] to you.”
LXX: “They shall worship [proskunesousin; root, proskuneo] and pray [prosevxontai; root, prosevxomai] to you.”
“Israel’s vassals are portrayed as so intimidated and awed that they treat Israel as an intermediary to God or sub-deity.” NET Bible
“‘Falling down’ can be an act of obeisance to human beings (e.g. Ps 72.10-11)…But ‘pleading’ (pll hit[palal, ‘to pray/prayer’]) has a human object only here…”
A critical and exegetical commentary on Isaiah 40-55; John Goldingay, David Payne, David Frank Payne, pg. 45.
“Prayer is directed, explicitly or implicitly, to God (otherwise only in Isa 16.12; 44.17; 45.20), where prayer is addressed to a foreign deity, an idol, and Isa 45.14, where Israel is the object…”
Theological Lexicon of the OT; Jenni, Westermann, pgs. 992-993.
The Lord Jesus receives latreuo in Revelation 22:3 so your assertion that He never received cultic devotion is in error.
Furthermore, to “call upon the name of the Lord” always meant prayer/worship in the Bible.
TDNT: Calling on the Lord from a pure heart (2 Tm. 2:22) is the same as worship with a clear conscience (2 Tm. 1:3). In the formal speech of the Pastorals the pure conscience is the total standing of the Christian. This is particularly plain when the difference between the life of the Christian and that of the heretic is formulated in compendious confessions (7:918, sunoida, Maurer).
Two points worth noting:
1. Calling on the Lord Jesus from a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22) is the same as worshipping God with a clear conscience (2 Timothy 1:3). The Greek word for “serve” in 2 Timothy 1:3 is latreuo. The same kind of worship (the rendering of latreuu) that is to be given to God is to be afforded to the Son.
2. The Christian is one who worships the Lord Jesus as God while the heretic is one who denies such actions to Him as God.
From my own observations, Dale, I’d like to add the following:
1). Jesus never received cultic devotion. Cultic devotion is notoriously missing in all the doxological material about Jesus (and everywhere else in the NT). And I don’t think Hurtado addresses the very old tradition captured in the third Sibylline Oracle that Adam was required to receive latreuo from angels (Satan included).
2). Crispin Fletcher-Louis’ proposal of a temple setting of worship with the High Priest as intermediary has been ignored or inadequately dealt with by Hurtado and others.
3). Personal interaction, historical relationship and intimacy with Jesus as a determining factor for the intimacy with him after his resurrection.
4) The cognitive impossibility of distinguishing between “communicating” with a hero and “worshiping” the hero as one exalted to God’s presence.
I think more could be added to list, but this will do for now.
Neither one of you could answer the question.
Pathetic.
Jaco
I think we should stop supplying the ‘bird seed’.
This parrot is insatiable!
Blessings
John
I’ve dealt with you, Marc Taylor. I’ve shown you from multiple angles how irrevocably flawed your logic, epistemology, hermeneutics and linguistics are. You’re the chattering apocalyptic on the street corner deserving to be ignored. Permafrost brains have never been good at learning anything new. You may run along now. (Or stick around and see if anyone cares).
John,
If God gave the Lord Jesus the ability to be omnipotent then by definition God created another Almighty God.
It’s too bad you refuse to believe how the words of the Bible are properly defined.
Dale wrote in his observation that:
“We have the one God, and the human Messiah. And the former raises and exalts the latter, effectively commanding his worship with, but in a way, under himself.”
Can you cite an example of worship that the Father receives that is superior to the worship rendered unto the Son?
————————–
Still in denial of how words are properly defined Jaco. I was hoping one day you would put away your childish approach to Scripture.
You too can supply an answer to the question I just asked John.
Oh dear…the parrot’s back…
Marc,
It was from God that Jesus inherited his divine nature.
It was God who elevated Jesus to Lord and Christ.(Messiah)
You seem to ignore all comments made to date and parrot your well known Christology.
Dale has repeatedly made the point that there is a great deal of difference in the worship of God noted in Revelation 5 to that proferred to Christ in Revelation 6.
Best
John
Because God is absolutely holy He is to be worshiped and since the same meanings of words used for the worship of God apply equally to the Lord Jesus this proves the Lord Jesus shares in the same level of holiness that God “alone” has.
Marc,
Isn’t the verse from Revelation that you cited a song of Moses and Jesus to God “the Father”? How is that helping your argument?
Concerning Observation #1
A. How can worship given to the Lord Jesus be “under” God when the same meanings of words used for the worship of God apply equally to the Lord Jesus?
Furthermore, how can the honor be given to God go “further” than that which is to be rendered unto the Lord Jesus (cf. John 5:23).
B. Prayer rendered unto the Lord Jesus proves that the earliest Christians believed He was omnipotent and omniscient. Both attributes prove the Lord Jesus is God.
1. NIDNTT: It is significant that, wherever the NT speaks of requests made to God, it emphasizes that such requests are heard (cf. Matt. 6:8; 7:7-11; 18:19; 21:22; Jn. 14:13f.; 15:7, 16; 16:23f., 26; 1 Jn. 3:22; 5:14f.; Jas. 1:5). It is as if the NT witnesses wished particularly to encourage men to pray, by assuring the suppliant that his requests are heard by God. The NT is aware that this certainty keeps all prayer alive; let such certainty become weakened or diminished through doubt, and prayer dies…In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).
2. NIDOTTE: Prayer is, indeed a serious matter. It is regarded in the Bible as the most fundamental of all expressions of religion. It concerns the deepest feelings and most central motivation of the persons who are offering their prayer to their God, and it concerns the covenant relationship, with its blessings and sanctions, as the inevitable fabric of the living communion between the people and their God. To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God, who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P.A. Verhoef).
3. This belief in the omniscience of Christ is buttressed by the fact that He is the heart-knower of all (kardiogwsta) (cf. Acts 1:24; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 2:23).
a. NIDNTT: kardiognwstes is unknown to secular Gk. and to the LXX, and occurs in the NT only in Acts 1:24 and 15:8 and later in patristic writings. It describes God as the knower of hearts. The fact that God sees, tests and searches the hidden depths of the human heart is commonly stated in both the OT and the NT (1 Sam. 16:7; Jer. 11:20; 17:9f.; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 2:23). This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognwstes (2:183, Heart, T. Sorg).
b. TDNT: The designation of God as ho kardiognwstes, “the One who knows the heart,” expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ, cf. 1 Bas. 16:7; 3 Bas. 8:39; 1 Par. 28:9; Psalm 7:9; Ier. 11:20; 17:10; Sir. 42:18 ff.), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstes, Behm).
c. EDNT: On the one hand God is “in heaven” (Matt 6:9f. par.; 7:11; 11:25) and strictly distinguishable from everything that is of this world. On the other hand, however, he is present (Matt 6:1-18; Rev 1:8) and omniscient (Matt 6:8, 32; Acts 1:24; 15:8) (2:141, theos, G. Schneider).
d. William Mounce: The fact that people pray to both God (Mt. 6:9) and Jesus (Acts 1:24) is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Pray, page 531).
e. A.H. Leitch: Christ possesses the attributes of God: omniscience (Acts 1:24; 1 Corinthians 4:5) (2:94, deity of Christ, The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible).
f. Trench: (On Revelation 2:23): But this searching of the hearts and reigns being, as it is, a prerogative of Deity (Mark 2.8), God only knowing the hearts of men (Acts 15.8; 1.24; 1 Chron. 29.17), it is plain that Christ, challenging this power for Himself, is implicitly claiming to be God (Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, page 143).
– Many more citations can be given.
C. Since God “alone” is absolutely holy He is to be worshiped (cf. Revelation 15:4). The worship rendered unto the Lord Jesus puts His holiness in ‘equality’ with God thereby demonstrating that He (the Lord Jesus) is God.
Prayer/worship rendered unto the Lord Jesus does not at all point to a Unitarian concept of God.
Comments are closed.