|
Listen to this post:
|
Notice how this scholar avoids what I call the fulfillment fallacy, which is inferring that because the New Testament author applies in Old Testament text about Yahweh to Jesus, then that author is asserting the numerical sameness of Yahweh and Jesus, i.e. that Jesus just is Yahweh himself.
It is noteworthy that, at least in some of the instances of the transfer to Christ of passages originally relating to God, special care seems to be taken to safeguard, as it were, the supremacy of God. Thus, in Philippians 2:11, the acclamation of Christ in terms originally intended for God is said to be ‘to the glory of God the Father.’ Similarly, in Revelation 5:9f., 12f., explicit references to God are brought in alongside of expressions of the worthiness of the Lamb. … such phenomena may be an indication that the passage in question was directed to a situation in which Christians were in danger of being either misunderstood by Gentiles or attacked by Jews as polytheists, and needed to safeguard their monotheistic intentions. (C.F.D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (1977), 42-43.)
His point about the lamb in Revelation here is obscure. But I think we can unpack it pretty easily.
Notice why each of the two are worshiped. The worshipers go to all the trouble of actually stating their reasons. In worshiping God in chapter 4, it is stated that God is eternal (Revelation 4:8) and that he is the creator (Revelation 4:11).
In contrast, when the Lamb is brought into the throne room of God in chapter 5 and receives worship alongside God, here are the worshipers’ stated reasons in their “new song:”
You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth. (Revelation 5:9-10)
In short, the Lamb (Jesus) is worshiped because of his unique service to God. There is not any confused and confusing statement here about Jesus being “worshiped as God.” No, the monotheism has been carefully left intact, even though the man Jesus here has been exalted to the highest possible place under God himself and worshiped alongside him. Yes, it is remarkable that anyone, especially a man, should be worshiped alongside God Almighty. And yet, we already know why God is being worshiped, and it is a more foundational or fundamental reason than the reason for worship of Jesus. Jesus, having fulfilled his divine commission, has now been exalted, and this is why he must be worshiped, to the glory of the God who sent, empowered, raised, and exalted him. God’s sponsoring agency is assumed here in the background, when the Lamb suddenly appears in the throne room. This has all been the working out of God’s plan, so this amazing exaltation must be understood as God’s will.
Due to theoretical glasses being welded to some theologians’ faces, they will insist on seeing these texts as merely distinguishing the Person of the Father from the Person of the Son. But in truth they are taking care to distinguish between God from Jesus, the one true God and his unique human Son. As history shows, the idea of multiple, equally divine “Persons” within the one God is at this point still centuries in the future.
The worship of Christ in Revelation (and elsewhere) does demonstrate that He is God in that He is absolutely holy (= God). Revelation 15:4 connects the worship of God to Him being “alone holy.”
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.
Matt,
Good points.
Rivers 🙂
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
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
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.
Balint,
Good catch. It appears that Dale is quoting Revelation 5:10 from the NIV.
Rivers 🙂
Guys, I don’t see how my point here depends at all on that translation.
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.
Comments are closed.