Was Jesus Worshipped as God? by Winthrop Bailey 1822
While Christ was on earth, many, who came to request favours of him, are said to have worshipped him. This circumstance has been considered a decisive proof, that he was God, in as much as he accepted this worship. It would be easy to show, that the original word is used to denote, not only religious worship, but that homage or respect, which men pay to their superiors. I shall mention a few of the many examples, which might be produced to confirm this latter sense of the term. “And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to (worshipped) the people of the land.’ (Gen. xxiii. 7. 12. “And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance’—(worshipped him.) (Ex. xviii. 7.) “Judah, thy father's children shall bow down before thee'-(worship thee.) (Gen. xlix. 8.) “A man came out of the camp from Saul, and when he came to David, he fell to the earth, and did obeisance’—(worshipped him.) (II. Sam. i. 2.) “And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gates, bowed and reverenced (worshipped) Haman.” (Est. iii. 2.). Those, who are not acquainted with the original, may see, by these examples, the weakness of the argument above alluded to, in favour of the supreme divinity of Christ. It is an argument only in sound. It results entirely from the want of uniformity in the translation of the word in question. No one supposes, that David or Haman, or the others, mentioned in the preceding quotations, were regarded as objects of religious worship. And there is as little reason to suppose, that those, who came to Christ, and worshipped him, or rather did him homage, or obeisance, regarded him as an object of religious veneration, or could justly be charged with idolatry, if he were not the supreme God. It was as proper for him to receive this worship, homage, or respect; as it was for David to receive the same. When therefore, we are told, that Christ was worshipped while on earth; it is sufficient to reply, that, in the strict and proper sense of the term, he was not worshipped. In reference to this term, Dr. Campbell has the following note. ‘The homage of prostration, which is signified by this Greek word, in sacred authors, and well as in profane, was throughout all Asia, commonly paid to kings and other superiors, both by Jews and by Pagans. It was paid by Moses to his father-in-law, called in the English translation obeisance. The instances of this application are so numerous, both in the Old Testament, and in the New, as to render more quotations unnecessary.” [Campbell's Note on Matth. ii. 2, See also Schleus, in voc. PROSKUNEO.]
The foregoing remarks on the import of the word, rendered worship, furnish a sufficient explanation of the following passage, (Heb. i. 6.) which is often quoted to prove the supreme deity of Jesus Christ. 'And let all the angels of God worship him.’ According to what has been already said, this clause can only prove, that the angels, whether human or celestial messengers, were to regard ‘the first begotten,' as their superior; and to pay him the customary homage due to such. To this interpretation we are also led by the connexion of the words; as it seems to be the principal design of the writer in this chapter to show the superiority of the Son to the angels. But would it not be as singular, as it is needless, for any writer to enter into a formal proof of the preeminence of the eternal God over his creatures through the whole passage, God and the Son are represented as two distinct beings, as plainly as language can convey this idea. Besides, the clause in question, contains no intimation, that the angels were to worship Christ as the supreme God. Would it be consistent with reason or scripture, to suppose that God is ‘the first begotten?'— By comparing the clause under discussion, as the apostle has applied it, with the ninety-seventh Psalm, from which it is quoted, some have inferred, that Christ is the Lord, or Jehovah there spoken of. But this is far from being a conclusive mode of reasoning. Passages, which in the Old Testament relate to particular individuals, or objects, are sometimes applied to others by the writers of the New. Thus the words in the preceding verse of this chapter, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son,” related originally to Solomon. They were however equally true respecting Christ, to whom the apostle applies them. To prove that those, who preach the gospel, are justly entitled to be supported by those, who have the benefit of their labours, St. Paul quoted the following words;– Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox, that treadeth out the corn.” That this was their original design or application, no one will suppose. To the return of Christ from Egypt, St. Matthew applies a passage, which referred to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt by Moses. (Matth. ii. 15. Hosea xi. 1.) In the prophet, the passage is: 'When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' The words of the apostle are: ‘That it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.' Notwithstanding this, it is evident, that the ‘son’ mentioned by the apostle, is not the same with the ‘son’ mentioned by the prophet. These examples show, that, when the apostle said “Let all the angels of God worship him; he did not necessarily refer to the same Being, of whom the Psalmist spake, when he said, ‘Worship him all ye gods.’ The Psalm seems to relate to the introduction of the gospel, or to the period, when the kingdom or reign of heaven was to be established; and as God was then to 'set his King upon his holy hill of Zion,’ a command to worship God necessarily included a command to do homage to his Son; or to honour him in that high station, to which he was exalted. To say, therefore, ‘Worship Jehovah, all ye gods,” was in effect to say; ‘Worship the Son, all ye messengers of God.” As Saul of Tarsus persecuted Jesus, when he persecuted the disciples; so the angels or gods honoured Jehovah, when they honoured his Son. (Acts ix. 1. 5.)
There are several passages in the Revelation, which are supposed to prove, that Christ is worshipped as the Supreme God. St. John heard “every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him, that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever, and ever.” Here we are told, that the Lamb is united with him that sitteth upon the throne, as an object of worship; and that the same ascription of praise belongs to both. But is not the Lamb represented as a distinct being from him, who sitteth on the throne;— and is it not evident, that the latter is supreme In a preceding verse, the reason for this ascription to the Lamb seems to be suggested. “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” (Rev. v. 9.) If this were the reason of his being worthy to take the book, and to open the seals; it does not appear probable, that a higher reason existed for his receiving the other honour. Nothing conclusive can be inferred from the application of the same language to God, and to the Lamb. This circumstance does not prove their equality. We find the same language, which is applied to Christ, applied also to his disciples. Of him who is ‘called, the Word of God,' it is said, that ‘he shall rule the nations with a rod of iron.' (Rev. xix. 15.) ‘To him that overcometh,' said Christ, 'will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.' (ii. 26, 27.) Why may we not as well infer, that their power is equal to his; as, in the other case, that his honour is equal to that of God? Is Christ represented as receiving blessing, honour, and glory, with God? So are saints represented as living and reigning with Christ; as sitting on the throne with him, as he sits on the throne with the Father. If there be no equality in the one instance, I see not, that there is in the other.
The circumstance that both are mentioned in the same connexion, is no evidence that both are equally worshipped. This is confirmed by the following examples. “And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king.” (I. Chron. xxix. 20.) Here Jehovah and David are connected as objects of worship, in the same way, as God and the Lamb are connected in the passages under consideration. Had these words been found in the New Testament, with the name Christ instead of the king, it is needless to say, how they would be applied by Trinitarians.— We should have been told of the inconsistency, nay the idolatry, of uniting a creature with the Creator, in the same act of worship. The passage now shows, how we are to estimate this kind of argument. It proceeds on a wrong supposition; viz. that both of the persons, mentioned, must be equally objects of worship.– When the congregation worshipped Jehovah and David, they doubtless worshipped each according to his character; the first, as God, the second, as king of Israel. Both were worthy of honour; but in unequal degrees. So, when blessing, honour, &c. are ascribed to him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb; the nature of the case, and the description, given of the two, show, as in the other instance, that only one of them is worshipped as the supreme God. The language here no more proves the Lamb to be equal, or equally worshipped, with him, who sitteth on the throne; than, in the other case, it proves David to be equal, or equally worshipped, with the Lord. Our Saviour said, ‘Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.” (Luke ix. 26.) Had the last clause been;– when he shall come in his own glory and of the Father, and of the holy Spirit;’—we should probably have been told, that the glory of the three is the same, and therefore that the three must be equal; and, further, that it is inconsistent to mention the glory of a creature in connexion with that of the supreme God. The passage however entirely refutes this mode of reasoning; and shows, from the very best authority, that the glory of creatures may be mentioned in the same connexion with that of the Creator, without any design of representing them to be equal. St. Paul said, (I. Tim. v. 21.) “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels.” Had this passage been read;–'I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit; it would doubtless have been regarded as a proof of the Trinity; on the ground, that, in the most solemn charge, which can be given to man, a created being could not consistently be united with the supreme God. Perhaps it would have been considered an act of worship to the three persons in the divine nature; and as an instance of the equal glory, which they receive. Of ‘him that overcometh, Christ said, ‘I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, and my new name.' (Rev. iii. 12.) Though this is never thought to prove the supreme divinity of ‘him that overcometh; yet, the angel, who is supposed to be Christ, is thought by many to possess essential deity, because God said, 'My name is in him.’ (Ex. xxiii. 21.) Why is an inference drawn in the latter case, which, as every one knows, cannot be drawn in the other?
It is often intimated, that, if Christ be not, in the highest sense, God, the honour, which the scriptures require us to ascribe to him is inconsistent with the worship, which is due to God alone. But, after what has been already said, it is sufficient to reply, that the scriptures do not require us to honour or worship him, as the supreme God; and that it is undoubtedly right to honour him and others, according to the characters, which they sustain. To do this in obedience to the command of God, is far from dishonouring him. Christ, whom we are required to own, and to revere, as the one Lord, and the one Mediator, instead of being the ultimate object of worship, is himself a worshipper of the Father; and in this respect is like all other created beings. It will not be doubted, that, while he was on earth, he was in the habit of worshipping his Father and his God. Nor can we well suppose, that his relation to the great Father of all was changed, when he was received to heaven; when ‘God highly exalted him, and gave him a name, which is above every' other, given to creatures. The honour, which he has received, is not inconsistent with his adoring and worshipping the great Supreme. 'All things' are indeed put 'under his feet.' But the period is approaching, when he will 'deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’ ‘Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
While Christ was on earth, many, who came to request favours of him, are said to have worshipped him. This circumstance has been considered a decisive proof, that he was God, in as much as he accepted this worship. It would be easy to show, that the original word is used to denote, not only religious worship, but that homage or respect, which men pay to their superiors. I shall mention a few of the many examples, which might be produced to confirm this latter sense of the term. “And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to (worshipped) the people of the land.’ (Gen. xxiii. 7. 12. “And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance’—(worshipped him.) (Ex. xviii. 7.) “Judah, thy father's children shall bow down before thee'-(worship thee.) (Gen. xlix. 8.) “A man came out of the camp from Saul, and when he came to David, he fell to the earth, and did obeisance’—(worshipped him.) (II. Sam. i. 2.) “And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gates, bowed and reverenced (worshipped) Haman.” (Est. iii. 2.). Those, who are not acquainted with the original, may see, by these examples, the weakness of the argument above alluded to, in favour of the supreme divinity of Christ. It is an argument only in sound. It results entirely from the want of uniformity in the translation of the word in question. No one supposes, that David or Haman, or the others, mentioned in the preceding quotations, were regarded as objects of religious worship. And there is as little reason to suppose, that those, who came to Christ, and worshipped him, or rather did him homage, or obeisance, regarded him as an object of religious veneration, or could justly be charged with idolatry, if he were not the supreme God. It was as proper for him to receive this worship, homage, or respect; as it was for David to receive the same. When therefore, we are told, that Christ was worshipped while on earth; it is sufficient to reply, that, in the strict and proper sense of the term, he was not worshipped. In reference to this term, Dr. Campbell has the following note. ‘The homage of prostration, which is signified by this Greek word, in sacred authors, and well as in profane, was throughout all Asia, commonly paid to kings and other superiors, both by Jews and by Pagans. It was paid by Moses to his father-in-law, called in the English translation obeisance. The instances of this application are so numerous, both in the Old Testament, and in the New, as to render more quotations unnecessary.” [Campbell's Note on Matth. ii. 2, See also Schleus, in voc. PROSKUNEO.]
The foregoing remarks on the import of the word, rendered worship, furnish a sufficient explanation of the following passage, (Heb. i. 6.) which is often quoted to prove the supreme deity of Jesus Christ. 'And let all the angels of God worship him.’ According to what has been already said, this clause can only prove, that the angels, whether human or celestial messengers, were to regard ‘the first begotten,' as their superior; and to pay him the customary homage due to such. To this interpretation we are also led by the connexion of the words; as it seems to be the principal design of the writer in this chapter to show the superiority of the Son to the angels. But would it not be as singular, as it is needless, for any writer to enter into a formal proof of the preeminence of the eternal God over his creatures through the whole passage, God and the Son are represented as two distinct beings, as plainly as language can convey this idea. Besides, the clause in question, contains no intimation, that the angels were to worship Christ as the supreme God. Would it be consistent with reason or scripture, to suppose that God is ‘the first begotten?'— By comparing the clause under discussion, as the apostle has applied it, with the ninety-seventh Psalm, from which it is quoted, some have inferred, that Christ is the Lord, or Jehovah there spoken of. But this is far from being a conclusive mode of reasoning. Passages, which in the Old Testament relate to particular individuals, or objects, are sometimes applied to others by the writers of the New. Thus the words in the preceding verse of this chapter, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son,” related originally to Solomon. They were however equally true respecting Christ, to whom the apostle applies them. To prove that those, who preach the gospel, are justly entitled to be supported by those, who have the benefit of their labours, St. Paul quoted the following words;– Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox, that treadeth out the corn.” That this was their original design or application, no one will suppose. To the return of Christ from Egypt, St. Matthew applies a passage, which referred to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt by Moses. (Matth. ii. 15. Hosea xi. 1.) In the prophet, the passage is: 'When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' The words of the apostle are: ‘That it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.' Notwithstanding this, it is evident, that the ‘son’ mentioned by the apostle, is not the same with the ‘son’ mentioned by the prophet. These examples show, that, when the apostle said “Let all the angels of God worship him; he did not necessarily refer to the same Being, of whom the Psalmist spake, when he said, ‘Worship him all ye gods.’ The Psalm seems to relate to the introduction of the gospel, or to the period, when the kingdom or reign of heaven was to be established; and as God was then to 'set his King upon his holy hill of Zion,’ a command to worship God necessarily included a command to do homage to his Son; or to honour him in that high station, to which he was exalted. To say, therefore, ‘Worship Jehovah, all ye gods,” was in effect to say; ‘Worship the Son, all ye messengers of God.” As Saul of Tarsus persecuted Jesus, when he persecuted the disciples; so the angels or gods honoured Jehovah, when they honoured his Son. (Acts ix. 1. 5.)
There are several passages in the Revelation, which are supposed to prove, that Christ is worshipped as the Supreme God. St. John heard “every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him, that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever, and ever.” Here we are told, that the Lamb is united with him that sitteth upon the throne, as an object of worship; and that the same ascription of praise belongs to both. But is not the Lamb represented as a distinct being from him, who sitteth on the throne;— and is it not evident, that the latter is supreme In a preceding verse, the reason for this ascription to the Lamb seems to be suggested. “Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” (Rev. v. 9.) If this were the reason of his being worthy to take the book, and to open the seals; it does not appear probable, that a higher reason existed for his receiving the other honour. Nothing conclusive can be inferred from the application of the same language to God, and to the Lamb. This circumstance does not prove their equality. We find the same language, which is applied to Christ, applied also to his disciples. Of him who is ‘called, the Word of God,' it is said, that ‘he shall rule the nations with a rod of iron.' (Rev. xix. 15.) ‘To him that overcometh,' said Christ, 'will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.' (ii. 26, 27.) Why may we not as well infer, that their power is equal to his; as, in the other case, that his honour is equal to that of God? Is Christ represented as receiving blessing, honour, and glory, with God? So are saints represented as living and reigning with Christ; as sitting on the throne with him, as he sits on the throne with the Father. If there be no equality in the one instance, I see not, that there is in the other.
The circumstance that both are mentioned in the same connexion, is no evidence that both are equally worshipped. This is confirmed by the following examples. “And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king.” (I. Chron. xxix. 20.) Here Jehovah and David are connected as objects of worship, in the same way, as God and the Lamb are connected in the passages under consideration. Had these words been found in the New Testament, with the name Christ instead of the king, it is needless to say, how they would be applied by Trinitarians.— We should have been told of the inconsistency, nay the idolatry, of uniting a creature with the Creator, in the same act of worship. The passage now shows, how we are to estimate this kind of argument. It proceeds on a wrong supposition; viz. that both of the persons, mentioned, must be equally objects of worship.– When the congregation worshipped Jehovah and David, they doubtless worshipped each according to his character; the first, as God, the second, as king of Israel. Both were worthy of honour; but in unequal degrees. So, when blessing, honour, &c. are ascribed to him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb; the nature of the case, and the description, given of the two, show, as in the other instance, that only one of them is worshipped as the supreme God. The language here no more proves the Lamb to be equal, or equally worshipped, with him, who sitteth on the throne; than, in the other case, it proves David to be equal, or equally worshipped, with the Lord. Our Saviour said, ‘Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.” (Luke ix. 26.) Had the last clause been;– when he shall come in his own glory and of the Father, and of the holy Spirit;’—we should probably have been told, that the glory of the three is the same, and therefore that the three must be equal; and, further, that it is inconsistent to mention the glory of a creature in connexion with that of the supreme God. The passage however entirely refutes this mode of reasoning; and shows, from the very best authority, that the glory of creatures may be mentioned in the same connexion with that of the Creator, without any design of representing them to be equal. St. Paul said, (I. Tim. v. 21.) “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels.” Had this passage been read;–'I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit; it would doubtless have been regarded as a proof of the Trinity; on the ground, that, in the most solemn charge, which can be given to man, a created being could not consistently be united with the supreme God. Perhaps it would have been considered an act of worship to the three persons in the divine nature; and as an instance of the equal glory, which they receive. Of ‘him that overcometh, Christ said, ‘I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, and my new name.' (Rev. iii. 12.) Though this is never thought to prove the supreme divinity of ‘him that overcometh; yet, the angel, who is supposed to be Christ, is thought by many to possess essential deity, because God said, 'My name is in him.’ (Ex. xxiii. 21.) Why is an inference drawn in the latter case, which, as every one knows, cannot be drawn in the other?
It is often intimated, that, if Christ be not, in the highest sense, God, the honour, which the scriptures require us to ascribe to him is inconsistent with the worship, which is due to God alone. But, after what has been already said, it is sufficient to reply, that the scriptures do not require us to honour or worship him, as the supreme God; and that it is undoubtedly right to honour him and others, according to the characters, which they sustain. To do this in obedience to the command of God, is far from dishonouring him. Christ, whom we are required to own, and to revere, as the one Lord, and the one Mediator, instead of being the ultimate object of worship, is himself a worshipper of the Father; and in this respect is like all other created beings. It will not be doubted, that, while he was on earth, he was in the habit of worshipping his Father and his God. Nor can we well suppose, that his relation to the great Father of all was changed, when he was received to heaven; when ‘God highly exalted him, and gave him a name, which is above every' other, given to creatures. The honour, which he has received, is not inconsistent with his adoring and worshipping the great Supreme. 'All things' are indeed put 'under his feet.' But the period is approaching, when he will 'deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’ ‘Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
