Claim: JESUS' ACCEPTANCE OF WORSHIP
The OT forbids worship of anyone but God (Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9). In the Bible men were not to accept worship (see Acts 14:15) and even angels refused to be worshiped (Rev. 22:8-9). And yet, Jesus received worship on at least nine occations without rebuking his worshipers. The healed leper worshiped Jesus (Matt 8:2) and the ruler knelt before him with his petition (Matt. 9:18). After Jesus had stilled the storm, "those in the boat worshiped him saying, 'Truely you are the Son of God.'" (Matt. 14:33). The Cananite women bowed before Christ in prayer (Matt. 15:25), as did the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matt. 20:20). Just before Jesus commissioned his followers to diciple all nations, "they worshiped him" (Matt. 28:17). Earlier in the same chapter the women who had just been at the tomb met Jesus "and they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him" (v. 9). Again look at Mk 5:6; Jn 9:38; 20:28. Not to rebuke these people who nelt before him, prayed to him, and worshiped him was not only utterly pretentious but it wa blasphemous, unless Jesus considered himself to be God. The same word that is translated "worshiped" is also used of the Father (Lk 4:8) and by the actions of the people must be seen as worship. I would not do any one of these activities just mentioned to anyone else - other than Jehovah. This is not just obeisance or honor as you would give to a man of high standing -but really honoring and worshiping as one is only supposed to do toward Jehovah. In Rev. 4:10 cf. Rev 5:11-14 proskuneo is used to describe the worship of the Father and the Lamb [the Son]. They receive the exact same worship. I have the 1961 edition of the NWT and it has no problem saying "worship" in Heb1:6 so there must be some chance to this translation. According to the Bible, you cannot worship angels or men or anything but Jehovah God. So with the Father telling all the angels to worship Christ it can been seen as the Father affirming the Deity of the Son. See also Rev 22:8-9 - same word used. From all the above, it is at least reasonable to conclude that Jesus accepted some form of reverence/worship/honor that was unusual to give to a mere man in that day and that by this worship the people of that day recognized him as somehow being equal with the Jehovah of the OT.
Reply: What does PROSKUNEO mean? According to W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary PROSKUNEO means "to make obeisance, do reverence to...It is used of an act of homage or reverence to God(John 4:24)...to Christ(Matt 2:2)...to a man(Matt 18:26)...to the Dragon(Re. 13:4)...to the Beast(Rev 13:8)...the image of the Beast(Rev 14:11)...to demons(Rev 9:20)...to idols(Acts 7:43)." In the LXX PROSKUNEO was administered to Jehovah and to the King at the same time at 1 Chron 29:20.
An angel even received worship(NKJV,ASV) at Joshua 5:13-15 c.f.Ex. 23:23.
Thayers, when discussing PROSKUNEO, mentions the word "Worship" only once in the context of, "Of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings and to demons: absol. (our to worship)"
Click also here...here and here for more
But you raise an interesting problem. Why does Paul and the one angel refuse worship/proskuneo, and yet it is alright for Jesus? Because Jesus is "the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of his being." Heb 1:3 Williams
Jesus is the fulfillment of all who spoke for God in times past (Heb. 1:1,2). Jesus was David's Lord, the greater than Solomon, the prophet greater than Moses. (Luke 20:41-43; Matt. 12:42; Acts 3:19-24) The obeisance/homage rendered those men prefigured that due Christ. Again, none of the above proves a TRIUNE relationship, which is what I asked for.
Claim: THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS' Commands
Jesus not only accepted the titles and worship due Deity alone but he often placed his words on a par with God's. "You have heard that it was said to men of old, ... But I say to you..." (Matt. 5:21, 22) is repeated over and over again. "All authority in havean and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make diciples of all nations..." (MAtt. 28:18-19). God had given the Ten Commandments through Moses, but Jesus added, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another" (Jn 13:34). Jesus once taught that "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law" (Matt. 5:18). Later Jesus put his own words on par as the OT LAw of Jehovah saying, "Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Speaking of those who rejected him, Jesus declared, "The word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day" (Jn 12:48). In view of his categorical and authoritative pronouncements we are left with but one conclusion: Jesus intended his commands to be on the level with those of God. His words are equally authoritative with God's words.
Reply: I think we need to look at the above in the light of what Jesus said. "All authority hath been GIVEN unto me in heaven and on earth." Mt 28:18
You also mention Mt 24:35, and yet the next scripture appeals to his limited knowledge. "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." This scripture was so damning to your theology that unscrupulous individuals in the past omitted "neither the Son" from their Bibles (KJV, Geneva, Douay).
You mention John 12:48, yet right after that Jesus says, "For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."
You mention Matthew 5, yet right at the end of that chapter he says, " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Does this mean that we on a level with God, or are we equally authoritative. Only if we take your argument and apply it elsewhere. All things have been made subject to the Son, "Scripture says, He has put all things in subjection under his feet, But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them; and when all things are thus subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God who made all things subject to him, and this God will be all in all." 1 Cor 15:28, 29 NEB.
Perhaps some are too insistent on seeing everything in a certain light, that they miss the whole message. There is absolutely nothing in the above that alludes to a Triune Godhead.
Claim: JESUS REQUESTED THAT MEN PRAY IN HIS NAME
Jesus not only asked men to believe in him (Jn 14:1) and to obey his commandments (Jn 14:15), but, but he asked men to pray in his name. "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it," he said (Jn 14:14). Later, Jesus added, "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you (Jn 15:7). Indeed, Jesus insisted that "no man comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6). It is interesting to note in this regard that not only did the diciples of Christ pray in Christ's name (1 Cor 5:4) but that they also PRAYED TO CHRIST (Acts 7:59). There is no doubt that both Jesus intended and his disciples understood it was Jesus' name that was to be invoked both before God and as God's in prayer. Remember what Jehovah said in the OT - I will never share any of my glory (the glory of absolute Deity - which includes being prayed to - with another!?). This for me alone is proof positive that Christ must share the absolute Divine nature with his Father.
Reply: Actually Tim, Stephen's words in Acts 7:59 are not a prayer to Jesus. It is the same Greek word that Paul used Acts 25:11, 12 , 21 in reference to Caesar. Just like Paul's word were an appeal, so were Stephens. Stephen had a vision of heaven. Did he see Jesus sitting on God's throne? No. He was sitting at the "God's right hand". Acts 7:56 I think you missed the point of John 14:6. Most of the translations I have render it, "no man comes to the Father, except THROUGH me". This is a very important point as Jesus is the mediator between God and Men (1 Tim 2:5). Since when is a mediator the same person as the one he is mediating for? Jesus taught us to pray to the Father at Matthew 6:9. What else did Jesus say? "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you", "if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name." John 15:16, 16:23 If there was any doubt about Jesus words in John 14:14, it all but removed 14 verses later when he says, "the Father is greater than I" John 14:28. Does any of the above prove a trifold God? Absolutely not!
Claim: Throughout Jesus' claims several point that are of key importance emerged. First, there is no question that Jesus often accepted and sometimes even encouraged the appellations and attitudes appropriate only for God. Second, Jesus himself unquestionably affirmed by words and actions these characteristics and prerogatives appropriate only to Deity. Third, the reaction of those around him manifests that they too understood him to be claiming Deity. The disciples responded with "you are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16) or "my Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).
Reply: "In the words of Jesus and in much of the NT the God of Israel (Gk ho theos) is the Father of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the Word was with the God [= the Father], and the Word was a divine being." Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the Father, "My lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).....It should be understood that this usage of ho theos touches the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ." p. 317, 318 Dictionary of the Bible by J. L. McKenzie, S. J.
Claim: Unbelievers exclaimed, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy!" (Mk 2:7). When Jesus claim to be one with the Father, the Jews, who are not as dumb as you make them out to be, picked up stones to stone Christ. They said they did this because Christ blasphemed. He made himself equal to God because he initiated calling God his Father - thus also implying Deity because he by default the unique Son of God - not a created son as many would so carelessly conclude today but "of the the order of" (see 1 Kgs 20:35; Neh 12:28).
Reply: I fail to see where where the above verses mention "of the the order of", but since you brought it up, Jesus is called a "priest for ever, After the order of Melchizedek."Heb 5:6 Does this mean that Jesus shared some special type of consubstantiality with Melchizedek? I feel ridiculous even talking like this. The Jews also called God their Father (Jn 8:41) and they were not suggesting a consubstantial triune existence with him, but that ONLY THEY had a special relationship with him, as opposed to Jesus.
Claim: Ancient Semitics and Orientals were very aware of this usage of "Son of" and it is this parallel that should be understood as Christ claims to be Gods Son. The high priest of the time also reacted towards Jesus with accusations of blasphemy when Christ claimed Divinity (Mk 14:62-64). Whatever you may want to think, the point is crystal clear - the Jesus of the NT claimed equality with the Jehovah of the OT. Thus, so far, the two person, while differing in person, are equal in Nature, and make up two/thirds of the One God.
Reply: Even in Mark 14:62 we have Jesus explaining that he sits "at the right hand of power". Why does he not sit on the throne, if they are in equal in nature? Where, pray tell, does the Bible ever use the term "son of" to describe a sharing of essence, or two that are "equal in nature"? Where is the "son of" ever used to describe 2/3 of one being? I keep asking this question and I NEVER get an answer. I keep getting directed back to Jesus as Jehovah as the Son of God which is supposed to explain everything. Even the angels were called "sons of God" at Job 1:6, 38:7, Gen 6:2 and Dan 3:25. The latter scripture has your Orientals describing an angel as a "son of the gods." I wonder if these Babylonians understood this angel to represent 1/3 of your Triune God? Probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment