Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 117 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  It should be noted that in Rev. 5:12 it says that the Lamb "is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing," but it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. A similar statement is made in -v. 13- by every creature in heaven and earth in regards to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb. Again it does not mention proskyne'o as one of them. It is in v. 14 that it says: "And the four living creatures went saying 'Amen!' and the elders fell down and worshipped."

  So, it does not say directly that God and Christ both received worship. If you understand it in a way that both should receive it, that is fine. But v. 14 does not say that Christ received woship, at least not directly.

  However we understand who is the object of proskyne'o (worship or obeisance) being done by by elders in v. 14, what is true is that Christ is portrayed as subordinate in the book of Revelation. In the very first verse, it makes a difference between God and Christ by saying that Christ received a "revelation" from God to pass on to "his slaves" the things that must take place. Does God ever need someone to give him a "revelation."? I don't think so! Verses 4 & 5 shows a distinction between "the One who is and who was" and Jesus Christ, the Faithful Witness and the Firstborn from the dead. One can argue that God can be a Witness, but God dead? No! God does not die! Ch. 3:14 talks about Christ being "the beginning of the creation by God." Some oppose the translation "creation by God," but is there really that much difference between saying that Christ is the beginning of the creation of God, or by God? It does not matter! God is the creator, not Christ. Other scriptures show that Christ was the agent of creation of everything else. Christ attributed the creation to God. See previous post. Ch. 5 supplies a vision of the One sitting on the throne and the Lamb subordinately. Ch. 14 gives us another vision where Christ is NOT depicted as the Supreme Being. Ch. 19 again describes the Word as "of God," not God Supreme. And the last chapter of Rev. speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. If Jesus was identical to God almighty, why portray him always as subordinate. Never mind holy spirit!. It is not seen anywhere in the throne, or close to it.

  Interestingly, Jesus himself applied the word proskyne'o when a slave who owed the king a lot of money asked for mercy, and rendered him worship or obeisance. (Mt. 18:23-35) Some in this forum would like to believe that proskyne'o is rendered only to God, hence, Christ is God. Well, Jesus himself shows us one way we should understand proskyne'o. And to me, Christ is a higher authority than some "scholars" claiming the contrary.
• 

  GOrwell

  Wonderment: seeing as how they both deserve and receive exactly all of the same things (glory, praise etc), in this set of scriptures, and others, is it not that much of a stretch to think of them as both deserving worship?
• 

  Wonderment

  GOrwell:

  That is fine with me.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  The Watchtower of Oct 15, 1945 says of worshipping Jesus,

  "Since Jehovah God now reigns as King by means of his capital organization Zion, then

  whosoever would worship him must also bow down to Jehovah's Chief One in

  that organization, namely Christ Jesus, his co-regent on the throne of

  The Theocracy."

  The Charter of the WTS, dated Feb 27, 1945, Under article Seven item II.

  "The PURPOSE of this Society are; 'To act as the servant of and the legal world wide agency for

  that body of persons known as Jehovah's Witnesses..................AND FOR

  THE PUBLIC CHRISTIAN WORSHIP OF ALMIGHTY GOD AND CHRIST JESUS......."

  Under article Nine the statement is made, "A member may be expelled for

  cause upon willfully violating any of these bylaws, reasonable rules, or

  ordinances of the Society, or upon becoming OUT OF HARMONY WITH ANY OF

  THE SOCIETY'S PURPOSES..."

  “” Interestingly, the 1969 Yearbook quotes the Second article of the Charter

  in its entirety until it gets to the portion about worshipping Christ

  Jesus, where an elipses is judiciously employed to make the portion read,

  "and for public Christian worship of Almighty God....",

  conveniently editing an inconvenient reminder of the former REQUIRED

  belief that it was most proper and necessary to worship Jesus.”
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  For God ... hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

  THAT ALL MEN SHOULD HONOR THE SON

  EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER. He that

  honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which

  hath sent Him. Jn.5:22,23

  Witnesses argue that Jesus Christ is not worthy of the unqualified or unlimited worship due the Father. But by denying the Son reverent homage or service paid to God they can only ascribe to Him instead, recognition, honor, respect given to men.

  Relative honor to God through an angel was

  reproved in these words: "Be careful! Do not

  do that!...Worship God."

  Revelation 19:10; 22:8, 9, NWT)

  'Let God Be True', 1952 edition p. 151

  The distinctions Witnesses make in worship due the Father and Son are totally extra-biblical and not in keeping with Apostolic teaching and practice.

  What is it that distinguishes that Christ is not to be genuinely worshipped as the Father is worshipped?

  Language of Scripture:

  "Proskyneo" is consistently translated as "worship" in the King James. It is the major Greek word translated as worship. "Proskyneo" is applied 21 times to the Father and 17 times to the Son. The only fair conclusion we can come to here is that the language of scripture does not distinguish that Christ is not to be genuinely worshiped as the Father is worshiped.

  Scriptural Example:

  There is not one example of the disciples or anyone else in scripture limiting their expression of worship of Christ. Jesus never rebuked the disciple for improper proskyneo of Himself. Only the self proclaimed religious authorities objected to Jesus being honored as the Father was honored. They proclaimed vigorously, saying such things as, "You make yourself equal with God" and "Only God can forgive sins" etc. To them, no man should claim the attributes or prerogatives of God. So not only does scriptural language, but also scriptural example fails to distinguish that Christ is not to be genuinely worshiped.

  Scriptural Instruction:

  There are no proscriptive instructions defining relative proskyneo of Christ, nor are there restrictive commandments, limiting the proskyneo of the Son. So the alleged distinction in meaning of proskyneo of Father and Son is not clarified by a distinction in scriptural terminology or by scriptural example or by scriptural commandment either prescriptive or restrictive. All restrictions proposed by any religious authority are really extra-biblical (i.e. the commandments of men). The truth is that ALL MEN SHOULD HONOR THE SON EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER (Jn.5:22, 23). Christians can and the disciples could, never honor Jesus too highly.

  Witnesses argue that Matthew 4:10 excludes unqualified worship of the Son. "You shall worship the Lord your God and him ONLY shall you serve". (Matt 4:10) That is simply not true. The exclusive element of this instruction rests on the last phrase and yet we are called to be servants of Christ. If we substitute the word "Honor" for worship in Matthew 4:10, so that it read "You shall honor the Lord your God and him only shall you serve", would the verse inform Christians that they should not give identical honor to the Son?

  Form and Content:

  "...to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong."

  (W.T. March 1880. p.83)

  Can the alleged distinction in meaning of 'proskyneo' when applied to the Son be established by the form or content of worship displayed by the disciples/apostles? Do not the following constitute elements of proskyneo in terms of form and content that can legitimately be a part of the proskyneo rendered to the Son:

  a. bowing the knee to Jesus while confessing Him as Lord? Phil.2:9-11

  b. prostrating oneself completely before Jesus? Rev.5:8

  c. fellowship or commune with Jesus, sharing our personal

  aspirations and hopes? I Jn.1:3

  d. coming to Jesus for relief of personal burdens and

  cares? Mat. 11:28

  e. calling on the name of Jesus, addressing Him personally

  as Lord? Acts 9:14, I Cor.1:2

  f. praying personally to Jesus, petitioning Him for self

  and others? Acts 7:59-60 Jn.14:14

  g. glorifying Jesus by praise? Ps.50:23 Jn.16:14, Mat.21:14-16

  h. honoring Jesus verbally by ascribing worth to Him?

  eg."To Him who sits on the throne, and to the

  Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power,

  for ever and ever. Rev.5:13 NIV.

  i. honoring Jesus by shouting or even singing His praises?

  e.g. In a loud voice they (angels) sang:

  Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain

  to receive power and wealth and Wisdom

  and strength and HONOR AND GLORY

  AND PRAISE. Rev.5:12 NIV.

  j. verbally ascribing to Jesus absolute worth?

  e.g. JESUS: Lord of Lords and King of Kings;

  Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last,

  The beginning and the end. Rev.20:12

  My Lord and my Ho Theos. Jn.20:28

  Your name is to be praised O Emmanuel,

  Ho Theos with us! Mat.1:23

  All power in heaven and earth is Yours;

  You created all things; and without you there

  was nothing made. Jn.1:3

  And Your throne Ho Theos is forever. Heb. 1:8

  May all angels and men worship you continually.

  Heb.1:6

  Even so come Lord Jesus: Rev.22:20 Amen.

  Whether or not one acknowledges an ontological unity between Father and Son, it is clear that Jesus accepted the title God (Ho Theos) as part of worship of himself. (Jn 20:28) and we should feel free to address and worship Him as such. Anything less would be to reduce the honor due His name; the name above all names; the name to which angels must bow and to which the Father declares: Thy throne O God (Ho Theos) is forever. After all, Jesus Christ is our Creator. Why would we not worship our Creator as God?

  Rick Vanderhoven
• 

  Wonderment

  VanderHoven7: "it is clear that Jesus accepted the title God (Ho Theos) as part of worship of himself (John 20:28)"

  No, it is not that clear. In the same chapter Jesus speaks of ‘his God’ and ‘the God of everyone else.’ (20:17) Just 3 verses later, John sums up the correct message for all: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God..."

  Previously, he had stated the ‘he owes his existence to the Father’ (6:57), ‘the Father being greater than him’ (14:28) and that ‘the true worshippers will worship the Father [not the Son] with spirit and truth.’

  John 20:28 has been controversial among leading scholars. Some see it as hebraistic idiom addressed to God in a moment full of emotional drama. We humans say, or hear others say all the time, Oh my God! when something dramatic happens, as when the Twin Towers came crashing down 9/11. Just about everyone was saying: Oh my God!

  Thus for Thomas to experience Jesus' appearance after his death was no less dramatic. What do u expect him to say? "Oh, Son of God"? That is not what humans say under shock (though some in America say, "Jesus Christ!") But generally, in a shocking or dramatic situation it is not unusual to invoke "God" in such manner. And in hebraistic fashion, Thomas saying "the God of me and the Lord of me" would be the acceptable jewish statement to make without making Jesus identical with God. Remember, John cleared the matter by his main statement: "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." John could easily have said that Jesus is ho theos. We should not change this statement otherwise. I will stick with Jesus' statement that "true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth." And don't forget as previously posted, that Christ gave the creation credit to God, not himself.
• 

  GOrwell

  @Wonderment : but if Thomas exclaimed a " hebraistic idiom" as you mentioned, wouldn't he have been immediately condemned for blasphemy by Jesus? Everyone does say "Oh My God" today, but everyone did most definitely *not* do that back then.
• 

  godrulz

  Jn . 20:28 is NOT controversial among leading scholars (same phrase used of YHWH by Psalmist and other monotheists). Pseudo-scholars who deny the Deity of Christ may rationalize things like the WT does, but it is a clear statement of the Deity of Christ. I do not know of any credible, conservative Christian scholars who dispute the obvious meaning that is consistent with Jn. 1:1. Oh my God is WT stupidity. It is a direct address (dative) 'to Him' and not a flippant exclamation that a Jew would not make.

  Heb. 1:6 used to have worship in NWT 1961 and KIT, not obeisance (now in 1971 ff. to negate the Deity of Christ). It is the same word used of worship to the Father elsewhere. It is an OT LXX Deut. quote about YHWH applied to Jesus. The LXX does not say obeisance to Jehovah, but worship. The argument in Heb. 1 is that Jesus is superior to angels because He is God, Creator. Angels do not worship angels. They are forced to say that obeisance=worship since the word is used of God Father. They cannot negate Heb. 1:6 given its original context. There is also no exegetical reason to translate the word as worship in some cases, but not other cases just because it is Jesus (sectarian bias). Rev. 22:8-9 the same worship that angels refused (proskuneo) is given to the Father and Son.

  When Jesus is exalted and worshipped, the power of the Holy Spirit comes and signs and wonders, salvation, healing, deliverance, etc. can and does happen. We honor the Son even as (exact same way) that we honor the Father (Jn.). Confessing Jesus as Lord/YHWH is to the glory of God/Father (Phil. 2). This is why Christians have the palpable presence of God in their lives and church services, while the Deity/Spirit denying WT meetings are dead as a door nail. The conviction of the Spirit can lead to regeneration (born again) in a moment, but JWs must indoctrinate people for months and make them commit to baptism and door-to-door to begin the treadmill of hoping to survive to the end of millennium without getting kicked out of the kingdom for any number of ever-changing Pharisaical rules.

  God and concerned Christians are grieved at cults and religion that have a form of godliness, but deny His power and true identity. Let us pray for these precious people to escape deception unto newness of life in Christ (2 Tim. 2:24-26).
• 

  Wonderment

  godrulz:

  You seem to have a specific trinitarian view of the word woship. But as others have stated with sound arguments, the Greek word can be applied in different contexts, with various connotations. Thus, the bible meaning is more important than the meaning given by "conservative Christians," as you put it. Don't believe me, check some Greek-English dictionaries where most acknowledge what I just said. I even quoted a few in a previous post.

  Whatever Thomas meant by the words he pronounced under emotional excitement, it must be accepted at the light of John's words at 20:31, where he stated: ‘All these things are written down that you may believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God.’ Why would John go around circles and not just say that Christ is the God instead of just saying, Son of God. I repeat, Jesus spoke in this very same chapter, that ‘the Father was his God and everyone elses’ too. (20:17) I haven't seen any trinitarian explain that here, including yourself. In fact, I asked of you earlier, to just show me ONE scripture that says all the stuff you are claiming here, (that Jesus and the Father and the holy spirit are three persons but one God). To this date, you have not provided ONE scripture yet to prove your point. Most who hold on to views such as yours end up quoting the massive number of scholars who believe in the Trinity. Please, since you argue everything I have stated, all I ask is for you to come up with ONE scripture that explains the Trinity the way you do. I am sure other posters are equally interested to have your answer, instead of rants about how many conservative Christians, or how many super-scholars believe this or that.

  In my case, I'd rather stick to simple statements of Jesus such as this one: ‘I seek the glory, not of myself, but that of my Father... because the Father is greater than I am.’ Or this one: ‘that all may honor the Son as they honorthe Father.’ It all ends with the Father, doesn't it?
• 

  PSacramento

  If the author of Revelation had intended to say that both Jesus and God were worshipped he could easily have conveyed that using the plural. Claiming that he wrote the singular but meant that both were worshipped is special pleading informed by Trinitarian tradition.

  John of Patmos DOES make that statement when he applies worship to the Lamb as he does to God.

  Isn't that the whole jest of this thread?

  Debating what WE THINk John meant?

  Of course we don't KNOW and are just vociing our opinions, which is what these discussions always are, people just discussing their opnions and views.