Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 117 Replies latest watchtower bible

Wonderment

Thank you guys for the McGrath and Dunn's references. Hopefully, I will check them out.
PSacramento

He discusses John 20:28 on pages 67 and 68, but I am all quoted out at the moment. Mabe later. You should get the book, it's pretty good.
Hmmm, indeed.
I have finished Alaister McGrath's "why God won't go away" and almost done Metzger's book on the history of the various bible translations.
That might be a good one to pick up next.
Sulla

My reading of Dunn's book does not bear this out. Dunn does argue that the Christology of Revelation stands apart (which he attributes to its being a visionary book rather than its lateness) but he does not argue for the worship of Jesus in the gospel of John. Can you cite which part of Dunn's books leads you to that conclusion? On the contrary Dunn argues that the divine status of Jesus is very much qualified in the gospel of John, making arguments which are strikingly similar to the arguments JWs have traditionally made:
Well, it looks like we agree that Dunn finds Revelation to be talking about worship of Jesus in some real sense. As for Dunn's thinking on the gospel of John, I'd have to dig it up -- I researched it about a year ago in a different context. It is conceivable that I am mistaken, but I will see what I can turn up.
Evangelical scholars who have promoted a very high Christology early in the NT, with Hurtado at the forefront, have enjoyed the ascendancy in recent decades, without always necessarily making explicit the very conservative assumptions that lay behind their readings. In particular Hurtado has suggested that the reality of the resurrection event itself, for the early Christian community, is what prompted what he describes as the mutation in monotheism within the early chuch to include worship of Jesus alongside God. With scholars such as Dunn and McGrath injecting a bit of realism in the discussion of the early Christian view of Jesus, Hurtado's binitarian/"Jesus devotion" paradigm may yet prove to be the last hurrah for Evangelical scholarship on this matter.
I don't think that the contrast between those who "inject realism" with those who think the Resurrection really happened is particularly useful. At the same time, if Hurtado suggests that the reality of the Resurrection is the cause for the religious mutation that acknowledged Jesus as God, then it hardly seems fair to turn around and claim he doesn't make his assumptions explicit. In any case, I don't think that Hurtado's argument requires the Resurrection to be a literal event; he makes what is essentially an historical argument about what Christians did, not what Jesus did.
Do I gather from this line of argument that you follow Hurtado's blog too? Because that is essentially the line of attack Hurtado pursued regarding McGrath's book. It's worth noting that Dunn does not seem to share your scathing assessment of McGrath because he cites him extensively and with apparent approval. There is also a great deal more to McGrath's discussion of the Revelation than simply the point about the language of sacrificial cultic worship. But on that point McGrath and Dunn actually make the same obsevation with regard to latreia andlatreuein: that it is only used of worship of God and never of Christ. A point which Hurtado still fails to address.
Actually, I anticipated Hurtado's observation by some weeks in a different conversation (this one with a JW who quoted McGrath approvingly). I did not know before reading Hurtado's interaction with McGrath that McGrath also thinks the worship of Jesus was not an issue for Trypho in his interaction with St. Justin Martyr. I mean, get real, right? I'm certain there is more to McGrath's argument, but the sacrifice thing pretty much ends the conversation for me, I'm afraid. As a general rule, once you prove that Christians didn't even worship God, we've got what we need.
slimboyfat

I don't think that the contrast between those who "inject realism" with those who think the Resurrection really happened is particularly useful. At the same time, if Hurtado suggests that the reality of the Resurrection is the cause for the religious mutation that acknowledged Jesus as God, then it hardly seems fair to turn around and claim he doesn't make his assumptions explicit. In any case, I don't think that Hurtado's argument requires the Resurrection to be a literal event; he makes what is essentially an historical argument about what Christians did, not what Jesus did.
Hurtado only rarely makes explicit his assumption about the resurrection event being the driving force behind what he describes as the mutation in Christian worship to include Jesus alongside God, and more often in accessible works such as At the Origins of Christian Worship than in his more scholarly texts.
Actually, I anticipated Hurtado's observation by some weeks in a different conversation (this one with a JW who quoted McGrath approvingly). I did not know before reading Hurtado's interaction with McGrath that McGrath also thinks the worship of Jesus was not an issue for Trypho in his interaction with St. Justin Martyr. I mean, get real, right? I'm certain there is more to McGrath's argument, but the sacrifice thing pretty much ends the conversation for me, I'm afraid. As a general rule, once you prove that Christians didn't even worship God, we've got what we need.
McGrath's response is here:
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/11/responding-to-larry-hurtados-review.html
Obviously McGrath does not say that "worship of Jesus was not an issue for Trypho". The point is why was it an issue. McGrath argues that it was an issue for Trypho because he did not view a crucified man as a worthy object of worship. And of course neither does McGrath "prove that Christians didn't even worship God", that's a false characterisation of his argument, again taken from Hurtado's response.
PSacramento
McGrath also notes, as has James Dunn, that while the verb proskunein is used of Jesus in the NT both the noun latreia (in the NWT "sacred service") and the verb latreuein are only used of God.
I wonder if the "sacred service" in question is not just worshipping but what goes with, in the sense of the sacrfices given to God by the Jews.
1. service rendered for hire
2. any service or ministration: the service of God
3. the service and worship of God according to the requirements of the Levitical law
4. to perform sacred services
EX:
Joh 16:2 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Ro 9:4 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Ro 12:1 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Heb 9:1 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Heb 9:6 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
slimboyfat

I am not sure I understand what point you are making PSacramento. Could you explain? The early Christians no longer offered real sacrifices at the temple to God, but they retained some of the language. The interesting thing is that this highest form of worship, "sacred service" is only used with reference to God in the NT not Jesus. This is a point that Dunn and McGrath have both made. Hurtado's suggestion, that Sulla repeated on this thread, that pointing out this fact is somehow to make an argument that the early Christians did not even worship God is wide of the mark. The point is that the NT reserves the language of the highest form of worship for God alone, a relevant point that Hurtado would do well to engage with rather than misrepresenting McGrath's argument.
PSacramento

I am not sure I understand what point you are making PSacramento. Could you explain? The early Christians no longer offered real sacrifices at the temple to God, but they retained some of the language. The interesting thing is that this highest form of worship, "sacred service" is only used with reference to God in the NT not Jesus. This is a point that Dunn and McGrath have both made. Hurtado's suggestion, that Sulla repeated on this thread, that pointing out this fact is somehow to make an argument that the early Christians did not even worship God is wide of the mark. The point is that the NT reserves the language of the highest form of worship for God alone, a relevant point that Hurtado would do well to engage with rather than misrepresenting McGrath's argument.
The point that there is a distinction between divine service and worship makes me think that the writers were referring to something other than worship when they mention it, perhaps the ritulas that many jews still did.
Look at the passages in which latreia is found and how it is used, its seems to be stating certain acts or rituals.
The fact that it is not applied to Christ doesn't seem to be a huge issue, a least I don't see it...
slimboyfat

I found someone else online who quoted McGrath on John 20:28 so that saves me typing it:

We may thus conclude that the author of this Gospel considered it appropriate to acclaim Jesus as both Lord and God. Both of these could potentially be understood as designations of the one true God. Yet as we saw in the earlier discussions of the designation "Lord", it was possible for other figures serving as God's agents to also bear these titles precisely as designations that were shared by the one true God with his agent. It was also possible for both "god" and "lord" in a broader sense for other figures as well. Once again, we are dealing with titles that were used within the context of Jewish monotheism without provoking controversy. In order to determine whether that is the significance they most likely have in John 20:28, we must engage once again in a comparison with relevant Jewish parallels. ...

In John 10, when Jesus is depicted as defending himself against the accusation of making himself God, it is to the wider use of the designation "gods" that appeal is made. This argument in John 10 must surely be allowed to inform our interpretation of what "God" means in reference to Christ in 20:28. Like later Jewish Christians, the author of the Fourth Gospel can call Jesus "God" yet still refer to the Father as "the only true God" (17:3). James McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context, Page 67.

latreuein:
Bearing in mind that the latreuein word group is the nearest expression for the offering of 'cultic worship', the fact that it is never used for the 'cultic devotion' of Christ in the New Testament is somewhat surprising for Hurtado's main thesis and should be given some attention. James Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, Page 15.
Especially when you consider that when Jesus used the term in Luke 4 it was specifically to say that "sacred service" was to be performed to God alone.
godrulz

McGrath favorably reviews Bart Ehrman's book on Jesus. These guys are liberal scholars with a low view of Scripture, a denial of biblical, historical, orthodox truths. Conservative Christian scholarship is more credible and refutes these guy's new assumptions based on a move away from tradition and Scripture. Don't be like WT that looks for fringe sources to agree with them. It may sound good on the surface, but does not stand up to scrutiny. F.F. Bruce is an e.g. of a paramount NT scholar (now dead). These guys are modern yappers that are denying historical, biblical, orthodox Christianity.
PSacramento

Slim, I think that taking what Thomas said in his proclamation of faith ( The Lord of me and the God of me) and equating to Jesus's point that his accusers accusing him of Blasphemy when humans being regards "as God" is in scripture, is a bit of a stretch it seems, at least to me.
In Luke 4:
5 Then the devil a led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And the devil b said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written,
‘Worship the Lord your God,
and serve only him.’ ”
We have Satan asking for worship and Christ reminding him the worship AND service, be to God only.
Chirst makes a distinction of both worship and service, if they were the same thing then, why make the distinction.
Of course Satan is a liar here, as Christ poitns out ( the father of lies) and nothing has been given over to him.
I am not saying that sacred service doesn't mean worship, I am just pointing out that it means other things to and I don't think that it's use can prove or disprove IF Christ was worshipped.

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

Share this