Greek: καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἐὰν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου σωθήσεται. (Acts 2:21)
LXX (Joel 2:32): καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται ὅτι ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σιων καὶ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ἔσται ἀνασῳζόμενος καθότι εἶπεν κύριος καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι οὓς κύριος προσκέκληται
ESV: And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’
Darrell L. Bock:
The reference to the Lord (κύριος, kyrios) needs careful attention. In Joel this means calling out to Yahweh (יְהוָה), Israel’s God, for salvation. At a literary level, nothing in Peter’s speech up to this point would have anyone think otherwise about the meaning of this reference, because verse 20 speaks of the day of the Lord, which would be the day of God’s judgment. But one of the functions of the entire speech is to show that Jesus is Lord, a key title also applied to Yahweh. Peter will give Jesus a place alongside Yahweh as carrying out the plan and will make clear that the name one is to call on belongs to Jesus (Acts 2:38; 4:10–12).
Bock insists that Peter would have applied Joel 2:32 to the resurrected Christ in this way, although he would likely not have spoken the divine name--YHWH. So Bock thinks Peter's quotation of Joel is geared to demonstrate that Christ is LORD (YHWH). See Bock, Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007 [2012].
Craig Keener (Acts--An Exegetical Commentary):
The expression “call on the Lord’s name” was familiar in Jewish texts, where it concerned especially praying to him,[642] as in the later Targum on this verse (Tg. Joel 3:5), or praise (Jdt 16:1). Luke’s term for “call upon” (ἐίικαλέω) could also apply to a formal appeal to Caesar (as in Acts 25:11–12, 21; 26:32; 28:19), but it is the Lord who could grant true deliverance. Peter’s sermon expounds at length on this final line from Joel, arguing that the Lord’s name on which his hearers must call in this salvific era is Jesus (2:21, 34, 38).[643] Thus Peter concludes by exhorting them to call on the Lord’s name by baptism in Jesus’s name (2:38).[644] After this Peter com- pletes his Joel quotation, picking up later in Joel’s sentence after the point where he broke off to begin expounding the last line he had quoted (2:39; see also comment there).[645] Cultic invocation of Jesus’s name appears elsewhere in Acts (22:16) and early Christianity (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13; cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 12:3; Phil 2:11); in this context, Jesus’s name is necessary for salvation (Acts 4:12), and in the immediate context, he is “Lord” (2:36).[646]
Peter Pett's Commentary:
To ‘call on the name of the Lord’ was to approach God in worship and to seek His mercy. Compare Genesis 4:26; Genesis 12:8; 2 Samuel 22:4; Psalms 55:16; Psalms 86:5; Psalms 105:1; Psalms 116:13; Psalms 116:17; Psalms 145:18). But here was probably the added idea that it was Jesus Who was the Lord Who had to be called on.
The Expositor's GT:
But just as in Romans 10:12 this same prophecy of Joel is beyond all doubt referred by St. Paul to the Lord Jesus, so here the whole drift of St. Peter’s speech, that the same Jesus who was crucified was made both Lord and Christ, points to the same conclusion, Acts 2:36. In Joel κύριος is undoubtedly used of the Lord Jehovah, and the word is here transferred to Christ. In its bearing on our Lord’s Divinity this fact is of primary importance, for it is not merely that the early Christians addressed their Ascended Lord so many times by the same name which is used of Jehovah in the LXX—although it is certainly remarkable that in 1 Thess. the name is applied to Christ more than twenty times—but that they did not hesitate to refer to Him the attributes and the prophecies which the great prophets of the Jewish nation had associated with the name of Jehovah, Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, pp. 8, 10, 16 (1894), and for the force of the expression, ἐπικ. τὸ ὄνομα, in 1 Corinthians 1:2, see Harnack, History of Dogma, i., p. 29, E.T.— ὃς ἂν ἐποκ., “whosoever”: it would seem that in St. Peter’s address the expression does not extend beyond the chosen people . . .
[Conzelmann; Haenchen]
39 comments:
The “name” of the Lord (Acts 2:21) that Peter proclaims to his audience corresponds to the the “name” of Jesus Christ that they are to be baptized in (Acts 2:38). In fact, virtually every use of the “name” in the Book of Acts refers to the Lord Jesus (see also Luke 24:47). Thus, Jesus is YHWH.
They only get this because the OT doesn't have the tetra in English- This would not work otherwise.
Romans 10:13 is also applied to Jesus tho a quote, However the Bible has said in places to call on both, Both will also resurrect, tho it all ultimately ends with the father
Jesus in his heavenly form also called God "My God"
I agree. It's funny also that scholars like Craig Keener cite Acts 2:36 to prove that Jesus is YHWH, but they seem to ignore that God made him "Lord" according to that text.
Christ's Lordship was validated by His resurrection (Acts 2:36). So when "Lord' is applied to Jesus it means He is YHWH.
If both Peter and Paul denied the Lord Jesus is YHWH and would not even hint at holding such a view it is very odd that they apply a text about YHWH in reference to the Lord Jesus! Added to this is the fact it is associated with praying to ('calling on') Him.
FR - What you don't seem to realise as Edgar stated he was "made" (or "exalted" Acts 5:31) to the position of "Lord" which doesn't constitute Jesus being YHWH - Why was he made YHWH after his ressurection, no one was ever "made" YHWH
In the old testament itself other humans are also called "Lord"
according to an evangelical leaning website "Lord" means
for instance:
(2 Samuel 2:5)
“. . .lord Saul . . .”
(2 Samuel 2:7)
“. . .for your lord Saul is dead. . .”
(1 Chronicles 12:19)
“. . .lord Saul. . .”
So by your very same logic, I can also say Saul is YHWH - I could make a case for Angels, Moses and Jesus' disciples all being YHWH if I really wanted too..
The highly trinitarian bible NET has this in a footnote:
Lord. This looks back to the quotation of Ps 110:1 and the mention of “calling on the Lord” in 2:21. Peter’s point is that the Lord on whom one calls for salvation is Jesus because he is the one mediating God’s blessing of the Spirit as a sign of the presence of salvation and the last days.
The same bible uses other scriptures to profess Jesus is God, however here it does not..
Keep in mind: If Jesus was God he wouldn't have "received" this authority from anyone (Matt 28:18) because he would have already had it.
although this person does not agree with the Witnesses, they make good arguments aswell:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/one-lord.html
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_3.html
and one of my favorite references:
https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/11/tc-title-confusion-trick.html
Peter (recorded by Luke) applies YHWH from Joel 3:5 (LXX) unto Jesus as Lord in Acts 2:21. This does prove Jesus is YHWH. None of the passages you quoted are an example of this happening. Of course, others can be called "lord" - but when a text from the OT about YHWH is quoted in the NT in reference to the "Lord' then the Lord refers to YHWH.
Isaiah 63:12
Who caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses,
Who divided the waters before them to make for Himself an everlasting name.
YHWH did not have to "make" for Himself an everlasting name in that His name was not everlasting before this. Rather, now His everlasting name has become more fully realized to us. The same with Acts 2:36. Jesus has always been the Lord (YHWH - Acts 2:21), but by His resurrection His Lordship is more fully realized to us.
it doesn't make Jesus YHWH anymore than texts reapplied to Jesus make Jesus Solomon (e.g psalms 45:6 -> Hebrews 1:8) or vice versa.
I can make the same type of arguments
" when a text from the OT about YHWH is quoted in the NT in reference to the "Lord' then the Lord refers to YHWH." - I can think of at least 2 Examples where this is not entirely true. even Biblehub commentators would disagree. It should be noted also that the original Hebrew (& pre-C LXX) contained the actaul name and not the surrogate, therefore the trinitarian connection is neutralised.
How was he "exalted to a superior position" then? at Gods right hand - which again an NET footnote points out does not equate equality in any form. Which the psalm cited just verses before points out, We know the First Lord (The Lord) is YHWH (despite what you might try the name is present in Hebrew scriptures and pre-christian copies of the LXX) - most say Jesus is the second as he is "My Lord" in alot of cases - David was prophecy for Jesus afterall (and Jesus came from the same line)
again an NET footnote for the very scripture you are trying to use points out:
"Peter’s point is that the Lord on whom one calls for salvation is Jesus because he is the one mediating God’s blessing of the Spirit as a sign of the presence of salvation and the last days."
the NET is a highly trinitarian bible, I have no doubt if they thought the same thing you did, they would write it.
but the scholars know well enough to not use such a text to prove Jesus is infact YHWH, same with Hebrews 1:8 both Barclay and Robertson pointed this out.
"His resurrection His Lordship is more fully realized to us." - I don't think so, but ok..
since you clearly didnt read the links I pasted:
"Jesus is our ‘Lord’ or ‘Master’ [kurios] in several senses of the word, but most clearly as the one who has “bought” us as slaves in a way no one else ever has: “You [Jesus] are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God” - Rev. 5:9, NIV. Jesus is our “Owner” or “Master” since he bought us (as sheep might be purchased by their owner or as slaves were bought by a master) with his very own life blood. No one else is our Lord in that sense. In that sense of “Lord” Jesus is the “one Lord” all true Christians must have as 1 Cor. 8:6 plainly tells us! This did not prevent Christians from calling other persons “Lord” [kurios] also. Even when it also meant the owner of slaves (Ro. 14:4; Col. 3:22; 4:1) or a judge, king, angel, etc. But in that special sense, Jesus alone is our only “Master” or “Lord”!
Acts 2:36 also tells us: “Therfore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ – this Jesus whom you crucified.” – NASB. Because Jesus “purchased men for God” with his own blood, God has made him our Lord or Master (in that sense of the word)."
(Examining the trinity Footnote 5)
You are confused. Jesus is a greater Solomon in that texts about YHWH are applied to Him.
You need to get rid of your love for the NET and seek out more scholarly sources.
You said you can think of two examples but then you didn't supply any.
Jesus ALONE is our "Master" (Jude 4) in EQUALITY with the Father (Acts 4:24).
Thanks for quoting Revelation 5:9 because every time in the Bible "a new song" is used it always refers to the worship of YHWH. In Revelation 5:9, the worship of Jesus (= YHWH).
"You are confused." - the irony, still works - I can say Moses is God is I really want too. that is the level of evidence your working with here
"You need to get rid of your love for the NET" - I mean I can start citing any bibles footnotes you like..
so which would you suggest? Daniel Wallace worked on the NET, I can find other sources if you really want me too - I know of many which spout similar.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4745/who-were-the-scholars-responsible-for-the-new-english-translation#:~:text=%5BThe%20NET%20Bible%5D%20was%20completed,%2C%20Aramaic%2C%20and%20Greek%20texts.
not sure How much more scholarly this bible could get... but anyway
I ask why I should believe you over Edgar or any scholar that worked on any bible translation? you directly contradict a lot of them, what makes you such an expert?
"You said you can think of two examples" - actually I supplied one, I can think of 2 others, my choice whether I give them or not.
On the subject of the right hand a source from Wikipedia states: In the Bible, to be at the right side "is to be identified as being in the special place of honor"
though I don't entirely agree with some of this explanation, it says similar: https://www.gotquestions.org/right-hand-God.html
How is then the NET footnotes I cited aren't scholarly yet other trinitarian sources say similar, bible hub also says similar.. Just because you don't agree with a source doesn't mean its not scholarly
Bible never uses the word equality for their lordship, the word is used in about 3 different senses in the bible.. If he is god why was he "exalted"? (see A.t Robertson commentary or Biblehub commentaries) actually its the first Lord (THE LORD) that would hold up the second ones Kingship (Luke 1:32)
" every time in the Bible "a new song" is used it always refers to the worship of YHWH." - not entirely true...
and Just 4 verses later "the Lamb" and "God" are not put in the same category but rather different.. (Rev 5:13)
What a mess of a response by you.
You asserted: and Just 4 verses later "the Lamb" and "God" are not put in the same category but rather different.. (Rev 5:13)
All the attributes in which the Father and Son are worshiped apply to both of them in Revelation 5:13.
I asked a question...
(http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/rom-56-and-rom-513-throne.html)
I have only cited parts of this article, but it A. says the same thing citing trinitarian sources + is a remarkable work of scholarship, would love to see you challenge it.
"no matter how you wish to translate en meso tou thronou, it is obvious that the Lamb's being there does not make him God. Simply look at Rev. 4:6 and the complete Rev. 5:6. We see in Rev. 4:6 that the four living creatures are en meso tou thronou just as the lamb is in 5:6! If that means the Lamb is God, then it also means the four living creatures are God!"
"Ezekiel's inspired vision of God on his throne shows these details:
"From the midst of it [the vision of fire] came the likeness of four living creatures [Cherubs, angels]. And this was their appearance: they had the form of men, but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings." - Ezek. 1:5, 6, RSV.
Notice that Ezekiel tells us that these 4 Cherubs at the 4 corners of God's throne (Ezek. 1:26) look just like men except for 4 faces (and wings) which are further described in verses 10, 11. We know, therefore, exactly what they looked like. Any significant variation from a man's likeness has been carefully explained by Ezekiel.
Now look at the description of God himself as Ezekiel continues his vision. Ezekiel again tells us that "seated above the...throne was a likeness as it were of a human form." - Ezek. 1:26, RSV. And again Ezekiel describes all the significant differences from the appearance of a man (v. 27): brightness, gleaming like glowing bronze, fiery appearance from the waist down. Except for these significant differences the vision of God looks like a man! Not three persons; not a man with three heads; not a man with three faces, etc. but just like a man! IF God were 3 persons, Ezekiel's vision surely would have given us some indication of that (such as his description in this very same vision of the 4 aspects of each of the 4 Cherubs shown figuratively by 4 distinctive faces for each person which he gave just before this description of God)."
"Worship (proskuneo, Gr. and shachah, Heb.) in the Scriptures is given to a person who (1) represents someone else in a position of higher authority or (2) occupies a position of higher authority himself (e.g., a king). Sometimes, of course, we may find a person who may receive shachah/proskuneo for both of these reasons. 1 Chron. 29:20 tells us, "And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped [shachah] Jehovah and the king [David]." - ASV - cf. Septuagint (proskuneo). The highest position of authority"
The Lamb is God in that He has the attributes of God (Revelation 5:12-13) and is worshiped as being God (Revelation 5:9).
So did David in 1 Chron. 29:20
"And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped [shachah] Jehovah and the king [David]."
David was not worshiped (1 Chronicles 29:20). Only God was worshiped.
There are other passages in 2 Chronicles that use the same construction which demonstrate that only God is rendered worship.
2 Chronicles 31:8
When Hezekiah and the rulers came and saw the heaps, they blessed the LORD and His people Israel.
Blessing the Lord means offering Him worship, but that doesn't mean Hezekiah and the rulers rendered worship unto the people of Israel.
2 Chronicles 35:3
Now serve the LORD and His people Israel.
To serve the Lord involves worshiping the Lord, but serving people doesn't refer to worshiping people in this passage.
"David was not worshiped (1 Chronicles 29:20). Only God was worshiped." - you'll have to prove that claim
Edgars opinion: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/08/1-chronicles-2923.html
Other posts worth noting: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=1+Chronicles+29%3A20
If you have a different opinion to scholars and believe you are right, please write it and submit it for peer review - When that happens then Ill take your word for it
The same word is used of other humans as well
see: https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/worship-as-used-in-scripture.html
Other opinions and evidence include the following commentaries:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_chronicles/29-20.htm
https://biblehub.com/1_kings/1-31.htm
https://biblehub.com/exodus/4-31.htm
https://biblehub.com/genesis/43-28.htm
Next time try not to ignore the other passages I quoted from 2 Chronicles simply because they refute your false claim about David being worshiped.
The Bible sometimes reads the way it does in these passages, but none of them should be used to assert that created beings are worshiped.
See also Proverbs 24:21 - and this relates to what took place in 1 Chronicles 29:20.
"Fear the LORD and the king."
To fear the LORD involves worshiping the Lord, but that doesn't mean fearing the king involves worshiping the king.
Like I said: If you have a different opinion to scholars and believe you are right, please write it and submit it for peer review - When that happens then Ill take your word for it
How have I ignored them please tell me - I cited related posts on this blog and related scriptures that commentators believe are cross references
why do the other scriptures I cited say something different?
Why do commentators say something different?
I don't need to submit it to peer review. You couldn't refute the evidence I supplied - nor has anyone else - so you hide from it.
Next time actually address the other 2 passages in 2 Chronicles I supplied. Has any so-called 'scholar' you are clinging to ever took these into consideration, along with Proverbs 24:21 (and 2 Corinthians 8:5 as well) when discussing 1 Chronicles 29:20?
When that happens then show the evidence. Because until now you have been avoiding it.
your funny.. The commentaries I cited refute it if you bothered reading..
Did you actually look at at what I cited? if you did you would know Matthew Poole had this too say:
"They blessed the Lord; both for giving such plentiful provisions to his land in this year, and for giving his people such liberal and pious hearts towards this good work.
And his people Israel; they praised them for their forwardness and faithfulness in it."
- that being just one of many
Edgar stated:
"KURIWi and TWi BASILEI (grammatically) should both receive the action delineated by the verb PROSEKUNHSAN. While I could not find another example that described two entities receiving worship as direct objects by the use of a datival construction, I believe that Rev. 14:9-11, with its mention of the beast and its image, well illustrates how 1 Chron. 29:20 should be understood. Notice that PROSKUNEI + the accusative is used in Revelation 14:9, 11. But both objects receive the action of the verb. This also seems to be the case in 1 Chronicles 29:20 and translators usually recognize this point."
" the Vulgate also explicitly shows that both God and the King receive the same action. It says:
benedixit omnis ecclesia Domino Deo patrum suorum et
inclinaverunt se et adoraverunt Deum et deinde regem.
"they worshiped [or adored] God and then the King.""
this Grammar cited in the comments later supports this: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s949
Further in Gen 43:28 & 1 Kings 1:31 the same word is used of ones who are not God
Your out of your league here
rather than being objective I get the distinct feeling your looking for an argument, you do know what's involved in submitting your research don't you? your the one making the argument you prove it too the experts then once that happens, I will take you at your word
How is citing an NET footnote avoiding evidence? how is citing trinitarian scholars own words not evidence? if it works for you it works me
Barnes Notes:
Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
Worshipped the Lord, and the king - The same outward signs of reverence were accorded by the customs of the Jews (as of the Oriental nations generally) to God and to their monarchs (see 1 Kings 1:31). But the application of the terms to both in the same passage, which occurs nowhere in Scripture but here, is thought to indicate a time when a long servitude under despotic lords had orientalized men’s mode of speech.
Other things you should note:
"The angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah/Yahweh], sometimes 'the angel of God' or 'my (or 'his') angel,' is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal spokesman. In many passages he is virtually identified with God and speaks not merely in the name of God but as God in the first person singular." - New Bible Dictionary, p. 38.
Exod. 23:20-23
the Israelites could, and did, say that God was with them (Josh. 1:17; 1 Sam. 10:7), that God had come (Ex. 20:20), that Jehovah was in their midst (Ex. 17:7; 29:43, 45-46), that Jehovah was leading them (Ex. 13:21) when it was Jehovah's angel (Ex. 14:19) who was actually, physically present, representing Jehovah.
see for V8,9 :https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/revelation-22.html
"some indefiniteness attaches to this subject, partly owing to the two senses in which the Gr[eek] word [proskuneo] is used, and partly owing to the ambiguous usage of the title ['Lord']."
(The trinitarian A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, Vol. 4, p. 943)
"An unfortunate translation, according to modern English, but justified by the usage of earlier English, according to which to worship meant simply to honor. Worship is worthship, or honor paid to dignity or worth. This usage survives in the [British] expressions 'worshipful' and 'your worship.' In the marriage-service of the English Church occurs the phrase, 'With my body I thee worship.' So Wycliffe [one of the earliest English Bible translators] renders Matthew 19:19, 'Worship thy father and thy mother;' and John 12:26, 'If any man serve me, my Father shall worship him.'" - pp. 533, 534, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1, Sage Software, 1996.
1 post of a response is sufficient. Don't ramble on and on thinking a massive amount of evidence helps your confused cause. It doesn't.
When you quoted Matthee Poole you have to point out which passage he is referring to.
Let's take this slow and start with that one.
https://www.biblia.work/bible-commentary/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-chronicles-318/
you can see here it refers to the subject clause.
Hey they are all to consider..
please note on top of everything else the same verb προσεκύνησαν is used both in Revelation 14:11 and in the lxx
Lxx: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/1ch/29/20/s_367001
Rev 14:11 https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/14-11.htm
(admittedly one is Aorist and ones present, but both are third person plural)
Dictionary: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/inflections.cfm?strongs=G4352&t=esv&ot=MGNT&word=%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CE%BA%CF%85%CE%BD%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B5%CF%82
Which proves my point. The same word for "blessed" is applied to both YHWH and the people in 2 Chronicles 31:8.
It refers to worshiping YHWH, but it does NOT refer to worshiping people.
The same with 1 Chronicles 29:20.
proskyneō can be applied properly to both God and others in the OT, but not the NT.
"The same word for "blessed" is applied to both YHWH and the people" - correct, when did I claim to the contrary?
"It refers to worshiping YHWH, but it does NOT refer to worshiping people." - huh? How does this prove your point? both scriptures are a similar construction - How can one be applied to both and yet not the other? theology is your problem not grammar..
In Rev 14:11 both the beast and its image are worshipped.
"proskyneō can be applied properly to both God and others in the OT, but not the NT." - really many scholars beg to differ (also Edgar).. & can you prove this? you claim it but haven't yet proved it.
& you also said "Jesus is greater than Solomon" - well Jesus said the Father is greater than he is as well.
on the basis of Grammar its best to say they were both "worshipped"
But what you should also note is both words (Hebrew and Greek word for "worship")
see: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4352/kjv/tr/0-1/
In 2 Chronicles 31:8 - we have "ηὐλόγησαν τὸν κύριον καὶ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ " the verb followed by two accusatives (direct objects of said verb) anybody who knows Greek Edgar: "Notice that PROSKUNEI + the accusative is used in Revelation 14:9, 11. But both objects receive the action of the verb."
In 1 Chronicles 29:20 we have almost The same except we have a plural verb followed by 2 datives, which is a dead giveaway it refers to 2 people not one - as the plural verb is rarely used of a singular object.
(If im wrong im sure someone will correct me, but I don't think I am)
and again please see: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0007:id=s949#chapter949
I never claimed you claimed to the contrary.
It proves my point because the same construction is used in 1 Chronicles 20:20 - as well as in several other places in the Bible - which means David was not worshiped.
You ask: How can one be applied to both and yet not the other? theology is your problem not grammar.
I already addressed this. Se again Proverbs 24:21. Fearing the Lord entails worshiping the Lord, but fearing the king does not entail worshiping the king.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): As used in the New Testament proskyneo "denoted exclusively worship addressed (or which should be addressed) to God or to Jesus Christ" (2:877, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C. Brown).
It proves quite the opposite... we have a verb followed by two accusatives (or datives) which indicate they receive the action of the verb - the construction would be different otherwise.
"both scriptures are a similar construction" - quote me properly please..
You have only cited a single scripture that doesn't really do anything for you as pointed out the lxx has many instances where the word is used of people other than God.
though the verb is singular, its interesting that both King and God are both in the accusative here (proverbs 24:21) indicating they are the direct object of the verb. meaning the king should be feared just as much as God because he was Gods representative. still a parallel to Rev 14:11.
you didn't read the dictionary definition to the word did you? maybe you should. proskenyo can mean anything from full "worship" to simple "honor" and obesiance.
So the people were properly worshiped in equality with YHWH (2 Chronicles 35:3)?
The answer is no.
The king is not feared in EQUALITY with God (Proverbs 24:21). God is to be the recipient of prayer (even silent ones) - not true of the king. If you are okay with offering silent prayers to created beings that is your choice, but the Bible doesn't affirm such teaching.
Proskyneo only means full worship in the NT.
you can take my words however you like that's not what I said - fearing doesn't involve praying... not sure what you mean there
"Proskyneo only means full worship in the NT." - really Strong's and vines have a different opinion
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2021/10/bdag-entry-for-proskunew.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2021/09/to-whom-can-proskynesis-properly-be.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2021/10/scholarly-comments-about-revelation-39.html
you would do well to remember the word "worship" as used today has change in meaning over time - The range in which "worship" can be given is relatively large
https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/worship-as-used-in-scripture.html - this covers most of the uses of the word in the NT
One cannot fear the Lord and refuse to pray to the Lord. So yes, fearing the Lord encompasses praying to the Lord.
In 1 Samuel 2:30 God affirms that those who honor Him He will honor. Refusal to pray to God is not honoring God. Thus, one of the ways that God is honored by people is by their prayers to Him.
This doesn't mean God prays to us even though the same word for honor is used in relation to Him honoring us.
you ignore the sources cited - again you can think I said what you like, truth is that's not what I said
I am not wasting my time going through your meaningless links.
Make your point, because so far you haven't backed it up concerning the other passages that I referred to.
Iv made my point.
According to the grammar (verb followed by 2 accusatives) and dictionaries of multiple sources the worship and fear is directed to both God and the King.
The king being Gods representative so is treated like he is God. though could be considered idolatry there's a difference when God says to "worship" something and when the nations go off and do it themselves.
you can call the links meaningless if want..
You are missing the point. Yes, "fear" is directed to both YHWH and the king (Proverbs 24:21)..
BUT.....Fearing YHWH encompasses praying to YHWH.
AND.....Fearing the king does NOT encompass praying to the king.
Honoring God encompasses praying to God (1 Samuel 2:30).
But God honoring us does NOT encompass God praying to us - even though the same Hebrew word is used (1 Samuel 2:30).
Post a Comment