Greek: καὶ πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. καὶ ὁ θρόνος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου ἐν αὐτῇ ἔσται, καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν αὐτῷ,
On page 555 of his Revelation commentary, Buist Fanning understands the referent of the singular datival pronoun αὐτῷ to be God: he points to Revelation 7:15 as support for this view. Fanning's position makes more sense to me than those who want to posit the two persons/one pronoun view. Fanning still thinks that Christ is God and worthy of worship based on Revelation 5:9-14, but he maintains that the singular pronoun in 22:3 refers to God rather than Christ.
Similarly, David Aune writes that the singular pronoun in Revelation may refer to a) God; b) Christ;
c) less likely, to both God and Christ.
Compare Revelation 3:21.
Friday, February 12, 2021
Buist Fanning and Revelation 22:3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"worthy of worship" = god?
Does it function the same way at Matthew 14:33?
Luke uses a different vocabulary Luke 24:5
For Fanning, I'm pretty sure that "worthy of worship" means that he believes Jesus is God.
Matthew 14:33 NIV: Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Luke 24:5 NIV: In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?
They might say the context is different and disparate terms are used: the accounts are not parallel.
"Truly you are the Son of God." = a god?
What do you think that "son of god" means, even with the article?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5953/is-there-an-issue-with-translating-the-word-worshiped-in-matthew-1433
"This may have led some Greeks to believe that the Persians worshipped their king as a god, the only Persian that received proskynesis from everyone, and other misinterpretations caused cultural conflicts. Alexander the Great proposed this practice during his lifetime, in adapting to the customs of the Persian cities he conquered, but it failed to find acceptance amongst his Greek companions (an example can be found in the court historian, Callisthenes) - and in the end, he did not insist on the practice. Most of his men could cope with Alexander’s interest for having a Persian wardrobe, but honouring the king as if he was a god by performing proskynesis went a bit too far.[5] According to Arrian, Callisthenes explains the existence of separated ways of honouring a god or a human and that prostration is a way to explicitly honour gods. It is seen as a threat to the Greeks, ‘who are men most devoted to freedom’. According to Callisthenes, prostration is a foreign and degrading fashion.[5]"
So Greek meaning or hebraic meaning?
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11589131.pdf
Pg 94 footnote 233.
Note fear and worship.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lxx/exodus/18-7.html
προσεκύνησεν
First, I'm just relating what Fanning wrote. I personally believe Jesus is the son of God, not God. However, I understand the Trinitarian view of God's Son but disagree with that view. Most readers know my view.
I've written about proskyneo etc. here and elsewhere. It doesn't prove that Christ is God.
I think Revelation 7:15 where latreuo is used in reference to God (the Father) also has the Lord Jesus as its recipient. Those in white robes who render ceaseless latreuo unto God (v. 15) includes what they said to the Father in Revelation 7:10. Here, the Lamb (the Lord Jesus) is also the recipient of their worship.
Post a Comment