This post was written years ago, but I've taken the time to edit some of it or supplement some parts: still a work in progress.
Exodus 11:8 (LXX): καὶ καταβήσονται πάντες οἱ παῗδές σου οὗτοι πρός με καὶ προκυνήσουσίν με λέγοντες ἔξελθε σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαός σου οὗ σὺ ἀφηγῇ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξελεύσομαι ἐξῆλθεν δὲ Μωυσῆς ἀπὸ Φαραω μετὰ θυμοῦ
In BAGD (now BDAG), Exodus 11:8 is cited as an example of the LXX using προσκυνὲω: I guess that one could interpret Moses' words there as
describing inferiors bowing down to their superior, but I do not understand
11:8 that way. Even if the Egyptians would acknowledge that the Israelites were correct in their religious beliefs, and that Jehovah (YHWH) God
was the living and true deity and Moses was a prophet-ruler/priest (as it were)--this would not necessarily mean that the children of
Israel or Moses were superior to the Egyptian officials who would bow down to
them.
But maybe the text could be read that way.
Furthermore, I see no reason to view the Christians in first-century
Philadelphia as being superior to the Jews who persecuted them: being a
Christian does not make one superior to a non-Christian (Rev. 3:9), especially not socially.
When the Jews would come "groveling" to the early Christians, I don't think they would perform this act as that of an inferior to a superior.
Regarding προσκυνεῖν and Jesus, Gerald L. Borchert declares concerning John
9:38:
"The use here of proskunein ('worship') as applied to Jesus is unique
in this Gospel. While the term can be used in secular parlance for
rendering 'obeisance' or prostrating oneself before another human and
kissing the person's feet in an act of utmost respect, in the
Biblical context the term, when applied to God, is meant to signify
worship" (Borchert 325).
[check]
Borchert feels that what took place in John 9:38 was an act of
worship, likely because he believes that Jesus is God. However, I do not wish to
debate that point now; rather, I want to point out
that Borchert admits προσκυνεῖν may delineate an
act rendered to "another human" and constitute a sign of "utmost respect"
in secular Greek; moreover, the term can be employed that way in the LXX (Genesis 23:7).
While Borchert reckons that John 9:38 describes a religious act directed to God somehow, not all scholars
agree. For instance, neither G.R. Beasley-Murray nor R. Schnackenburg think John 9:38 portrays the blind man worshiping Jesus per se.
Murray's exact comments:
"PROSEKUNHSEN is commonly translated [in John 9:38], 'he worshiped
him' . . . but this is doubtful. KUNEW means 'to kiss,' its extension
in PROSKUNEW reflects the Eastern custom of prostrating oneself before
a person and kissing his feet, especially of one viewed as belonging
to the supernatural world, e.g., a deified king . . . Note also Acts
10:25, and Rev. 3:9, which is significant in view of the frequent and
consistent use of the term in Revelation for the worship of God or
pseudo-divinities. It would seem that in John 9:38 the healed man is
ascribing honor to the Redeemer from God, which is beyond that due to
other men but short of that due to God Almighty" (Murray 159-160).
Again, Murray says that PROSKUNEW could be performed "before a person," especially of a "superior. Yet according to this Johannine
scholar, PROSKUNEW is not limited to those who are one's superiors. It is also clear that Murray does not view John 9:38 as proof that Jesus
is worshiped while on earth; the former blind man is seen as ascribing honor to the
God-sent Redeemer. This honor is greater than the kind given to other men,
but less than the honor vouchsafed to God Almighty. Depending on his intent, I concur with this part of his remarks.
Finally, Schnackenburg professes:
"The man's action is not the expression of formal adoration of Jesus,
but of the honor due to the God-sent bringer of salvation which itself
gives honor and adoration to God. It shows the man's advance from his
Jewish faith (vv 31-33) to Christian faith" (Schnackenburg 2:254).
I might add remarks by Ralph Earle pertaining to Mark 5:6 which show that PROSKUNEW does not
always mean worship, in the Biblical context; of course, Jesus was and
is superior to any human. This doesn't mean that the man in Mark's Gospel was
worshiping Jesus when EDRAMEN KAI PROSEKUNHSEN AUTWi. Mark
5:6 could illustrate the non-religious import of PROSKUNEW.
I offer one other thought on proskunew: R.E. Brown in the Anchor Bible for the Gospel of John I-XII:
So, Brown thinks the blind man offers worship to Jesus in John 9:38. Could he be mistaken?
72 comments:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/why-do-indians-touch-the-feet-of-their-elders/%3famp=1
The king James Version says Daniel and David was worshipped.
Daniel 2:46(KJV)
46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.
Do trinitarians believe they were God too since they were worshipped according to the KJV?
Thanks Duncan. As we've talked about previously, there are similarities between the ancient Greeks-Romans and Indian culture. Interesting link.
On Dan. 2:46, I guess Trinitarians compartmentalize and view proskynesis differently when it's given to anybody besides Jesus, Jehovah God or a false god. One of the most Trinitarian Bibles I know is the Amplified Bible. Yet here's its rendering of Dan. 2:46:
"Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell face downward and paid respect to Daniel [as a great prophet of the highest God], and gave orders for an offering and fragrant incense to be presented to him [in honor of his God]."
Thanks for reminding me of this verse
"Pranāma" sounds similar to the Greek.
You know about the Sanskrit and Greek connection. It often comes to the fore in comparative linguistics.
In Daniel 2:46 just because worship was rendered does not mean it was proper to do so.
I agree with the assertion made in the NIDNTT concerning proskyneo. 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).
FR, see-https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/new-international-dictionary-of-new-testament-theology-and-exegesis/
CF. Matthew 2:2. Respect due a king?
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-4/JETS_50-4_799-812_Green.pdf
I still hold to the position that proskyneō is due only to God in the New Testament.
https://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/WorshipoftheSonofGod.pdf
Revelation 3:9
FR, I think it would be prudent to examine the possible verses from the OT that are being quoted, especially when it says "it is written". Here is one possibility www.biblestudytools.com/lxx/deuteronomy/6-13.html
Revelation 3:9 does not teach anyone else besides God is properly rendered proskyneō.
Revelation 14:3
And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. (NASB)
The singing that took place is worship. The song was directed to God alone even though it was also "before the four living creatures and the elders." They were in God's presence when the singing took place, but they were not recipients of this worship. The same holds true concerning the worship described in Revelation 3:9. Worship was directed to Christ, but in the presence of ("before") these believers.
In terms of Deuteronomy 6:13, a Christian is to have this same "fear" in reference to the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:31; 2 Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:22). They are also to "serve" the Lord Jesus as well.
Okay, that's not really what Revelation 3:9 says. The act of proskynesis is rendered to Christians in that verse, not just in their presence. See Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9.
Compare Isaiah 49:23.
FR, yes, fear and serve but note that "worship" is not stated.
See Gen 27:29, Exo 18:7 & 1 Kings 1:53.
Various translations aside, focus on the term שחה which in Hebraic culture means to bow down (physically). The NT writers were still in a fairly Hebraic culture. Also note that the Greek term has a fairly similar concept of kneeling down and it is only in recognition of authority as opposed to deity.
You had to ignore Revelation 14:4 to insist that proskyneō muat be rendered unto people. When you cite REvelation 19:10 it simply affirms what I am asserting. This is due only to God - and yet John sees to it proskyneō is properly rendered unto the Lord Jesus (John 9:38).
Duncan,
Neither is worship stated in Deuteronomy 6:13 - a passage in which you cited.
I didn't ignore Revelation 14:1-3, but it's not the same. The new song is not just directed to God but to the four living creatures and the 24 elders. The song may be worship, but the verse differs from Revelation 3:9 where the Jews fall down/bow down before Christians, not God. The Isaian passages clearly affected the Revelation verse.
You overlooked the point of Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9 was that John fell down before the angel and worshiped him. Yes, he was corrected, but the act of falling before the angel showed that John initially was directing "worship" or proskynesis to the angel--not initially to God.
John 9:38 debatably is an example of worship to Jesus, but Mark 5:6 clearly is not. See the NIV, NET and other translations which do not render the passage as worship. The context suggests that worship is not being performed in Mark's account.
I'm going to post what scholars have written about Revelation 3:9.
When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and knelt down before Him (HCSB).
Mark 5:6
FR, so is Matthew quoting Deuteronomy 6:13? If he is why is he using "worship" in his rendering of a Hebrew text that also omits proskyneō in its Greek translation?
If it is not quoting Deuteronomy 6:13, then what is it quoting as it does say, "it is written"?
What of the Magi, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?".
Did they see Jesus as a deity to be "worshipped" or where they "paying there respects" to a new king?
The "new song" is not directed to anyone but God alone. In fact, whenever the expression "new song" appears in the Bible it alwasy refers to worship (Psalm 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Isaiah 42:10; Revelation 5:9; 14:3). Interestingly, when it is used in Revelation 5:9 the Lord Jesus is the recipient.
Revelation 19:10 records what John did, but it was wrong for John to worship the angel. It is never wrong to worship Jesus.
Where are we explicitly told that the new song can only be performed as an act of worship to God, and not directed to anyone else? This is an extrapolation but do the verses you cite actually say that?
Either way, proskynesis i not limited to God; did you read the verses that Duncan and others have poted from the OT where proskynesis is given to humans? That is also the most natural way to read Rev. 3:9.
For the record, I'm not saying it's okay to "worship" an angel, but the point is that John's act of falling before the angel in this way constituted what seems to be worship. Of course, falling before someone can be less than worship too, but the act is done before and to humans in Rev. 3:9 (at least, Jesus foretells what will happen).
Since worship is due only to God then a "new song" (which is worship) is thus due only to God as well.
I have already addressed Revelation 3:9. The NIDNNT is correct in that when 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).
What John did in Revelation 19:10 was indeed worship. That is why the angel told him to "worship God." If it wasn't worship then the angel's rebuke doens't make sense.
Duncan,
Matthew 4:10 is quoting Deuteronomy 6:13. proskyneō does appear in Matthew 4:10, but not in the LXX of Deuteronomy 6:13. Matthew uses worship because to fear the Lord entails worshiping the Lord. This is why I pointed out earlier there are passages that refer to fearing the Lord in reference to Jesus. This means the Lord Jesus is to be worshiped.
FR,
We're getting nowhere with the new song issue and I'm a little surprised that you acknowledge John worshiped the angel, but can't see that proskynesis is rendered to humans in Revelation 3:9 and men receive proskynesis, according to the LXX.
Sorry, but if NIDNNT makes that claim, it's wrong.
Edgar,
Again, why would the abgel command John not to do what he did and then add to "worship God" if John wasn't engaged in worshiping the angel?
The NIDNTT makes clear they are talking about how proskynesis is used in the New Testament.
In terms of the "new song" I affirm that only God is the proper recipient of worship. In that worship is properly rendered unto the Lord Jesus demonstrates He is God.
FR,
If you go back and look at my previous comments, I never said that John did not worship the angel. My point was that he fell down before the angel but was told not to worship him. My point was that you accept that John worshiped the angel when he fell before him, but you don't accept that Jews would "worship" or bow down to Christians when we're plainly told that's what certain Jews would do.
I will pursue the quote from NIDNTT: I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm just curious as to how that source treats Rev. 3:9.
Yes, many believe that Jesus rightly receives worship as God the Son, but receiving proskynesis alone is not a sufficient reason for believing Jesus is Almighty God the Son. At any rate, I think the claim that regarding the use of proskynesis in the NT can be challenged.
Mat 4:9 demonstrates the custom in πεσὼν.
"the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve—The word "serve" in the second clause, is one never used by the Septuagint of any but religious service; and in this sense exclusively is it used in the New Testament, as we find it here. Once more the word "only," in the second clause—not expressed in the Hebrew and the Septuagint—is here added to bring out emphatically the negative and prohibitory feature of the command. (See Ga 3:10 for a similar supplement of the word "all" in a quotation from De 27:26)."
FR, you also need to deal with Acts 10:25 regarding "a devout man who feared God with all his household" worshipping Peter.
Note that Peter says that he is just a man but there is no reason to contrast that with a god or angel, it only has to being a superior. Peter is just saying that he is not superior.
Edgar,
Revelation 19:10 teaches that John fell down at his feet "to worship him." It doesn't read that way in Revelation 3:9. Worship was done at/before their feet, just like the new song was "before" the other creatures in Revelation 14:4 - but not "to" them.
Notice also that when proskyneō was rendered to Jesus in Luke 24:52 it was not done so to Him while physically before them. He was departing. It is never used in this regard anywhere else in either the OT or the NT. Furthermore, in Hebrews 1:6 it is rendered unto the Lord Jesus in association of Him being YHWH (Hebrews 1:10; cf. Psalm 101:26 LXX).
Duncan,
I am not sure what your point is concerning Matthew 4:10. This type of worship is due unto God alone. Since the Lord Jesus receives this worship in the New Testament demonstrataes He is God.
Acts 10:25 demonstrates that even the so-called best of can sin. Cornelius did so here and John did so in Revelation 19:10. Corenelius shoud refer this worship to God alone.
FR, all I'll say besides the blog post I'm going to do is Revelation 3:9 doesn't have to tell us that those calling themselves bow down in order to worship the Christians because the very act of bowing has significance. You will notice, if you check, that many translations don't render the Greek verb "worship" in 3:9, but rather as do homage or bow down. It's clear that the bowing/proskynesis would be done to the followers of Jesus as the verse states, καὶ γνῶσιν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἠγάπησά σε. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, you fail to see the act's significance and why it's being done. We can't disassociate the act from the context and from the verb's object (the followers of Christ). We've gotten nowhere on the new song issue, so I will refrain from making a comment on it.
Yes, Jesus receives proskynesis but why? I don't believe that necessarily makes him God, especially when you consider the evidence from the OT/LXX and the GNT. You impose worship on the term but it doesn't always have that meaning in the GNT, LXX or in secular Greek. Hebrews 1:6 could be interpreted as a passage about Jesus being God's agent and the one whom God has exalted to a superior position (Hebrews 1:2-5). He is the image and exact reproduction of YHWH (Hebrews 1:3). However, he is not YHWH himself anymore than Metatron is.
Edgar,
As only an agent Christ would not have YHWH from the Old Testament applied unto Him in the New Testament (cf. Hebrews 1:10). It would take Him to be YHWH in order for this to happen.
They worship before the church in Revelation 3:9 does not make the church the object of worship anymore than when people sing "to" one another in their worship of the Lord in Ephesians 5:19. The same is true concerning Isaiah 45:14 (LXX).
FR,
I don't think Christ is being identified with YHWH hypostatically or ontologically, but rather functionally. Hebrews 1:2 teaches that Christ is the agent of creation. See 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.
I agree with David Aune that worship is not occurring in Revelation 3:9, but rather, groveling or bowing down is. See Mark 5:6
Christ is identified as YHWH in Hebrews 1:10 for God "alone" is the Creator (Job 9:8; cf. Isiaah 44:24). 1 Corinthians 8:6 further supports this point.
The "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is the "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 10:22 - the "Lord" being Jesus.
Immediately after Paul affirmed the "one Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8:6, the Greek word for 'conscience' (syneidesis) is used several times in 1 Corinthians 8. Thus, Paul's use of both 'Lord' and 'conscience' is linked. This is very important because Paul returns to associating the 'Lord' with 'conscience' in 1 Corinthians 10.
1 Corinthians 8:6 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 8:7 'conscience' (syneidesis)
1 Corinthians 8:10 'conscience' (syneidesis)
1 Corinthians 8:12 'conscience' (syneidesis)
1 Corinthians 10:21 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 10:22 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 10:25 'conscience' (syneidesis)
1 Corinthians 10:26 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 10:27 'conscience' (syneidesis)
1 Corinthians 10:28 'conscience' (syneidesis)
1 Corinthians 10:29 'conscience' (syneidesis)
The 'Lord' in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is therefore the same 'Lord' in 1 Corinthians 10:21, 22, 26 where 'conscience' is employed in the same context several times. In fact, Paul specifically affirms wounding another believer's conscience involves sinning "against Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:12). Furthermore, the expression "things sacrificed to idols" (or something very similar; cf. Greek: eidōlothytos) in 1 Corinthians 8 is also used in 1 Corinthians 10 in connection with the 'Lord'.
1 Corinthians 8:1 'things sacrificed to idols' (eidōlothytos)
1 Corinthians 8:4 'things sacrificed to idols' (eidōlothytos)
1 Corinthians 8:6 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 8:7 'sacrificed to an idol' (eidōlothytos)
1 Corinthians 8:10 'things sacrificed to idols' (eidōlothytos)
1 Corinthians 10:19 'a thing sacrificed to idols' (eidōlothytos)
1 Corinthians 10:21 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 10:22 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 10:26 'Lord'
1 Corinthians 10:28 'sacrificed to idols' (eidōlothytos)
Finally, Paul's usage of the "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 10:22 is drawn from Old Testament passages in reference to the worship of the Lord (YHWH) in contradistinction to the worship rendered unto idols ("provoke the Lord to jealousy").
Exodus 34:14-15 - YHWH's name is 'Jealous'/the eating of idolatrous sacrifice is involved.
Deuteronomy 4:24-25 - jealous/provoke
Deuteronomy 6:15 - this theme of jealousy is in relation to the one Lord (YHWH) of Deuteronomy 6:4.
1 Kings 14:22-23 - provoked/jealousy
Psalm 78:58 - provoked/jealousy
Instead of worshiping idols, the believer is to worship Jesus as being the 'Lord' (YHWH).
I see nothing in Acts 10:25 or the surrounding context that indicates sinning.
It is also worthwhile looking at various recent commentaries on John 19:5 and possible meanings of a Greek idiom. Not sure it should be ended with an exclamation mark.
Also the perceived difference between "just a man" & εὐγενὴς.
Duncan,
Luke has quite a few man/God contrasts (5:4, 29, 38-39; 12:22-23; 14:11-15; 28:3-6). This would point to Peter erring on the side of caution that Cornelius perceived him to be mich more than a superior human authority.
Christ is a man (John 19:5), and because He is the proper recipient of worship demonstrates He is God.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/01461079211027703?journalCode=btba
"When Jesus quotes from scripture to Satan, he says "you shall worship (προσκυνήσεις) the Lord your God, and him alone shall you serve (λατρεύσεις)" (Matthew 4:10). This does not expressly forbid the act proskuneo being applied to another, but it does forbid serving anyone else, which is consistent with the term eidolatria as serving idols."
Duncan,
In Matthew 4:10 (cf. Luke 4:8) proskyneō is used in association with latreuō as being due unto God alone. Notice that these same two words are also found in Acts 7:42-43. What is being expressed in the passages above is that worship is only due unto God and not to any other. The association of these two words is also seen in Acts 24:11 and Acts 24:14 as well as in Revelation 7:11 and Revelation 7:15. One cannot be diminished without calling into question what the other is also expressing (worship).
For Acts 24:11, worship is given to the high priest as gods representative.
The fact that two words are used in a sentence does not mean too much to me. It is what the sentence actually has to say that matters. Context is king.
CF. Romans 1:9 "serve in the spirit".
Worship is an action of respect but service is a way of life. In Matthew and Luke it is the mark of respect (worship) and living for god's purpose (serve). The two should not be confused and mean different things.
For the verses in Revelation compare Hebrews 4:14-16.
Acts 24:11
since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. (NASB)
Worship is not given to the priest as you claim.
I agree that context is important and in each of the passages I listed where these two words are found together 'worship' cannot be divorced from either word.
I am not asking you to take my word for it.
"in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
>>to the Jewish high priests<<
to God
to Christ
to heavenly beings
to demons"
www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/proskuneo.html
For acts 7 were the idols worshipped the actual god's served? There is recent scholarship on Molech as a practice rather than a god, that many nations practices it who all had there own different god's.
The stars and Saturn were served by the practice of Molech but what were the idols? Compare Colossians 1:15.
The belief of the Greeks is that a god could temporarily inhabit an idol (representative) to that god.
Acts 24:11, CF. Acts 8:27.
The Ethiopian like any one of Israel could "serve" God wherever they lived but to pay respect (worship) one had to go to the temple before the high priest.
IMHO you are confusing the modern idea of "worship" which just does not exist in the biblical text, but if you want to define what you mean by "Worship" that would be helpful?
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/priests-and-levites-in-the-first-century-ce
They went before the highy priest, but they did not worship the high priest.
A major component of worship involves prayer.
a. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): Inside the covenant circle God demands of his people a completely exclusive worship (cf. 6:4) (3:938, jealous, H. G. L. Peels).
b. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): The religion of Israel demanded exclusive worship of Yahweh, and therefore all prayer in Israel was necessarily addressed to the one God. It is obvious that this was of decisive importance (2:790, "The Main Features of OT Prayer," euchomai, Herrmann).
It would take only one example in the Bible where the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer to demonstrate that He is God - and this is taught in multiple number of passages of the Bible.
Worship as you describe is not Proskynesis and this is my main point.
As for prayer, how can you have it both ways? Matthew 6:9-13. Jesus himself taught prayer to the father.
Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:12.
You claimed that prostration before a man was a sin when context does not indicate it was but prayer to Jesus is fine when this is not what he himself prescribes?
To pray "in the name" of Jesus is to pray as he would pray, for the same things - John 17:25-26. To motivate (spirit - John 14:17) the Christian actions.
Where does the NT tell us to pray to Jesus?
Duncan,
Jesus taught to pray to the Father, but He did not teach to pray "only" to the Father. There are plenty of other passages which teach the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer (Acts 1:24-25; 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16; Romans 10:12-14; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 2 Timothy 2:22).
Are you telling these passages teach us what to do as opposed to telling us what others did. Is that the same thing?
Joel 2:32 - does this equal prayer?
Romans 10:12-14 applies to all, not just saying what others did. The same would apply with 2 Timothy 2:22.
Joel 2:32 means praying to YHWH.
1 Kings 18:24
Zephaniah 3:9
Psalm 124:8
Romans 10:13-17
Matthew 7:21
2 Chronicles 7:14 - two separate things here.
Genesis 4:26
Acts 9:14 - prayer? CF Mat 6:5
Zechariah 13:9
2 Kings 5:11
Still do not think it is referring to prayer.
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament: First Corinthians is addressed to "those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in any place" (1 Cor 1:2), the church being the gathering of those who adore Christ, who celebrate his worship (cf. Ps 145:18) and pray to him from a pure heart. Over and against the religious individualism of the Greek cities, all believers are united in their adoration of Christ as Lord and God; their common "invocation" is the expression of their unity. (2:44, epikaleō)
FR, 1 Corinthians 1:2 is an indicative statement, not an imperative. One normally approaches God through a high priest or mediator: we usually don't pray to the high priest or mediator. See Hebrews 5:1-7 and 7:25; Jude 20-25.
I have seen many works that confuse the two terms, "call on the name" & "pray". I am going to need something more concrete and grounded in evidence to be convinced.
We don't pray to the high priest but we do bow to his authority as god appointed.
Edgar,
Normally does not mean never. That the Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer, even if it is only one time (when in fact it is multiple times), proves He is God.
Duncan,
I have already cited one lexicon. Would another convince you?
I said usually (or normally), but I could have said never. I don't know of any biblical examples where an Israelite prays to a priest. Who prayed to Aaron or the other priests? And you still have yet to produce one instance of God commanding people to make Jesus the recipient of prayer. It never happens. Furthermore, he's never clearly identified as God. All Trinitarian examples are debatable.
Theology can be subjective and prone to the authors biases. What data is his opinion built on? What third party examples in the first century examples use "call on the name" to indicate prayer to a god? What are his footnotes for this entry?
A commentary from an ex-trinitarian
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/romans10_13.html
Are there are any specific points you want to contradict?
https://biblehub.com/text/zephaniah/3-9.htm
See Mark 11:9-11
Duncan,
Choose what you think is his most powerful argument. There is too much for me to go through all of his errors and confusion. Just choose one.
For me the most powerful arguments are the original OT text that are being quoted and there contexts. Remember that this is a letter to the 'Hebrews" who were very familuler with the texts either in Hebrew or OG and this letter is designed to convince and exhort them. Target audience should not be left scratching there heads.
The Book of Hebrews does not mention about calling upon the name of the Lord.
Post a Comment