" "proskyneo" is at it's core an act of honor to an authority, or just a gesture of respect. "
That's a contentious statement. Can you back that up with scholarly support? There are various Greek words used by the NT writers to signify mere gestures of respect and acknowledge of superiority, but proskuneo in relation to Jesus connotes something more: reverence and worship of a divine being. In the book of Matthew in particular this comes through. "Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held concluded from their analysis of scenes where Jesus is the recipient of the gesture in Matthew, 'proskuneo' is used "only in the sense of genuine worship of God". (Hurtado, 2005,p.147)
I'd recommend you read Larry Hurtado's 2005 book "How on Earth did Jesus Become a God?", particularly the chapter "Homage to the Historical Jesus and Early Christian Devotion."
Keep in mind that Hurtado asserts that the earliest Christian devotion was 'binitarian', and even then only the Father is recognised as the one, true God (John 17: 3; 1 Cor 8:6; ). Worship given to Jesus stemmed, not from a belief that Jesus was 'God' per se, but out of acknowledgement for his role as the divine son of God now given all authority in heaven and earth and through whom we can have access to the Father, as the divine agent of the one true God, the Father. His book "At the Origins of Christian Worship" is also instructive in this regard.
Russell on prayer to Jesus & WTS charter? refers to worship of Jesus
by yaddayadda 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
yaddayadda
-
monkeyshine
What Russell taught is no longer of interest to most JWs.
That's disgustingly so true. Imagine if you asked a Buddhist why he/she goes against Buddhist teachings and they said "Oh, that was a long time ago. What does Buddha have to do with Buddhism? I'm not a historian, I'm a Buddhist."
Sounds weird, huh?
-
Death to the Pixies
Can you back that up with scholarly support? There are various Greek words used by the NT writers to signify mere gestures of respect and acknowledge of superiority, but proskuneo in relation to Jesus connotes something more: reverence and worship of a divine being. In the book of Matthew in particular this comes through. "Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held concluded from their analysis of scenes where Jesus is the recipient of the gesture in Matthew, 'proskuneo' is used "only in the sense of genuine worship of God".
BAGD lists as it's primary defintion:worship, do obesiance to, prostrate oneself, welcome respectfully...to human beings belonging to a superhuman realm... to a king...to the Church at Philadelphia. They have Jesus not being worshiped as God, but as "Messianic King and Divine Helper". Either way, it is the very word used to decribe a gesture of respect to a King or a representative of God. This I have documented from the NT and the the LXX (1 Chron. 29:20, 1 Kings 2:15).. So we do not need "scholarly opinion" as this is verifiable from scripture. The idea of "worship" (how a modern reader interprets that phrase anyhow) meaning an act to God alone, is strictly commentary and contextual, not derived from the word itself. As far as the analysis of the men you provided, I gave an example which shows that invalid, Matthew 28:16-17. It is a gesture, nothing more can be gathered from it in that instance
Any "worship" of Christ cannot be independent of the Father anyhow, so this does not demand a binitarian interpretation as Hurtado has done. Christ being "God" functionally does not change that fact. (Phil. 2)
-
icocer
BOOKMARK
-
yaddayadda
Pixies, seems you are basing your opinion pretty much on one source, ie, BAGD (whatever that is).
Of course proskuneo in relation to HUMANS can only ever mean "...do obesiance to, prostrate oneself, welcome respectfully...to human beings belonging to a superhuman realm... to a king...to the Church at Philadelphia."
But you are missing the point, a distinction between the resurrected Jesus and an human authority figure that many prominent NT scholars have correctly taken into account (but you prefer to ignore or dismiss as not necessary). That is that Jesus is not merely a human, but is the divine son of God, appointed by God the Father to the highest status in the universe other than Himself. As a divine being who is sitting at God's right hand and who, according to Revelation 15, receives the same reverence and adoration as God (but not because he is God), he can rightfully be said to be 'worshipped' in a very similar manner to God the father.
But since it's all "strictly commentary and contextual" as you assert then one's interpretation of what 'proskuneo' means in relation to Christ is completely derived from one's personal predisposition.
Try reading Hurtado first before criticising his 'binatarian' theory. -
yaddayadda
Pixies, seems you are basing your opinion pretty much on one source, ie, BAGD (whatever that is).
Of course proskuneo in relation to HUMANS can only ever mean "...do obesiance to, prostrate oneself, welcome respectfully...to human beings belonging to a superhuman realm... to a king...to the Church at Philadelphia."
But you are missing the point - there is a big distinction between the resurrected Jesus and a human authority figure that many prominent NT scholars have correctly taken into account: that Jesus is not merely a human, nor a mere angel who temporarily took on human form, but is the divine son of God, appointed by God the Father to the highest status in the universe other than Himself. As a divine being who is sitting at God's right hand and who, according to Revelation 15:13+14, receives the same reverence and glory as God (but not because he is God), he can rightfully be said to be 'worshipped' in a very similar manner to God the father.
You should do yourself a favour and read what certain scholars have to say on the subject instead of arrogantly dismissing them. They are not all biased Trinitarians. But since it's all "strictly commentary and contextual" as you assert then one's interpretation of what 'proskuneo' means in relation to Christ is completely derived from one's personal predisposition.
And try reading Hurtado first before contemptously criticising his 'binitarian' theory.