From James McGrath’s blog:
1 Chronicles 29:20 depicts the Israelites worshipping/prostrating themselves before Yahweh and the king. One verb, two objects. The king is said a few verses later to sit on Yahweh’s throne.
To claim that in Jewish literature no agent of God ever receives the same kind of worship that Jesus is depicted as being offered in the New Testament is to ignore fairly clear evidence from the Bible itself, never mind relevant extrabiblical evidence. Most scholarly studies recognize that this primary terminology of worship, which has as its root meaning prostration, is not consistently directed only to God Most High in Jewish literature.
McGrath is spot on. We take too little stock in how closely tied together are the identity of God and God’s representatives on earth in the Biblical narrative. God is so “other” in our thinking that we miss the ways the biblical narrative show that God is bound up with the persons of Adam, Israel, and the kings.
So (correct me if I’m twisting this) could a (hypothetical) Catholic point to this as evidence that showing reverence/veneration to saints is not necessarily synonymous with idolatry?
I defer to those who know better…
I think you might actually be speaking at an issue within Orthodox Christianity, not Roman. But, I think your question answers itself, partially at least. You used the term ‘veneration’, not worship. The saint is not worshiped and nor is idolatrous.
So very useful resources:
The Meaning of Icons by Vladimir Lossky
The Mystical Language of Icons> by Solruun Nes
How would the fairly consistent biblical theme of angels (and Paul/Barnabas in Acts) refusing worship from human beings fit into this issue?
Great question, Nick. No quick answer back at you–that sounds like important counter-evidence. One way to go might be to recognize the singularity of certain representatives (such as the Davidic kings).
Thanks for posting this, Daniel, and thanks to everyone involved in the discussion!
Nick, I think that the issue in most if not all cases of refusal of worship or refusal to prostrate oneself has to do with how the status of the one so worshipped is understood. In Revelation, the angel emphasizes that he is merely a fellow-servant along with human Christians. And so the point is presumably that humans do not have to unduly fear malevolent spiritual powers – after all, a human being has been exalted to the heavenly throne! But it has to be noted that earlier in Revelation we are told that those who are “of the synagogue of Satan” will be made to come and worship at the feet of Christians (Revelation 3:9).
Hi James,
You have pinpointed a concern I’ve had for some time regarding the use of the angel’s refusal to receive “worship” as part of an argument to secure post-biblical orthodox Christology. You are one of the few people who have noticed (or chosen not to ignore) the fact that there is a rather obvious reason for the angel’s refusal, which the angel himself declares! Kings could receive proskuneo with God in some limited contexts because they were physical expressions of God’s own ruling authority. As the account in 1 Chron makes clear, it was thought that they occupied God’s throne. The angel in Rev. had no such position, but was a servant instead.
I think that you and Angela have probably correctly identified ritual sacrifice as the clear dividing line between the worship that is appropriate to God alone and that which his agents can receive. Perhaps the reason that Paul never had to defend his Christology (as far as we know) is because Christ was conceptualized as the sacrifice, not the God to whom the sacrifice was offered.
~Kaz
Hmmm, this is thought provoking.
So when they worship Jesus in the NT is it as King or Son of Man or Son of God or all or shades of which or do the just hit the ground and not worry about the details because its besides the point in that moment. pvk
As King = Son of God = Son of Man, all of which are categories of a human (or group of humans) playing a particular role on earth.
I think we have to be a little cautious with the 1 Chronicles passage. I’m sure the exalted status of Israel’s (ideal?) king is a significant factor in the development of a high christology, but we are not bound to think that ‘worship’ of YHWH and ‘worship’ of the king have the same connotations. The two verbs used both have the sense of bowing down or prostrating and both are used with regard to divine and various human figures. For example, Solomon ‘bows’ before Bathsheba (1 Ki. 2:19) – now in what sense might that have constituted ‘worship’? The connotations that attach to our modern understanding of ‘worship’ really make it a rather inappropriate term to use in this context.
It’s perhaps also worth noting that in the preceding prayer (1 Chron. 29:10-19) David has gone out of his way to diminish his own significance in relation to YHWH: ‘Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all…. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly?’
If anything, the 1 Chronicles passage suggests that the use of the Jewish language of worship for both Jesus and God implies not an identification but a distinction between YHWH and his exalted but very human king.
I think it is going to depend on what you believe the “primary terminology of worship” is.
I do not believe that the proper term for worship is being applied from the start. If it is believed that Jewish literature has its own evidence that there are agents of God being worshipped in similar ways to Jesus then they would need to use a term that particularly displays a distinct worship expression. If “prostrating” is a shared worship expression rather than a distinct expression then it cannot be the “primary terminology of worship.” To propose so would be inconsistent with Jewish literature.
In Jewish literature God is distinctly one and he is Lord over all. Therefore, 1 Chronicles 29:21 shows this separate distinction of worship that the “agent of God” did not receive after the bowing and paying homage. Was David offered sacrifices along side the Lord? No. It was only to the Lord, “And they offered sacrifices to the Lord.”
What if the “primary terminology of worship” is sacrifice? That would be consistent with Jewish literature. This would indicate an action performed only to the object of the true worship-Yahweh. So, if you have, “One verb, two objects” then it isn’t the “primary terminology of worship” found in Jewish literature.
God’s identity is intricately connected to his name—I AM or rather God alone. This singleness understanding is crucial in the relationship with his human representatives. In addition to the bowing and paying homage, the Lord also received sacrifices.
David only received the bowing and homage. His son Solomon who sat on Yahweh’s throne neither received bowing, homage, or sacrifices. He did receive obedience and allegiance as if to a political regime.
So, sacrifice is the departure point from the perceived “primary terminology of worship” that is prostrating. This is because of its exclusive performance to Yahweh. Jesus upholds this concept in two ways. (1) In his own actions. He offers himself as the sacrifice. (2) In his sayings. He is recorded (MT. 22:41-45) quoting David (Ps.110). If the starting point in “primary terminology of worship” is a shared form of worship rather than a distinct only to God form then the Jewish literature isn’t being handled appropriately nor is the biblical narrative being read faithfully.
If the element of sacrifice is used as the “primary terminology of worship” it would connect the commonality of God and Jesus’ Lordship (1 Chron. 29:11; Acts 2:36) and point to a present and future coming kingdom. Even the Shema is a shared recording of Yahweh and Jesus.
Unfortunately, to use the term sacrifice as the main idea behind worship would mean to eliminate finding any agents of God in Jewish literature resembling worship to Jesus.
I notice that Rob Bowman responds at some length to McGrath’s argument about 1 Chron. 29:20.
This is a question for Daniel and whoever else would like to reply, I do enjoy this blog I find it very informative and thought provoking as well. I know this is an offbeat and off subject question, but i was wondering what your thoughts were on Jonathan Edwards(not the politician) the philosopher /theologian. How extensively have you read his works and what is your opinion? Thanks for your thoughts..