A Critical Analysis of the Bible – Jesus was God because he was “worshiped”?

In my numerous exchanges with Christians in discussing Jesus’ divinity one thing that undoubtedly will not be missed is the notion that Jesus is given worship, hence making him God. At a glance the issue seems quite simple, at least to the uninitiated. God is the one who deserves worship and if Jesus is indeed given worship he must be that God. In reality, the issue is not as simple as that. In this article we will explore and dissect the main arguments that are usually propelled by Trinitarians in this regard to promote Jesus’ deity. The following are some of the verses(from the KJV) that are often cited to prove that Jesus deserves our worship and as such is God:

And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. (Matthew 8:2)

While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. (Matthew 9:18)

Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. (Matthew 14:33)

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. (Matthew 15:25)

Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. (Matthew 20:20)

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. (Matthew 28:9)

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Matthew 28:17)

But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, (Mark 5:6)

In every single one of the above instances the word translated ‘worshipped’ comes from the Greek proskynein which is equivalent to the Hebrew shachah which as James Dunn explains means, ” ‘bow down, prostrate oneself, make obeisance before.’ It denotes the act of homage before a monarch or a superior, or prostration before God in worship.” [1] He then cites the scholars Walter Bauer and F.W. Danker who define proskynein as, ” ‘to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, so ” (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully” ‘.” [2] Thus the above cited verses are rendered alternatively in other various Bible versions in the following manner:

A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” (Matthew 8:2, New International Version)

While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” (Matthew 9:18, New International Version)

The men in the boat bowed down in front of Jesus and said, “You are truly the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33, God’s Word Translation [The Dhuay-Rheims has in its place ‘adored’])

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. (Matthew 15:25, New International Version)

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. (Matthew 20:20, New International Version)

and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, ‘Hail!’ and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him. (Matthew 28:9, Young’s Literal Translation [The Dhuay-Rheims has in its place ‘adored’])

When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted (Matthew 28:17, World English Bible)

When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. (Mark 5:6, New International Version)

Some versions of the Bible have retained ‘worship’ as the favoured translation in several cases due to theological motives. Even in such cases one should bear in mind that the word comes from the Greek proskynein which does not have to signify religious worship as we have already pointed out. Further more the same word proskynein is used for others time and again apart from Jesus as we see in the following verses:

Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of the land, the Hittites. (Genesis 23:7)

The Hebrew word for ‘bowed down’ in the verse is the verb vaiyishtachu which comes from the root shachah which as we have noted earlier corresponds to the Greek proskynein. The KJV like all the other versions of the Bible chose to translate the word as ‘bowed down’ rather than worship. The fast and loose manner by which they translate the word is due to theological reasons as we have already stated. The Greek of Genesis 23:7 reads as follows:

ἀναστὰς δὲ Αβρααμ προσεκύνησεν τῷ λαῷ τῆς γῆς, τοῖς υἱοῖς Χετ,(the word is bold letters is prosekunisen which comes from proskynein)

Genesis 33:3 has Jacob bowing down(shachah;proskynein) his brother, Esau seven times! What is even more telling is what happened between King Nebuchadnezzar and the prophet Daniel. The following is from the Revised Standard Version:

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, worshiped(shachah;proskynein) Daniel, and commanded that a grain offering and incense be offered to him. (Daniel 2:46)

Here is an instance of a person who is described in Daniel 2:37 as ‘the King of Kings’ giving worship(προσεκύνησεν) to Daniel. There isn’t a single instance anywhere in the New Testament of a king giving worship to Jesus. Following the line of reasoning of many Trinitarians Daniel should be a greater God than Jesus since he was given worship by not just any Tom, Dick or Harry, but by ‘the King of Kings’. Some might say in an attempt at rebuttal, “yes, I agree, but those are people and actions in the Old Testament.” Firstly, even if it is in the Old Testament that does not negate the ethical and doctrinal value discernible from the verses that have been cited. Afterall, Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets in Matthew 5:17. Secondly, a careful reading of the New Testament will reveal that the instances found in the Old Testament recurs in the New Testament e.g. Acts 10:25:

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον, συναντήσας αὐτῷ ὁ Κορνήλιος πεσὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας προσεκύνησεν(proskunisen)

It is thus clear that the occurrence of proskynein for Jesus does not make him deserving of worship in the sense that God the Creator deserves it. It does not make him God just as it does not make Abraham, Esau, Daniel and Peter God. Other instances of people given proskynein/schachah include 1 Samuel 25:23, 2 Kings 4:37, Genesis 50:18, 2 Samuel 19:18 etc.

The ordinary Evangelist would by now have been defeated. However, the learned and clever Evangelist will persist. He will insist that Jesus deserves worship just like the Father. To do this they will start talking about the term letreuein/latreia. They will argue in the following manner:

Evangelist : In the Bible the term latreuo is a specific and unique term which means religious service or devotion. It is always used for worshipping deity and never for a human being. Did you know that Jesus is given latreuo? That makes him God like the Father!

Inquirer: Really? Where is it in the Bible?

Evangelist: Daniel 7:14. The Septuagint uses the term latreuo there for the Son of Man and in Mark 16:62 Jesus uses that verse for himself.

-end of hypothetical exchange-

What does Daniel 7:14 actually say? The verse in English reads as follows:

“And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

The key word in that verse which according to Trinitarians designates Jesus as God is ‘serve’ which according to them is letreuo in the Septuagint. This conclusion is actually inaccurate because there are two readings of the same verse in Greek. The one that is appealed to by Trinitarians is the LXX manuscript Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus 88 reading which is as follows:

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

The above reading certainly does have the word λατρεύουσα or latreousa. However, many scholars will argue that a better reading comes from Theodotian’s Greek text which reads as follows:

καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.

As opposed to the LXX, Theodotian’s text reads douleusousin which comes from douleo. The theologian Sir Anthony Buzzard commenting on this says, “The Septuagint chooses latreuo (worship) in 7:14, but Theodotian, another Greek version of the Old Testament, uses the verb douleuo, a neutral word meaning to serve. The word latreuo, used in the Greek New Testament only of divine service, is not applied to Jesus.”[3] In the same discussion Buzzard cites Professor of New Testament Emeritus at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Arthur Wainwright who says in his book The Trinity in the New Testament, “there is no instance of latreuein [to do religious service to] which has Christ as its object”. [4] Agreeing with Buzzard, Biblical scholar Dr. T.J. Meadowcroft of the Auckland Bible College says, “Incidentally, in v. 14 θ chooses to translate פלח with δουλεύω, a term which we have noted is more generally applicable than λατρεύω to human relationships of subservience.” [5] Elsewhere he notes that “As a rule, the θ translator follows the sense of the Aramaic closely but not slavishly.” (The θ [theta] symbol represents Theodotian’s Greek text) This means that douleuo is a close rendering of the Aramaic פלח (palach). The Eminent British Biblical scholar and Lightfoot Professor of Divinity Emeritus at the University of Durham, James Dunn unequivocally says, “Cultic worship or service (latreuein, latreia) as such is never offered to Christ…”[6]. In conclusion, Jesus did not receive unique worship as the Father did which clearly shows that he is lower in status to the Father, hence doing away with the Athanasian creed which suggests equality between the two.The verdict is NOT to worship Jesus as one would worship the Creator God.

Addendum

A question that might arise from the above discussion is whether Daniel 7:14 is actually about Jesus or some other person. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary in its commentary on Daniel 7 markedly makes no mention of Jesus at all. The following is W.H. Green Professor of Old Testament literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, Rev. James Barr’s commentary on Daniel 7:14:

13-14 One like a Son of Man – The word ‘man’ in Heb. and Aram. is generic in sense and means ‘mankind’. ’Son of Man’ is therefore a normal expression for a single human being. The first point is therefore the contrast between this figure and the bestial figures preceding. It is commonly held that here he is a human figure representing Israel as the beasts represented the other empires. But the fact that he comes with the clouds of heaven, i.e that he is a celestial being, unlike the other beings who arise from the earth or sea, is also important. The appearance or likeness of a man is in fact a normal expression for an angelic manifestation (Ezek. I). The ‘son of man’ or rather the One like a Man is then what we would call an angel, one of the holy ones or their representative. He has a relation to Israel, for he serves the God of Israel; but is more than a figure for Israel. In the interpretations following he merges back into the host of the holy ones. The further comprehension of his significance depends on the question why what we call ‘angels’ are so often described as ‘man’ and why on the other hand ‘man’ is sometimes brought so close to God, especially in his capacity as a ruler( Gen. 1-2; Ps. 8 ); and with this place of man as ruler hangs together the question of the relation of the ‘Man’ here to the Messiah. There is no specific reference here to the Messiah as such, but there is a certain overlapping and community of expression; the Messiah is the king, and the king is also ben’adham, ’man’, in PS. 80:17, cf. 146:3. Nor can we neglect the use of ‘son of man’ for Daniel himself (see on 8:17). But what we have here in essence is an eschatological appearance of an angelic being as man in heaven. [7]

Though being a Christian himself like the New Jerome Biblical Commentary he too markedly leaves Jesus out. Rather he proposes that the subject in question is an angelic being(and not a divine one!). E. P. Sanders says about Matthew 26:63 which parallels Mark 16:62, “The word ‘but’ (Greek plen) is adversative: ‘But on the other hand’, and thus, according to Matthew, Jesus claimed to be expecting a heavenly figure, not his own return.”[8] Commenting on Mark’s version he says, “It is not possible to come to a firm conclusion about Jesus’ use of the phrase ‘Son of Man. He used it; sometimes he used if of himself; he expected the Son of Man to come from heaven; but it is not certain that he identified himself as that future Son of Man.” [9] Historically, one cannot firmly conclude that Jesus saw himself as that ‘Son of Man’ and as Prof. Rev. Barr notes “there is no specific reference here to the Messiah…” in Daniel 7.

References:

[1] Dunn, J. D. G. (2010). Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 8

[2] Ibid. pp. 9

[3] Buzzard, A. (2007). Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian: A Call to Return to the Creed of Jesus. Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship. pp. 143

[4] Ibid.

[5] Meadowcroft, T.J. (1995). Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 198. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd. pp. 229

[6] Dunn, J. D. G. Op. Cit. pp. 27

[7] Barr, J. (1962). The Book of Daniel. In Matthew Black & H. H. Rowley (Eds.), Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 597-598

[8] Sanders, E.P. (1995). The Historical Figure of Jesus. England: Penguin Books. pp. 247

[9] Ibid. pp. 247-248