Did the first Christians worship Jesus? A leading Christian New Testament scholar gives his careful assessment of the evidence.
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Christology, Dr Jimmy Dunn, History, Jesus, New Testament scholarship
Did the first Christians worship Jesus? A leading Christian New Testament scholar gives his careful assessment of the evidence.
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Christology, Dr Jimmy Dunn, History, Jesus, New Testament scholarship
Matthew 14:33
And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”
yeh, not God but his son. Don’t you get it?
Psalm 2:7
they worshipped Jesus in the boat as the Son of God, who commanded the waves and storm.
Therefore, Jesus is God incarnate by nature / substance / essence (John 1:1-5; 14; 5:17-18; 20:28; 8:56-58; Heb. 1:3, 6, 8, 10-12; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Romans 9:5)
You cannot know God nor worship God without coming through the one mediator, Jesus Christ, who is one Divine Person with 2 natures, human and Deity.
John 14:6
“No one comes to the Father except through Me”
So, Muslims cannot even know the one God or worship Him (the true Allah, the Holy Trinity) without coming to faith in the eternal Son.
Psalm 2:7 is on our side. Hebrews 1, 5 and Acts 13 demonstrates this.
Ken
you think by listing a bunch of Bible verses that you prove the truth of your position to Muslims. That is an elementary error which a missionary of your many years should really know.
Muslims do not regard the Bible as it stands as authoritative for faith. Your comment is therefore merely whistling in the wind and will only convince those who already share your faith.
@ Ken
“You cannot know God nor worship God without coming through the one mediator”
That’s so sad…
“Psalm 2:7 is on our side.”
Yet you never answer when I bring up that is Psalm 2:7 is about Jesus then he wasn’t the “son” forever:
“I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; TODAY I have become your father.”
You also ignore the context of calling oneself the “son of God” means an heir to the throne of David(as).
If Psalm 2 is on Kennywise’s “side”, and the Jews interpreted it that way, then why did they accuse Jesus of “blasphemy”? Kennywise keeps ignoring this question.
“they worshipped Jesus in the boat as the Son of God, who commanded the waves and storm.”
They were Jews, not pagans. Only pagans would have reacted by “worshiping” Jesus after witnessing a few miracles. But being recipients of the prophetic tradition, they would have surely realized that miracles do not mean the performer is divine and worthy of worship. If so, they should have “worshiped” all the prophets who performed miracles.
@Ken Temple
“they worshipped Jesus in the boat as the Son of God, who commanded the waves and storm.”
Did they now?
“The Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus was worshiped by his followers (Matthew 14:33, 28:9, 28:17), and so does the Gospel of Luke (Luke 24:52) and the Gospel of John (John 9:38). However, scholars have pointed out that these verses do not prove that Jesus was worshiped as God. According to James Dunn (emphasis in the original):
“..the use of proskynein in the sense of worship to Jesus seems to be rather limited. And there is a hint of uncertainty or hesitation as to whether this is the appropriate way to speak of the reverence due to Jesus.”[60]
And as Laurence Brown has observed regarding the use of the Greek word “proskuneo” (emphasis in the original):
“Taken in total, proskuneo can only imply divinity if Peter, David, and Elisha, among others, are included. Otherwise, selective translation must be assumed, for when the Roman soldiers proskuneo’ed to Jesus, they didn’t worship him, as the Bible translates. Rather, they mocked him with the salute offered to the kings and leaders of their time. Likewise, when the others proskuneo’ed to Peter, David, Elisha, the slave-master, et al. they showed their respect according to custom. So, too, with Jesus.”[61]
Similarly, Geza Vermes notes:
“The only example in which the disciples call Jesus ‘Son of God’ and ‘worship him’ comes from a late legendary addition by Matthew to the story of Jesus walking on the water (Matthew 14:33).”[62]
Given that the divinity of Jesus is so central to Christianity, is it not rather amazing that the Gospels are so ambiguous about the worship of Jesus?”
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/jesus-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/
Also I have a question for you Ken, If anyone commands the waves and/or the storm is that in itself a sign of divinity and that they should be worshiped?
David was worshipped too
“Worshipped”
@Schneider
as was Daniel.
Sorry you already mentioned it, i tend to look for the verses and references first when skimming that’s why i commented about David…i apologize
That’s the verse i meant, what’s worse is it was both to David and Jehovah…probably in different ways but still it shows how weak Christian arguments are
https://biblehub.com/text/1_chronicles/29-20.htm
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/1ch/29/1/s_367001
The “today” in Psalm 2:7, in the context of Israel at that time, is the day of coronation for the Davidic King. the doctrine of the Messiah coming from the line of David. A descendent of David will be the Messiah (2 Samuel 7; Psalm 89; Ezekiel 34:23-24; Isaiah 11:1-11; Psalm 2:1-12)
But the Psalms are revealed at a certain point in time (time of David is around 1010-971 BC), and revelation is progressive (in process) until the 27 books of the NT are finished. Progressive revelation about the Messiah is in other passages also that came after the Psalms were written; and modern Jews understand this and agree with the principle of progressive revelation – Isaiah 11 (even modern Jews today admit this is about Messiah, but the word Messiah is not used there), Isaiah 53, 7:14; Daniel 7, 9, Micah 5:2 – Micah 5:2 ff says that the Messiah’s days are “from eternity past”.
the Jewish leadership thought knew that the Messiah would also be “the Son of God” – by their questions at Jesus’ trial – Mark 14:60-64
They did not accept a non-military, non-political “king” who was “meek and humble” – they did not see the evidence that He was the Messiah and Son of God.
But the rest of revelation fills in the rest of the doctrine of the Son of God.
John 17:5 is clear that Jesus was with the Father in eternity past with the Father, sharing the same glory. (Along with many other passages – John 1:1-5; Philippians 2:6-8)
Hebrews chapter 1 and chapter 5 show that the “today” is when Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father. This is proving that He is the Son of God, not that He becomes the Son of God at that point.
Acts 13:30-35 seems to say it is at His resurrection.
But Romans 1:1-4 say that the resurrection proclaimed / announced that He is the Son of God, not that He became the Son of God at the resurrection.
Luke 1:34-35 seems to indicate Jesus is already the Son of God from conception in the womb of the virgin Mary.
The Incarnation (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:1-5, 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8)
The Resurrection (Acts 13:30-35; Acts 2)
The Ascension and session (sitting down) at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews chapter 1 and 5)
All prove He is the eternal Son, not that He becomes the Son later in history.
He was the Son from eternity.
Micah 5:2 ff – from eternity past
John 17:5 – eternal Son
John 1:1 – from eternity past (even Qur’an agrees with calling Jesus the Word of God. Kalimat’Allah کلمه الله
Ken in preaching mode.
Everyone else switches off.
Zzzz..
LOL
You way of trying to keep readers from looking up the verses and understanding the argument and possibly be persuaded.
Have you ever looked up all the verses and prayed with a willing and open heart for God to reveal Himself through the Scriptures?
@ Ken
I almost don’t want to respond as you knew that was hogwash. Sigh…down the line:
1. “But the Psalms are revealed at a certain point in time (time of David is around 1010-971 BC)”
Agreed. Don’t remember saying otherwise.
2. “They did not accept a non-military, non-political “king” who was “meek and humble” – they did not see the evidence that He was the Messiah and Son of God.”
That is one irrelevant to the point
3. Your list of Biblical reference
Doesn’t explain the passage AT ALL. “Progressive revelation” is irrelevant. Next Acts says:
32And now we proclaim to you the good news: What God promised our fathers 33He has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.’c
For one even in the footnote the text means (emphasis mine):
“33 c Psalm 2:7; literally today I have BEGOTTEN You”
Two again this HURTS not helps. Let’s for discussion sake say this is correct it was when he(as) was “raised up” that he became the son (as he was literally “begotten” on that day as the text states) That means he JUST THEN became the Son and not beforehand. So once again is Psalm 2:7 about Jesus(as) if so, then how was he “begotten” on that day? Whether it be during David’s(as) time or when he was raised?
No.
Progressive revelation is relevant to the issue, because even the Jews during the process of the centuries from David’s time to the exile to Babylon to the return to the time of the intertestamental period to the time of Jesus recognized the development from the promise of the Messiah meant a future descendent of David (that is was not totally fulfilled in Solomon, but a future descendent of David would be “The Messiah”.
Isaiah 7, 9, 11, Ezekiel 34, Micah 5:2, Psalm 89
Context of Acts 13 proves this.
What is the promise that Luke is referring to? (Acts 13:22-23, 32)
By itself at the time of Psalm 2, it seems like it is talking about a political and military Messiah who would crush the enemy nations around Israel who are rebelling. Read the whole Psalm and see – You will crush them with a rod of iron like clay pots; etc.
So, all the other verses I gave are OF COURSE relevant. You are not allowed to skip over revelation and put God’s word under your unbelief and Kufr. کفر
That the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus as Messiah because He was not a military / political leaders is OF COURSE relevant!
Luke (same author as gospel according to Luke, see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-11) is saying that the resurrection and ascension PROVES Jesus is already the Son. (see Luke 1:34-35 and the fact that “they worshipped Him” in Luke 24:52 at the end of his gospel. They recognized Him as Messiah and Son of God.
after Jesus ascended into heaven (Luke 24:50-51)
“. . . He was carried up into heaven”
52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
53 and were continually in the temple praising God.
By quoting Psalm 2:7, in Acts 13, he is not saying “today” is the day of resurrection or ascension, but rather the power of the resurrection and ascension proves Jesus pre-existence of being the eternal Son. All other NT passages that touch on the issue IS RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE.
Romans 1:1-4
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
“declared” = announced, declared, proved, proven that He was already the Son of God.
Luke 1:34-35 shows this also.
“for this reason the holy offspring will the called the Son of God”
Because of the virgin birth – no human father
Because of the power of the Most High – the Father’s Power
Because of the Holy Spirit in the conception – the nature of God – Jesus in the womb is God by nature, spirit and pure – and He has two natures – a human nature from Mary and a Divine Nature from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and 17:5 fill in the rest of the theology on the eternality of the Son into the past with the Father.
oh so much to read…..will troop by later…..be well everyone.