Questions concerning 'Did The First Christians Worship Jesus?' by James Dunn

[foudroyant]

I have 6 questions about 'Did The First Christians Worship Jesus?' by James Dunn.


A. In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship (latreuein) to Jesus. (page 13)

QUESTION #1: Why then does the Lord Jesus receive cultic worship in Revelation 22:3?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...velation-22-3)

Dunn comes ever so close to seeing this when he writes:
In his visions the seer no longer makes a point of distinguishing the throne of the Lamb from that of God. Some of the descriptions seem to imply that the Lamb is seen to be sitting on God's throne (7.17), and 22.1, 3 speak of 'the throne [singular] of God and of the Lamb'. (page 131)
----------------------------------------------------
B. But most interesting for us is Acts 13.2, where Luke describes the church in Antioch, 'worshipping (leitourgountwn) the Lord'. Is 'the Lord' here Jesus? (as frequently in Acts)? Or does Luke speak of the worship of the Lord God? (#25)
Footnote #25: As in Acts 1.24; 2.39; 3.20, 22; 4.26, 29, 12.23; 17.24 (Page 14)

Elsewhere in the New Testament writings, 'prayer' as such (proseuchesthai, prosueche), explicitly or implicitly, is always made to God. (page 33)

QUESTION #2: Why then does the Lord Jesus receive προσευξάμενοι in Acts 1:24?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-Lord-Jesus
----------------------------------
C. Yet, notably, when used in prayer aitein and erwtan always refer to asking (for) or requesting addressed to God, and never to Jesus. (page 34)

He repeatedly promises that whatever his disciples ask (aitein) in his name, 'so that the Father may be glorified' (14:13). And he adds, 'If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it' (John 14.14). (page 33)

QUESTION #3: How is it that on page 34 Dunn informed us that aitein never refers to Jesus but then on page 33 he cited a passage which teaches it does?
----------------------------------------------
D. In no case was the thought of worshipping other than God entertained. Or, to be more precise, when the thought did arise (worshipping a great angel?) it was quickly squashed. (page 90)

QUESTION #4: Why was the Messenger of YHWH worshiped in Genesis 48:16?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...esis-48-15-16)
-------------------------------------------------
E. But deesis is used in the Epistles always for prayer; that is, prayer to God. (page 33)

QUESTION #5: Why then does the Lord Jesus receive δέησιν in 1 Peter 3:12?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-Lord-Jesus

[apostoli]

I have 6 questions about 'Did The First Christians Worship Jesus?' by James Dunn.


A. In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship (latreuein) to Jesus. (page 13)

QUESTION #1: Why then does the Lord Jesus receive cultic worship in Revelation 22:3?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...velation-22-3)

Dunn comes ever so close to seeing this when he writes:
In his visions the seer no longer makes a point of distinguishing the throne of the Lamb from that of God. Some of the descriptions seem to imply that the Lamb is seen to be sitting on God's throne (7.17), and 22.1, 3 speak of 'the throne [singular] of God and of the Lamb'. (page 131)
----------------------------------------------------
B. But most interesting for us is Acts 13.2, where Luke describes the church in Antioch, 'worshipping (leitourgountwn) the Lord'. Is 'the Lord' here Jesus? (as frequently in Acts)? Or does Luke speak of the worship of the Lord God? (#25)
Footnote #25: As in Acts 1.24; 2.39; 3.20, 22; 4.26, 29, 12.23; 17.24 (Page 14)

Elsewhere in the New Testament writings, 'prayer' as such (proseuchesthai, prosueche), explicitly or implicitly, is always made to God. (page 33)

QUESTION #2: Why then does the Lord Jesus receive προσευξάμενοι in Acts 1:24?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-Lord-Jesus
----------------------------------
C. Yet, notably, when used in prayer aitein and erwtan always refer to asking (for) or requesting addressed to God, and never to Jesus. (page 34)

He repeatedly promises that whatever his disciples ask (aitein) in his name, 'so that the Father may be glorified' (14:13). And he adds, 'If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it' (John 14.14). (page 33)

QUESTION #3: How is it that on page 34 Dunn informed us that aitein never refers to Jesus but then on page 33 he cited a passage which teaches it does?
----------------------------------------------
D. In no case was the thought of worshipping other than God entertained. Or, to be more precise, when the thought did arise (worshipping a great angel?) it was quickly squashed. (page 90)

QUESTION #4: Why was the Messenger of YHWH worshiped in Genesis 48:16?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...esis-48-15-16)
-------------------------------------------------
E. But deesis is used in the Epistles always for prayer; that is, prayer to God. (page 33)

QUESTION #5: Why then does the Lord Jesus receive δέησιν in 1 Peter 3:12?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-Lord-Jesus

It is all very simple! Until the resurrection, the Son was the "memra of YHWH" (Jewish Aramaic Targums used to explain a Hebrew, which the common people did not understand, at each ancient synagogue service) = "the Logos of the Theos".

Come the resurrection the Son receives ascendency (in effect the Father surrenders the throne to the Son), as Novation the early church father (who decades before Nicea explained the Trinity) determined, "God (the Father), made the Son God to us" (cp: Jn 20:28 with 14:5-7). Don't confuse such a statement with subordinationism or the idea of attainment.

If he was worshipped it was worship offered to God in and through him, worship of Jesus-in-God and God-in-Jesus. And the corollary is that, in an important sense, Christian monotheism, if it is to be truly monotheism, has still to assert that only God, only the one God, is to be worshipped. (page 146)

Two things to note from the NT and ancient witness: 1. The Son did not come of his own volition, he was sent by the Father (Jn 8:42). 2. From the first declaration of the Nicean Creed to which every orthodox and conservative Christian church subscribes "WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD THE FATHER... and in one LORD Jesus Chist, God from God...hommousious...and in the Holy Spirit. " Such is the declaration of Trinitarian belief of the majority church...

only the one God, is to be worshipped.

Very true!!! And that direction according to the NT and the ancient fathers of the church is exclusively a prerogative of the Father. However, it is the method of aproachment that is now of utmost importance. By worshipping the Son we automatically worship the Father (cp. Jn 5:23) , and we now approach the Son through the Spirit (cp. 2 Cor 13:14).

[foudroyant]

It is all very simple! Until the resurrection, the Son was the "memra of YHWH" (Jewish Aramaic Targums used to explain a Hebrew, which the common people did not understand, at each ancient synagogue service) = "the Logos of the Theos".

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:13, NASB)

Isn't this still true after the resurrection?

[Raphael]

I'm busy reading Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski and Darrell L. Bock

And they pretty much refute most if not all of his points you've mention (excluding #4, but because I haven't read that yet and it might be later in the book)

http://www.amazon.com/Putting-Jesus-...tag=theol00-20

[foudroyant]

[apostoli]

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:13, NASB)

Isn't this still true after the resurrection?

It is true (confirmed) from the moment of the resurrection! As A.Paul makes plain, without the resurrection our faith is in vain...

I find it tedious the emphasis people put on Jesus' scourging and crucifixion. Many a people have suffered greater agony in death then and now for their belief system eg: rabbi Akiba who was flayed to death, one strip of skin at a time. Others that were slowly baked over low flames etc etc The reality for the time, was Jesus received a quick death, merely hours rather than days...

As for "He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood", this is a reference to his followers (cp. Rev 6:9)

[One Bad Pig]

Have you read Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity? I believe it was published before James Dunn's book; it is also rather longer.

IIRC Ronald Heine's Classical Christian Doctrine: Introducing the Essentials of the Ancient Faith also briefly covers this.

[hedrick]

Dunn seems to read the NT descriptions of Jesus in essentially functional terms. Jesus is God's presence. When we see him, we see God. But he thinks the NT mostly doesn't speak of Jesus as being literally, or perhaps ontologically, God. In this he agrees with people with Wright and most of the historical Jesus movement. This is based on an understanding of how 1st Cent Jews would have understood language about Jesus. If you start from a traditional Christian position you can find language in the NT that seems to support you. But the question is whether that's reading into the language things that the authors wouldn't have meant. On balance I think Dunn, etc, are right. The NT goes as far as possible in identifying Jesus with God while still seeing him as human. Not as a man-God in the Chalcedonian sense, but as God present in and through a man.

My sense is that 1st Cent Jewish thought had a wide range of ways of speaking of functional identification, but lacked the subtle metaphysics of the 5th Cent. Similarly, the thought world in which Chalcedon arose had a quite a complex set of ontological categories, but was weak on the kinds of functional identification that was in the air in 1st Cent Palestine. Hence the NT was written in functional terms and the 5th Cent discussion and later took place in ontological terms.

[Paprika]

But he thinks the NT mostly doesn't speak of Jesus as being literally, or perhaps ontologically, God. In this he agrees with people with Wright and most of the historical Jesus movement.

I know Wright is of the position that "Son of God" would be understood primarily as a messianic term, but I'm pretty sure that he believes other language describes Jesus as YHWH.

[One Bad Pig]

I know Wright is of the position that "Son of God" would be understood primarily as a messianic term, but I'm pretty sure that he believes other language describes Jesus as YHWH.

This. And even the non-Chalcedonian churches view Jesus Christ as both God and man; they just disagree on how that relationship should be described (and increasingly the dispute is being viewed as people saying the same thing in different ways).

[Cow Poke]

This. And even the non-Chalcedonian churches view Jesus Christ as both God and man; they just disagree on how that relationship should be described (and increasingly the dispute is being viewed as people saying the same thing in different ways).

How would you say it?

[One Bad Pig]

How would you say it?

Source: Decree of the Council of Chalcedon

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Source: Decree of the Council of Chalcedon

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

© Copyright Original Source

Thanks!

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks!

The non-Chalcedonians, from what I recall, emphasized the unity of Christ and thought that the Chalcedonians put too much emphasis on the two natures (and accused them of tending toward Nestorianism). The Chalcedonians, on the other hand, accused the non-Chalcedonians of mingling the two natures of Christ.

[hedrick]

I know Wright is of the position that "Son of God" would be understood primarily as a messianic term, but I'm pretty sure that he believes other language describes Jesus as YHWH.

Here's the best statement I've seen: http://ntwrightpage.com/wright_jig.htm. He sees Jesus as acting as God, but I don't think he sees Jesus as ontologically identical. He has called Chalcedon "something of a confidence trick." This could be misleading out of context. I think he believes in what Chalcedon is trying to say, which is that Jesus is both human and the presence of God. But that's not necessarily two natures with one hypostasis. Everything I've seen by him speaks more of a functional than an ontological unity. I'm not a scholar, but from what I've read, this is typical of 20th and 21st Cent theology.