By Keith
Thompson
Muslim apologists are often accused
of not handling Christian Scripture’s accurately. Ibn Anwar’s article
Is Daniel 7:14 Evidence for Jesus’ Divinity is a good example of why
such accusations are so common. For nearly 2000 years Daniel 7:13-14 has been
cited in favour of Jesus’ deity. Yet with the rise of modern Islamic
apologetics there have come various attempts of trying to dismiss this text as
Old Testament proof for the deity of the Messiah. In this paper we will set out
to affirm that this text strongly supports the deity of Christ and that Anwar’s
attempt at watering down the impact of this passage and surrounding issues is
gratuitous.
The text reads:
"13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14).
A Messianic Prophecy
We know that this text is messianic
in nature for various reasons. With respect to exegetical evidence the
description of this Son of Man closely correlates with other Old Testament
descriptions about the awaited Davidic Messiah and what He would do (Ezekiel
37:18-28; Isaiah 9:7; 42:1-8; Psalm 89:19-37; Psalm 110:1). Moreover, in the surrounding
context of Daniel, namely 9:24-26, a distinctive 2nd temple
messianic figure is given the title Messiah in the Hebrew (מָשִׁיחַ),
demonstrating that the Messiah is clearly in view.(1)
With respect to the New Testament
evidence, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:67-70 (which will be discussed
below) also affirm that the Son of Man of Daniel is the awaited Messiah, Jesus.
In the mid 1st century
extra-biblical Jewish apocryphal work 1 Enoch 48:2, reference is made to “the
Son of man” and “Head (ancient) of days” demonstrating that Daniel 7:13-14 was
clearly being drawn from. In 1 Enoch 48:10 this Son of Man is identified as
“His Anointed” – a messianic title. Therefore, 1 Enoch shows that there was a
strand of early non-Christian Jewish belief maintaining that the Danielic Son
of Man was the Messiah.
Moreover, in his commentary on
Daniel, Alan R. Milard notes that ancient Jews would assign to the awaited
Messiah the title “he of the clouds”(2), clearly showing that they believed the
Son of Man who is said to come on the clouds of heaven was the Messiah. Milard
also argues that “Maintenance of this view in Judaism despite its adoption
by the Christians suggests it had ancient and authoritative status.”(3)
In the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 400-600) we see additional attestation that Daniel’s Son of Man was believed to be the Messiah:
“R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. it is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it! — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee …] lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.”(4)
It should be noted in passing that
the Christian answer to the above question is that Jesus’ 1st
century advent involved riding on a donkey and that His second coming will be
the fulfilment of Daniel 7:14 where He will come on the clouds. Hence, both are
true. There is more evidence to support the Messianic explanation of this
text(5) but this should be sufficient to demonstrate that Daniel 7:13-14 is a
messianic prophecy referring to Christ.
Divine Implications of Daniel 7:13-14
In his article Ibn Anwar doesn’t
interact with v. 13 at all but limits his discussion to v. 14 for obvious
reasons. This is simply because in v. 13 we are told that Christ, the Messiah,
comes on the clouds of heaven, which is a motif always connected with deity in
the Old Testament as well as the Quran itself. It is always YHWH who comes on
the clouds in the Old Testament (Exodus 14:20; Numbers 10:34; Isaiah 19:1;
Psalm 68:4; Psalm 104:1-3). And the evil spirit (i.e. Allah) which inspired the
Quran and Islam borrowed this concept as well since he claims in the Quran that
he is the one who comes on the clouds (S. 2:210). Since Jesus comes on the
clouds of heaven, which according to Islam is Allah’s prerogative, Jesus must
therefore be God. Therefore according to both the Old Testament and the Quran,
Jesus does the very thing only God does.
Equally interesting is the fact that
when discussing the issue of this Son of Man being worshiped or served by
humanity in v. 14 Ibn Anwar doesn’t actually deal with the original language at
all; he limits his discussion to the LXX (Greek Septuagint translation) and
related issues which will be covered later.
When the Son of Man receives worship
or service the word in the original Aramaic (the language that Daniel 7 was written
in) is pelach. The evidence affirming that according to Daniel and the
Old Testament this refers to unique divine service or worship which is due to
God alone is strong.
First, in every reference where this
word is used in the Aramaic portions of the Old Testament it is always the
service or worship belonging to God or the service or worship pagans give to
false gods. In fact there are places which explicitly show that pelach
should only be given to God. Therefore according to the Old Testament it refers
to service/worship of deity. It is never generic service or reverence which one
shows to a superior or a man approved by God in the Old Testament.
The word is used in Ezra 7:24 of “servants
of this house of God” – divine service towards God. The word is used in
Daniel 3:12 of divine service to false gods. It’s used in Daniel 3:17 of divine
service to the true God. It’s used of Daniel’s friends Shadrach, Meshach and
Abednego in Daniel 3:18 with respect to a refusal to offer divine service to
false gods. In Daniel 3:28 the word is used in reference to the divine service
only God is to receive where we are told that Daniel’s friends “yielded up
their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except
their own God.” It’s also used in 6:16, 20 with respect to divine
service to God. The word is also used in Daniel 7:27 in reference to service to
God despite the fact that this text is often misunderstood as referring to
service towards the saints of God.(6)
According to Gesenius’s Hebrew
lexicon pelach carries the following meanings: “…to labour, to serve,
often in the Targums; spec[ially] to serve or worship God…Dan. 3, 12 sq. 7,
14. 27.”(7) Notice how Gesenius affirms Daniel 7:14’s use of the word
denotes worship to God.
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon assigns to pelach the following meaning:
“pay reverence to, serve (deity)”(8), and it attaches the latter meaning to Daniel 7:14’s use of the word as well. In agreement is Stephan R. Miller who in his commentary on Daniel notes that “… in every other instance where the verb פְּלַח (‘worship’; ‘serve,’ NRSV) occurs in biblical Aramaic (nine times), it has reference to service (worship) rendered a deity (Dan 3:12, 12, 17-18, 28; 6:16[17], 20[21]; 7:14; Ezra 7:24).”(9)
All of this shows that according to
the Old Testament pelach is only to be given to God. Although the later
(2nd century A.D.) uninspired Targum literature (e.g., Targum
Onkelos, Genesis) departed from this strict Old Testament usage by teaching
humans received pelach, this is not reflective of the Old Testament’s
orthodox usage or position. This would be similar to how in the Quran it is
taught that only Allah is Ar-Rabb (the Lord), and yet in light of this seeing
Arabic literature written hundreds of years after the Quran assigning to
creatures the same title. This wouldn’t mean that according to the Quran or its
language that it is acceptable to identify creatures as the Lord, as a
deserved title. Just like the Quranic teaching is that only Allah is the Lord
(S. 3:64 and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 1:2), the Old Testament teaches only
God is to receive pelach. Hence, when one allows for logical parameters
to establish word usage we see that pelach is to be given to God alone
according to the Old Testament.
To further show that pelach
is worship due to God alone in the Old Testament, the committee of scholars,
from various positions and backgrounds, who translated the NIV translated
Daniel 7:14 in the following manner: as “… all peoples, nations and men of
every language worshiped him.” These scholars could clearly
see that the word pelach refers to the worship, not just service, which
God demands that all the nations give to this divine Son of Man.
We, therefore, have strong
exegetical, lexicographical and scholarly support for the fact that Jesus
receives service/worship which is due to God alone in Daniel 7:14. It is
therefore understandable why Ibn Anwar chose not to interact with the original
languages but instead focused on later Greek translations of Daniel.
The later LXX translated the word pelach
found in Daniel 7:14 into the Greek work latreuo as found in Ralph’s
edition and other Greek editions. This Greek word latreuo means divine
worship due to God alone.(10) Ibn Anwar concedes this point in his article by
quoting Anthony Buzzard who affirms this meaning of latreuo. The fact
that this choice was made provides more strong proof that the service/worship
Jesus receives in Daniel 7:14 is divine worship due to God. However, in spite
of all this evidence Ibn Anwar claims that the 2nd century A.D.
Greek version of Daniel written by Theodotion, which instead renders Daniel
7:14’s pelach into the Greek word douloō, is a better choice of
translation. This word douloō has a broader range of meaning and doesn’t
necessarily have to refer to divine service/worship to God, though it very well
can mean that.(11) It’s important to note that Theodotion’s translation comes
after the earlier LXX translation, and that the LXX’s rendering of Daniel 7:14
was already being used as an argument for Jesus receiving latreuo by
patristic writers before the non-Christian Jew Theodotion produced his Greek
translation of Daniel. Thus, this chronology needs to be kept in mind.
In fact, if one accepts douloō
as the proper translation it is clear from the context that the Son of Man is
being served or receiving douloō in the same way that the Most High is
served or worshiped. Compare the verses again:
“He was given authority to rule, and glory, and a kingdom; so that those of every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.” v. 14“The kingdom, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the holy ones of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.” v. 27
Here we see that both the Son of Man
and the Most High receive douloō from all the kingdoms of the earth
without any distinction being made in that worship or service.
So even if one accepted douloō
as the correct translation it wouldn’t mean Jesus isn’t being served or
worshiped as God. As we just saw from the context, that is precisely the kind
of service which all the nations are expect to give to Jesus.
However, instead of actually
demonstrating that douloō is in fact a better translation of pelach
than latreuo, Ibn Anwar simply quotes a few scholars stating that in the
New Testament Jesus isn’t said to receive latreuo. From this we are to
conclude that the Daniel 7:14 pelach shouldn’t be seen as divine
service/worship, but as douloō in the non-divine sense. The problem
with this approach is that Ibn Anwar’s reasoning doesn’t follow at all. Even if
it were true that Jesus doesn’t receive latreuo in the New Testament,
which I will contest shortly, it wouldn’t prove linguistically that according
to the Old Testament pelach isn’t divine service/honor (since there is
so much evidence that it is) or that pelach ought to not be translated
as latreuo (since the evidence shows pelach like latreuo
means divine service/worship). Ibn Anwar’s main argument is therefore
illogical, his conclusion doesn’t follow from his premise, and he fails to
adequately address all the evidence which proves the contrary. His conclusion
should therefore be rejected.
Secondly, Jesus does receive latreuo
in the New Testament contrary to the claims of Anwar and the few
liberal/Unitarian scholars whom he quotes:
“1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship (latreusousin) him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever” (Revelation 22: 1-5).
Sam Shamoun has provided an
excellent exegesis
of this text demonstrating that both the Father and Jesus receive this latreuo.
Objections are also addressed in that paper. Rather then reproduce all of the
arguments I will refer people to that article which must be dealt with if one
is going to claim Jesus doesn’t receive latreuo in the New Testament.
Hence, even though Anwar’s main argument is illogical and wouldn’t prove his
point (Jesus not receiving latreuo in the New Testament proving the
Daniel 7:14 service/worship isn’t divine), he is not even correct about Jesus
never receiving latreuo in the New Testament. It’s also important to
note that nowhere does the New Testament say Jesus shouldn’t be given latreuo
which is something one would expect if Jesus were not deity and yet presented
in the exalted way that He is all over the New Testament. Such a warning would
be a necessary safeguard were Trinitarianism not true.
Further proof that latreuo is
a proper translation of pelach can be seen from the fact that the early
Greek Christian apologist Justin Martyr (A.D. 100 – 165) translated Daniel 7:14
as “and all nations of the earth by their families, and all glory, serve
Him (latreuousa).”(12) We, therefore, have very early patristic support
for the fact that in Daniel 7:13-14 Jesus receives service/worship due to God
despite what Ibn Anwar claims.
Now, in attempting to water down the
impact of the other contents of this Danielic text Ibn Anwar argues that
although v. 14 says “And to him was given dominion and glory and a
kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and
his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed,” v. 18 says something similar
with respect to the saints of God: “But the saints of the Most High shall
receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.” His
translation of Daniel 7:27 also says “And the kingdom and the dominion and
the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the
people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an
everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.”
Ibn Anwar erroneously argues that everything
said about Christ in Daniel 7:14 is said about the saints and by providing his
translation of Daniel 7:27 he implies that the saints will receive pelach
service/worship as well. However, in footnote 4 we already addressed how v. 27
should read “all dominions shall serve and obey Him (God),” not “all dominions
shall serve and obey them (saints)”. Hence, in v. 27 the saints are not said to
receive pelach service/worship. Secondly, v. 27 shouldn’t read “their
kingdom shall be everlasting”, it should read “His (God’s) kingdom shall be
everlasting” (NET, NIV, NLT, NASB, ASV, DRB, DBT, ERV, WEB, YLT). There is no
pronoun before “kingdom” in the original Aramaic of v. 27 and “Most High” is
the closest antecedent. That’s just a matter of truthfulness despite the fact
that saints in v. 18 do receive and possess the kingdom forever which doesn’t
refute our overall position. Christ comes on the clouds v. 13 as noted above.
The saints do not. The saints serve/worship Christ. He does not serve/worship
them. The saints do possess and rule the kingdom (7:18) under Christ, but they
still worship Him and the Father in the same exact way (Revelation 5:11-14).
However, the fundamental things I listed which affirm Christ’s deity in Daniel
7:13-14 (coming on clouds, receiving pelach from all humanity) are never
said to be shared by the saints. The only real commonality between Christ and
the saints is receiving a kingdom and dominion; things which don’t concern our
argument for Jesus’ deity. It is therefore a gross error for Ibn Anwar to say
that “everything that is given to the person in Daniel 7:14 will be given to
the saints too! According to the Christian logic the saints are equally Gods.
How many Gods are there exactly?”
In fact, what makes Ibn Anwar’s
argument all the more fallacious is that he appeals to the LXX to show that it
doesn’t use the word latreuo, but conveniently fails to mention the fact
that according to the LXX v. 27 doesn’t refer to saints receiving worship, but
to the Most High!
"And the kingdom and the power and the greatness of the kings that are under the whole heaven were given to the saints of the Most High; and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all powers shall serve and obey HIM (kai pasai hai archai AUTO douleusousi kai hypachousontai)."
Now compare the way the LXX renders
v. 14 which is about Christ:
"And to him was given the dominion, and the honour, and the kingdom; and all nations, tribes, and languages, shall serve HIM (AUTO douleusousin): his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed."
Hence, this ancient version supports
our position, not Ibn Anwar’s claims that v. 27 refers to the saints being
worshiped just as Jesus is.
Divine Implications of Jesus’ Use of
Daniel 7:13-14
At Jesus’ trial before His
crucifixion and resurrection He applied Daniel 7:14 to himself in Mark 14:62
(cf. Luke 22:67-70; Matthew 26:64). Before addressing how Jesus’ application of
this text affirms His deity, Ibn Anwar’s abuse of the parallel in Matthew 26:64
needs to be covered. Elsewhere
Ibn Anwar quotes liberal scholar E. P. Sanders who argues that Jesus’ trial
shows that He believed the coming Son of Man was someone other than Himself:
“E. P. Sanders says about Matthew 26:63 which parallels Mark 16:62[sic], ‘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.’”
However, scholars like D. A. Carson
have not only produced massive tomes refuting Sanders’ central theology, the
new perspective on Paul(13), but in his commentary on Matthew Carson also
indirectly refutes Sanders’ argument concerning Jesus’ response to the high priest:
“The next clause, beginning with plēn legō hymin (‘But I say to all of you’), found also in 11:22, 24, means something like ‘Indeed I tell you’: there is likely no adversative force (Thrall, pp. 72-78). Instead it expresses ‘an expansion or a qualification’ (Catchpole, ‘Answer of Jesus,’ p. 223) of the preceding statement. Jesus speaks in this way, not because Caiaphas has spoken the truth of himself without any revelation (Kingsbury, Matthew, p. 64), but because Caiaphas’s understanding of ‘Messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ is fundamentally inadequate. Jesus is the Messiah and so he must answer affirmatively. But he is not quite the Messiah Caiaphas has in mind; so he must answer cautiously and with some explanation.”(14)
Now, Jesus’ claims at this trial as
well as the response of the high priest/council to Jesus’ words need to be
examined in order to see the divine implications of Christ’s statements:
“But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death” (Mark 14:61-64).
By saying He would be at the right
hand of power Jesus was applying Psalm 110:1 to Himself in the sense of
eschatological judgement (“The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right
hand, until I make your enemies your footstool”). This “right hand” of God
concept was understood in ancient Judaism as a metaphor for YHWH’s power and
majesty. In other words to say that the Messiah sits at the right hand of God
is to say that when God shows His power it is actually the Messiah pouring out
or displaying God’s majesty and glory because of how unified they are(15). And
by saying He was the Messiah the Son of the Blessed who will come on the clouds
of heaven, He applied Daniel 7:14 to himself. This amounted to Jesus saying
that although this Jewish council was judging Him presently, the time will come
when He will be judging them as the Lord of Psalm 110:1 and as the divine Son
of man of Daniel 7:13-14 who resides in God’s presence, who shares the throne,
authority and majesty of God, who is worshiped by humanity like God, and who is
thus equal to God. This is why the high priest and the council then charged Him
with blasphemy. As Walter E. Wessel notes:
“Jesus’ affirmation of messiahship is followed by a Son-of-Man saying that brings together Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1. The two main ideas are the enthronement of the Son of Man and His eschatological coming. Jesus is looking to the future, beyond the Crucifixion and Resurrection, to the Ascension, when he will take his place at the right hand of God - the place of authority - and to his parousia, when he will come in judgement. Now Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin are sitting in judgement of him. In that day Jesus will pass final and irrevocable judgement on them… The tearing of the clothes was originally a sign of great grief… In the case of the high priest (v. 63), it became “a formal judicial act minutely regulated by the Talmud” (Taylor, p. 569). The action of the high priest showed that he had heard a blasphemous statement (v. 64; cf. M. Sanhedrin 7.5). During this period the Jews defined blasphemy fairly loosely. They identified it not only with overt and definite reviling of the name of God (cf. Lev 24:10-23) but also with any affront to the majesty and authority of God (cf. Mark 2:7; 3:28-29, John 5:18; 10:33; see also SBK 1:10007ff.). Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah was understood by Caiaphas in the latter sense and was therefore considered to be blasphemy.”(16)
Indeed, the reason why the council
declared Jesus’ statement to be blasphemy was because they correctly understood
Him to be saying that He would be sharing in the unique majesty and unique
authority of God, which no creature could ever do, while also judging not only
them but all of humanity as this divine messianic Son of Man who comes on the
clouds. Because Christ was who He claimed to be this is of course not blasphemy
however, but the truth. Both Daniel 7:13-14 as well as Jesus’ application of
that text strongly affirm His deity.
Conclusion
In conclusion Ibn Anwar’s attempt at
demonstrating Daniel 7:14 doesn’t affirm the deity of Christ has failed. He did
not deal with the original language at all which is what he would need to do in
order to refute the Christian position. He was mistaken about the later Greek
translations of Daniel. The scholarship he utilized was incorrect on many
levels. And he didn’t adequately address the context of Daniel 7:13 at all
which is important in this discussion. We have provided many arguments which
Ibn Anwar would need to interact with if he still wishes to bolster the
specious claim that this text does nothing to show that Christ is God. To the
honest reader the issue should be clear.
Christ has risen, He is Lord!
Endnotes:
1.) “The writings of Daniel
contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of
‘Messiah the prince’ (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the ‘Son of Man’ (7:13), and
says he suffers (‘cut off,’ 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e.,
death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24)” (Walter
A. Elwell, Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, [Tyndale
House Publishers, Inc., 2001], p. 888). See also Scott Hahn, Reading
Salvation: Word, Worship, and the Mysteries, [Emmaus Road Publishing,
2005], p. 52 and N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, [Fortress
Press, 1997], p. 515 for more scholarly support demonstrating that the figure
in Daniel 7 and 9 is the same messianic figure.
2.) Alan R. Milard, Daniel,
ed., F.F. Bruce, New International Bible Commentary, [Zondervan, 1979],
p. 861. Milard refers to the Babylonian Talmud which states: “R. Nahman said
to R. Isaac: 'Have you heard when Bar Nafle [Son of the Cloud] will
come?' 'Who is Bar Nafle [Son of the cloud]?' he asked. 'Messiah,'
he answered…” (bSan 96B)
3.) Ibid.
4.) Babylonian Talmud,
Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 98a
5.) Raymond Brown, An
Introduction to New Testament Christology, [Paulist Press, 1994], pp. 92-96
6.) “The one text that might be cited
as an exception is Daniel 7:27, where the proper translation is disputed. Some
versions read ‘serve and obey him’ (NASB, NKJV, NIV), and others read ‘serve
and obey them’ (NRSV, ESV, NLT), that is, the ‘saints of the Most High’ (ESV).
The dispute arises from the Hebrew use of ‘serve and obey’ with no pronoun
following; thus the translators supply the pronoun to make for more idiomatic
English. The Hebrew text refers earlier in the sentence, however, to ‘his
kingdom’…and both Greek versions of Daniel have ‘him’ (auto), not ‘them,’ at
the end of the verse. In the immediate context the antecedent for ‘his’ and
‘him’ would be ‘the Most High.’ Thus, Daniel 7:27 confirms that ‘service’
(pelach) properly goes to God alone” (Robert M. Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting
Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, [Kregel Publications,
2007], p. 303 n. 6).
7.) Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm
Gesenius, A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament: including the
Biblical Chaldee. From the Latin of William Gesenius, trans. Edward
Robinson, [Houghton Mifflin and company, 1888], p. 847
8.) Francis Brown, S. R. Driver,
Charles A. Briggs, The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English
Lexicon, [Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1906], p. 2718
9.) Stephen R. Miller, Daniel,
New American Commentary, [B&H Publishing Group, 1994], p. 217
10.) [latreuo refers]
“primarily to cultic worship with all one’s heart and soul …” (Richard
Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on
the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity, [Eerdmans Young
Readers, 2008 ], p. 152). For Biblical proof latreuo is to be given to
God alone see Matthew 4:10; Acts 24:14; Romans 1:25; Revelation 7:5; Revelation
22:3.
11.) Thayer’s lexicon notes that douloō
can mean to “to be a slave… to worship gods” (Joseph Henry Thayer, A
Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi
Testamenti, [Harper, 1887], p. 157). In fact the word is quite often used
of submissive slavery or service to the one true God as recognition of his
sovereign lordship over a person’s life (Matthew 6:24; Acts 20:19; 1 Thess.
1:9). In defining the word douloō and the other words in that group
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that “we
have a service which is not a matter of choice for the one who renders it,
which he has to perform whether he likes it or not, because he is subject as a
slave to an alien will, to the will of his owner. [The term stresses] the
slave’s dependence on his lord” (Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “Doulos”, in
Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Geoffrey Bromily, trans., Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eardmans, 1964],
2:261). Hence, if this were used in the context of Daniel 7:14 where the Son of
Man comes on the clouds it would surely refer to divine service.
12.) Justin Martyr, Dialogue with
Trypho, Chapter 31
13.) See Carson, Justification
and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1, 2
14.) D. A. Carson, Matthew,
ed., Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary with the New
International Version, Volume 8, [Zondervan, 1984], p. 555
15.) The Pseudepigraphal book titled
Testament of Job (First Century B.C. - First Century A.D) is a Greek work which
teaches that YHWH’s right hand is a metaphor for His power or majesty. In other
words to say that Jesus is at the right hand of God is to say that Jesus is so
intimately connected with the Father’s being that when the Father shows His
power or majesty, it is actually Jesus doing it as the power of God: “Now I
will show you my throne with the splendor of its majesty, which is among
the holy ones. My throne is in the upper world, and its splendor and majesty
come from the right hand of the Father. The whole world shall pass
away and its splendor shall fade. And those who heed it shall share in its
overthrow. But my throne is in the holy land, and its splendor is in the
world of the changeless one. Rivers will dry up, and the arrogance of their
waves goes down into the depths of the abyss. But the rivers of my land,
where my throne is, do not dry up nor will they disappear, but they will exist
forever. These kings will pass away, and rulers come and go; but their
splendor and boast shall be as in a mirror. But my kingdom is forever and
ever, and its splendor and majesty are in the chariots of the Father.”
(Testament of Job, Ch. 33)
16.) Walter W. Wessel, Mark, ed., Frank E.
Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary with the New International
Version, Volume 8, [Zondervan, 1984], pp. 769-770
Amen bro!
ReplyDelete