It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

[Wootah]

I found this interesting.

https://scottmsullivan.com/a-proof-for- ... of-luke-so...

Now, heres the interesting part: the word that Luke uses for worship is the Greek term (proskunesantes).

I know what youre saying John, this all Greek to me. Why is this important? (Ha Im funny.right?)

Anyway, the root of the word for worship in Luke 24:52 is (proskuneo) and unlike the other Gospels, Luke hardly uses this word at all.

In fact, he uses it in only one other passage in his whole Gospel.

The only other place that Luke employs this particular Greek term is in Luke 4:7-8 when Satan offer Christ every kingdom of the world under one condition:

If you, then, will worship me ( (proskyn"s"s), it shall all be yours and Jesus answered him it is written, you shall worship ( Proskyn"seis) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve. (Deut. 4:5)

Lukes highly selective use of the term proskuneo in the early chapters of the Gospel give give it a definition so that it ought to be taken to say that God alone is worthy of proskuneo (Luke 4:8). But the disciples offer Jesus proskuneo and connects it with their worship in the Temple where they glorify God.

It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Links to see the actual Greek.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/4-7.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/24-52.htm

Setting aside our dogma and theology and just reading the text it really does look like the worship Satan wanted from Jesus was given to Jesus by the disciples.

Anyone want to still disagree that Luke thought Jesus was God (based upon the evidence in the text)?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

• Do you really think that Satan would ask Almighty God the Creator to worship Him (Satan)?
• And how much sense does it make for God to refuse because this would violate the first commandement?
  
  • Given the context, if Jesus were Almighty God himself, he (Jesus) had but to say "I won't worship You I'm God you idiot"? The very fact Jesus based his answer on the law (rather than his intrinsic position and authority) implied he himself was also SUBJECT to that law.
  Almighty God isn't subject to the first commandment he imposes it.

Clearly Luke was not presenting Jesus in this exchange as Almighty God. Indeed the very idea of trying to tempt Jesus implies the author knew well Jesus wasn't the omnipotent One.


Logic,


JW

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

• Do you really think that Satan would ask Almighty God the Creator to worship Him (Satan)?
• And how much sense does it make for God to refuse because this would violate the first commandement?
  
  • Given the context, if Jesus were Almighty God himself, he (Jesus) had but to say "I won't worship You I'm God you idiot"? The very fact Jesus based his answer on the law (rather than his intrinsic position and authority) implied he himself was also SUBJECT to that law.
  Almighty God isn't subject to the first commandment he imposes it.

Clearly Luke was not presenting Jesus in this exchange as Almighty God. Indeed the very idea of trying to tempt Jesus implies the author knew well Jesus wasn't the omnipotent One.


Logic,


JW

You used the quote function but didn't quote me?

Can you please also not sign off with the word logic or use the word idiot.

Also focus on the topic because I have no idea what you said and how you have dealt with the two uses of the greek word I presented.

[Difflugia]

It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

Now that is fascinating!

I read through the argument, looked at the text myself, and noticed a few more things.

First, the article author actually undersells the textual evidence, believe it or not. Forms of do appear throughout the other Gospels and the kicker is that they are in more than a few pericopes that Luke copied from Matthew (or Q) and Mark, but Luke edited the word out every time! It would really be a hard sell (at least to me) to argue that it wasn't intentional.

I then looked through Acts to see if the pattern changed at all and a second thing jumped out at me. There is what seems just a simple statement of humility by Peter in Acts 10:25-26, but in this light, it becomes much more meaningful:

And as Peter was entering, Cornelius had met him and fallen at his feet, then worshipped [-] him. But Peter lifted him, saying, "Arise! I too am a man, myself."

The implication to me is that as he was presumably one of those "worshipping" the ascending Jesus, Luke's Peter must now be saying that the ascending Jesus was no longer a man.

I'm not sure I'm quite ready to assign a Christology quite as high as John's based on this, but it certainly looks like the disciples are offering worship that Luke had intentionally reserved for the Father prior to this point. The only mitigating (if it is so) observation that I can offer is that it also looks to me like part of Luke's intention here was to reserve this form of worship until immediately after the ascension. It's not clear to me whether this is the moment that Jesus becomes worthy of such worship or it's the moment that the disciples realize that he always has been, but it seems that Luke's intention is that the disciples begin to worship him as he ascends to heaven. In light of Luke's other Pauline inclinations, I'm tempted to align this scene with Paul's assertion that Jesus became exalted upon his resurrection, but I'm also not sure enough that Luke's Christology was Pauline enough for that to really be a parallel.

Anyway, that's exciting. I need to carefully reread Luke and Acts again.

[JehovahsWitness]

...focus on the topic because I have no idea what you said and how you have dealt with the two uses of the greek word I presented.

The topic is : did the author if Luke believe Jesus was God? and the passage presented is that depicted in Luke of the temptation of Christ. Evidently Luke did not believe Jesus was God ...

a) its highly improbable Satan would have been presented asking worship from GOD

b) the author clearly presented a Jesus susceptible to temptation

b) Jesus indicated he was subject to the law

In short the conversation itself settles the issue, no Greek required.

To illustrate : Imagine we want to establish if a writer believes a character to be a man or a woman.

A doctore informs said character " congratulations you're pregnant!" to which the character replies "Wonderful I can't wait to tell my husband" . Is it relevant to point out that the Greek word for pregnant is egkuos which means "with child"? The meaning of the greek is not in contention nor is it relevant, the conversation itself establishes whether the author believed the patient to be a man or a woman.

That the greek word can indeed refer to WORSHIP* is essentially irrelevant, the CONTEXT and content of the conversation itself indicates the author did not believe Jesus to be God.


It is a matter of logic (and a measure of critical thinking),


JW


* The Greek proskuneo can refer to worship or respectful obeisance.

[JehovahsWitness]

You used the quote function but didn't quote me?

Can you please also not sign off with the word logic or use the word idiot.

• If the quote lead-in doesn't contain your name its best not to assume you are being quoted.
• I will use any word I please as long as it doesn't violate forum guidelines (clearly I wasn't calling you or anyone else an idiot, it was part of a fictional conversational between Jesus and Satan written to illustrate my point (see above).
• I will sign off any way I please.

JW

[Difflugia]

Evidently Luke did not believe Jesus was God ...

a) its highly improbable Satan would have been presented asking worship from GOD

I would be highly interested in your textual reason for concluding that. Since you're trying to argue that this would be "improbable" within either a trinitarian (fully God and fully man) perspective or one that is, if not trinitarian, at least consistently Lukan, you're going to have to establish how Luke understood the relationship between Jesus and Satan. Wootah has pointed to an argument that, if not compelling on its own, is at least extremely interesting and your response is to dismiss it with nothing more than the implication that you and Luke share some self-evident theology of Jesus, deity, Satan, and worship.

I'm pretty sure that you and the author of the third Gospel wouldn't agree on much at all. Simply claiming with no further justification that a particular theological interpretation involving so many variables is "improbable" when your own theology of the verse is literally unorthodox by definition rings a bit hollow. Step it up a little.

b) the author clearly presented a Jesus susceptible to temptation

One whose overall theology turns on so many nuances of wording should know better than to make such an unjustified claim. By that logic, Israel's testing of God in the desert would "clearly present" a Yahweh susceptible to temptation.

Satan made the suggestion, but Luke's Jesus rebuffed it immediately. That doesn't mean Jesus wasn't susceptible to temptation, but there's not even an ambiguous suggestion that he was, let alone a "clearly presented" one. It's not like Jesus thought about it for a little while, mulling the pros and cons of Satan's offer.

b) Jesus indicated he was subject to the law

As is anyone else that is fully human, whether fully God or not. You've established exactly nothing.

In short the conversation itself settles the issue, no Greek required.

Once again, a claim of "self-evident" isn't very compelling when it comes from someone arguing against centuries of orthodox Christology.

That the greek word can indeed refer to WORSHIP* is essentially irrelevant, the CONTEXT and content of the conversation itself indicates the author did not believe Jesus to be God.

I'll charitably assume that this isn't a conscious attempt to sidestep the argument with a straw man. You're right that it's irrelevant, because as the article author points out, Luke uses 4:8 to define what he wants the word to mean in the context of his Gospel and Acts. You are, of course, free to present textual evidence or unattributed quotes from The Watchtower to make the case that he's not doing that, but just pretending that it's not part of the argument won't carry you very far.

It is a matter of logic (and a measure of critical thinking)

Finally, we agree on something.

[JehovahsWitness]

You're right that it's irrelevant, because as the article author points out, Luke uses 4:8 to define what he wants the word to mean in the context of his Gospel and Acts.

Emphasis MINE

My point exactly!

a) its highly improbable Satan would have been presented asking worship from GOD

I would be highly interested in your textual reason for concluding that.

Luke had already presented God as being the supreme power (Luke 1:49) and master of the universe ( Luke 10:21). The writers concept of GOD was evidently one that was omnipotent (compare Luke 18:27). Offering an omnipotent God additional authority is of itself redundant. Further, if Satan was given or granted authority ultimately that could only have happened if an omnipotent God permitted it.

LUKE 4:6 - Christian Standard Bible

The devil said to him, "I will give you their splendor and all this authority, because it has been given over to me, and I can give it to anyone I want.

How logical then is it to assume that the writer wants us to believe that Satan would try and offer GOD something he (Satan) only has because God permits it. That would be like borrowing 5 dollars from someone and then trying to bribe them with their own five dollars (which you both know he can take back at any time). And that when that person is a billionaire and doesnt need the money

Writers usually write to communicate an idea and this episode was clearly that Satan had something that the person he was speaking to (Jesus) either did not have or had no right to. All this then is totally inconsistent with the a conclusion that the writer was trying to depict Jesus as the God of his gospel.


One doesn't attempt to bribe someone with something they already own




Logic,


JW

[Difflugia]

You're right that it's irrelevant, because as the article author points out, Luke uses 4:8 to define what he wants the word to mean in the context of his Gospel and Acts.

Emphasis MINE

My point exactly!

Then it's your point that's irrelevant. The argument that the article made is that Luke has imbued the word with a meaning that should only properly be applied to God. That is what you need to engage with.

Luke had already presented God as being the supreme power (Luke 1:49) and master of the universe ( Luke 10:21). The writers concept of GOD was evidently one that was omnipotent (compare Luke 18:27). Offering an omnipotent God additional authority is of itself redundant.

None of the verses you quote make the points you argue that they do. From the ASV:

Luke 1:49 (supreme power?):

For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; And holy is his name.

10:21 (master of the Universe?):

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight.

18:27 (omnipotent?):

But he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Further, if Satan was given or granted authority ultimately that could only have happened if an omnipotent God permitted it.

You haven't established that this is the relationship Luke envisioned between God and Satan.

I also can't help noticing that in this second response, you still haven't actually engaged with the actual argument that was offered in the OP. You know, the one about Luke's use of ?

[Difflugia]

I've been flipping through commentaries all afternoon looking for any that notice or comment on this. I found one (The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) that noted that Luke only used in these two pericopes, but suggested only that it "may have Christological significance." That's it, though. If anyone runs into any other discussion of this, I'd appreciate a reference.