It seems like Luke thought Jesus was God.

[Wootah]

I found this interesting.

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

Now, here’s the interesting part: the word that Luke uses for “worship� is the Greek term “π�οσκυνήσαντες� (proskunesantes).

I know what you’re saying “John, this all Greek to me. Why is this important?� (Ha… I’m funny….right?)

Anyway, the root of the word for “worship� in Luke 24:52 is π�οσκυνέω (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 (π�οσκυνήσῃς (proskynēsēs), it shall all be yours� and Jesus answered him � it is written, ‘you shall worship (Π�οσκυνήσεις Proskynēseis) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve. (Deut. 4:5)�

Luke’s 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)?

[Difflugia]

Another question is, if Luke thought Christ was God then why did he not write this astonishing statement in skyscraper capitals?

It's because Luke wasn't writing any of this as straight historical narrative and is for the same reason that Orwell's Animal Farm didn't write "the pigs are the communists" in skyscraper capitals. I haven't yet grokked the fullness, but the implications for Luke's Christology go beyond "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God." If you're looking for a punchline, Jesus isn't God yet in the temptation scene, but has become so by the ascension (or whatever; there are problems with that that involve Acts).

The problem is that what this does to Luke's Christology doesn't really fit either orthodox trinitarian or common heretical views of Christ's divinity. Oversimplifying, the orthodox view is to harmonize everything to the view of John, while the Jehovah's Witnesses harmonize everything to a sort of Paul-Matthew compromise. The author of the article is a Catholic apologist, so he doubles down on the part where Luke seems to say that Jesus is God.

We need to conjugate a harmless Greek verb to get some info on Christ's divinity.

Despite the continued insistence of JW's straw man, the argument has nothing to do with the translation. The apparent reason that JW keeps bringing it up is that the NWT translates the same word differently in Luke 4:7-8 (worship) and 24:52 (offer obeisance). Other translations don't, so it doesn't really matter to anyone but Jehovah's Witnesses.

The reason I find the whole thing exciting is that is helps explain part of the Synoptic problem. Luke seems to select his copied pericopes from either Matthew or Mark almost at random, which is a sticking point in Synoptic studies and part of the reason that Q was proposed in the first place. If Luke had access to Matthew, the argument goes, why would he copy a pericope from Mark if Matthew's was better? Maybe he didn't have all of Matthew, but only part of it in the form of another source.

This potentially gives more insight into Luke's selection and redaction process. It certainly isn't the whole answer, but I see a pattern that I didn't see before. If there's a pericope that uses the word "worship" in Matthew, but not Mark (cleansing the leper), Luke chooses Mark. If Mark uses "worship" and Matthew doesn't (the Gadarene demoniac), he copies Matthew. When both do and he has no choice, he picks one and removes the word "worship" (raising Jairus' daughter). It's harder to make an argument out of missing content, but there are also several "worship" pericopes that Luke simply excludes (unwashed hands, the soldiers mock Jesus).

The net effect is that the word "worship" is used exactly three times in Luke. It appears once when Satan suggests that Jesus should worship him, once when Jesus rebukes Satan and says that worship is reserved for God alone, and in the very last line of the Gospel when Jesus himself receives the worship of his disciples.

The question, then, is if this is an intentional literary construction by Luke or an accidental artifact of an unrelated redaction process. For the moment, at least, I strongly suspect it's the former.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

You do make a good case, but that raises the question why then wasn't Luke more explicit? Why didn't Luke shout from the rooftops "Jesus is God"? Or have one of his characters make that proclamation?

Also, when writing in Acts, Luke had Paul (or was it Peter?) characterize Jesus as a "man whom God raised from the dead". The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, the hypostatic union" had not even been formulated yet. So to Luke, (in Acts at least), Jesus was a man.

But back to his Gospel, just because Luke may have thought Jesus was God why should I? Or anyone else?

[marco]

But back to his Gospel, just because Luke may have thought Jesus was God why should I? Or anyone else?

Luke is reporting what Luke has heard, not giving some learned verdict on the hypostatic union. All that is written accords with the idea there is one God and Jesus is his faithful servant or figurative son. The concept that Jesus was somehow schizophrenic, enjoying divinity while subject to awful ignorance and doubt would be farther from Luke's intellectual compass than it is from ours. Luke is the person who rings jingle bells for us with the angelic Christmas story. There is no theological sophistication in:

"When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.�

And if such a person told us Jesus was God, why would we begin to believe? But he didn't.

[Difflugia]

You do make a good case, but that raises the question why then wasn't Luke more explicit? Why didn't Luke shout from the rooftops "Jesus is God"? Or have one of his characters make that proclamation?

Luke is already occasionally circumspect about details that are explicit in Mark and Matthew. John the Baptist unambiguously baptizes Jesus in Mark and Matthew, for example, but Luke reduces it to "Jesus, also having been baptized" in 3:21.

Luke seems not to have an equivalent to Mark's "messianic secret," though, so there would need to be some other reason. Acts seems to be an attempt to present a compromise between Jewish and Pauline Christianities and if we assume a certain unity of purpose within Luke-Acts, then perhaps this is a way of reconciling a Matthean demigod with a Pauline resurrection-exaltation.

Also, when writing in Acts, Luke had Paul (or was it Peter?) characterize Jesus as a "man whom God raised from the dead".

That's Peter's Pentecost, "these guys aren't as drunk as you think" speech in Acts 2.

The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, the "hypostatic union" had not even been formulated yet. So to Luke, (in Acts at least), Jesus was a man.

Several commentators see evidence that Luke knew of Philo, potential source for both the virgin birth and John's Logos theology. I don't think the Trinity as such is at all Lukan, but on the other hand, I don't think a divine Jesus is completely anachronistic.

Luke is reporting what Luke has heard, not giving some learned verdict on the hypostatic union. All that is written accords with the idea there is one God and Jesus is his faithful servant or figurative son. The concept that Jesus was somehow schizophrenic, enjoying divinity while subject to awful ignorance and doubt would be farther from Luke's intellectual compass than it is from ours. Luke is the person who rings jingle bells for us with the angelic Christmas story. There is no theological sophistication in:

"When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.�

For what it's worth, I think that's a strong argument. Luke's overall intention seems to have been first and foremost to present a plausible-sounding Gospel with a minimum of allegory. I could also see Luke rejecting passages and wording that would make Christians seem to be superstitious, but that would still leave the question of why the very last sentence of the Gospel would portray the disciples as "worshipping" Jesus.

Aside from the possibility that the "worship" pattern amounts to coincidence, I've also been wondering if Luke may have removed all uses of "worship" in his Gospel and the three appearances of it are interpolations. Reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel universally lack the chapter 4 temptation and a few manuscripts of Luke lack the explicit ascension of 24:52, reading "...he parted from them and they returned to Jerusalem...." Both of these are treated by scholars as removals ("reverse interpolations"), but the other direction makes for interesting speculation.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

You do make a good case, but that raises the question why then wasn't Luke more explicit? Why didn't Luke shout from the rooftops "Jesus is God"? Or have one of his characters make that proclamation?

Also, when writing in Acts, Luke had Paul (or was it Peter?) characterize Jesus as a "man whom God raised from the dead". The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, the hypostatic union" had not even been formulated yet. So to Luke, (in Acts at least), Jesus was a man.

But back to his Gospel, just because Luke may have thought Jesus was God why should I? Or anyone else?

You don't have to believe the Bible or anyone else. I always thought you were interested in this stuff. For me, it is enough for you to know what the Bible says.

[Wootah]

But back to his Gospel, just because Luke may have thought Jesus was God why should I? Or anyone else?

Luke is reporting what Luke has heard, not giving some learned verdict on the hypostatic union. All that is written accords with the idea there is one God and Jesus is his faithful servant or figurative son. The concept that Jesus was somehow schizophrenic, enjoying divinity while subject to awful ignorance and doubt would be farther from Luke's intellectual compass than it is from ours. Luke is the person who rings jingle bells for us with the angelic Christmas story. There is no theological sophistication in:

"When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.�

And if such a person told us Jesus was God, why would we begin to believe? But he didn't.

This topic is quite specific. What is your view on it?

[WeSee]

I found this interesting.

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

Now, here’s the interesting part: the word that Luke uses for “worship� is the Greek term “π�οσκυνήσαντες� (proskunesantes).

I know what you’re saying “John, this all Greek to me. Why is this important?� (Ha… I’m funny….right?)

Anyway, the root of the word for “worship� in Luke 24:52 is π�οσκυνέω (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 (π�οσκυνήσῃς (proskynēsēs), it shall all be yours� and Jesus answered him � it is written, ‘you shall worship (Π�οσκυνήσεις Proskynēseis) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve. (Deut. 4:5)�

Luke’s 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)?

Jonathan Stute's "proof" serves as an example of how easy it is to take a couple of verses out of context and twist them into saying something they don't.

Stute makes a big deal out of the "highly selective use of the term proskuneo" in Luke. Of course the simple answer is that in Luke only used the word a couple of times simply because his gospel story only had a couple of occasions where "worship" came up. It's not reasonable to read more into it than that.

Stute then goes on to say the Luke 4:8 "ought to be taken to say that God alone is worthy of proskuneo" even though the text doesn't actually say that.

Luke 4
8Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’�

Jesus quotes God wherein He commands His followers to worship Him and only serve Him. There's no compelling reason to take it otherwise.

Stute then presents a false trilemma:
...what are we to make of Luke’s chosen ending? There are only three possibilities:
1. The disciples worship of Jesus is a misguided act of idolatry.
2. Luke is deeply confused.
3. The disciples, and Luke, believed that Jesus is in fact the Lord God of Israel.

A fourth possibility is that Stute is "deeply confused" about what the text actually says.

This is a prime example of how "motivated reasoning" can blind one to the truth.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 26 by WeSee]

Well put.

It seems as if the possibility that proskynēsēs is used in one way when referencing the first commandment and another way for what the disciple did is not entertained. Since the word has of itself has a wide scope in meaning, one can only supposed such dichotomic thinking stems from not being familiar with what they word actually means.


JW

[bjs]

Jonathan Stute's "proof" serves as an example of how easy it is to take a couple of verses out of context and twist them into saying something they don't.

This is a strange statement. Stute seems to build his entire case around keeping the verses in context. Why do you think that he was taking them out of context?

Stute makes a big deal out of the "highly selective use of the term proskuneo" in Luke. Of course the simple answer is that in Luke only used the word a couple of times simply because his gospel story only had a couple of occasions where "worship" came up. It's not reasonable to read more into it than that.

It is possible that Luke only used the word a few times because that is all that his account required, but that doesn’t address the issue.

The word is only used twice in Luke and a few more times in Acts. In every instance that the word was not applied to Jesus, it very clearly meant worship that was reserved for God alone.

Is there a textual justification for saying that Luke used the word one way in other circumstances, but changed the meaning when addressing Jesus?

Anything is possible. However the idea that Luke used a word to mean one thing early in his Gospel, and then used the same word to mean something completely different later in his Gospel without giving us any textual clue that he was changing the meaning is not reasonable.

Stute then presents a false trilemma:
...what are we to make of Luke’s chosen ending? There are only three possibilities:
1. The disciples worship of Jesus is a misguided act of idolatry.
2. Luke is deeply confused.
3. The disciples, and Luke, believed that Jesus is in fact the Lord God of Israel.

A fourth possibility is that Stute is "deeply confused" about what the text actually says.

This is a prime example of how "motivated reasoning" can blind one to the truth.

This is more of an ad hominem attack then an actual alternative.

Do you have a genuine fourth possibility that is not just a personal attack against Stute?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 26 by WeSee]

Well put.

It seems as if the possibility that proskynēsēs is used in one way when referencing the first commandment and another way for what the disciple did is not entertained. Since the word has of itself has a wide scope in meaning, one can only supposed such dichotomic thinking stems from not being familiar with what they word actually means.


JW

Israel: "Oh no God you alone we worship but this golden calf we are worshipping is different to worshipping you alone. Hey, why are you punishing us!"

I think the evidence given by others doesn't allow for such a cop-out. I learnt more in this thread from Difflugia than from the OP I found the other day. Luke picked and chose his usage of this word.

Luke 4:8: Oh no Satan, worship is for God alone.
Luke 24:52 And they worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

The end of the book.