ECF's -Which ones were right?

Anglian · Aug 14, 2008

Dear Simon,

Let me begin with what the 7th Ecumenical Council determined and work back from that:

"To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.
"We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened." (Decree from the Seventh Ecumenical Council)

The icon is not the reality; it directs us towards a reality. The Saints are real live people, and the icon directs us towards them; the Risen Christ is real; the icon directs us towards Him. The difference as to whether an action is honoring and respect or worship is whether it is considered to be divinity which it points to. When someone venerates an Icon of St. Peter the Apostle, they are not showing honor and respect to the wood and paint, but to the person of St. Peter. Since they also do not see St. Peter as a god, but as a fellow servant, they are not worshiping him, but only giving him proper respect and honor as one of God's servants who ran the race well.
Then too, if someone bows to an Icon of Christ, that is not seen as bowing to the wood or paint, but to Christ Himself seated on His throne in Heaven. In this case, it is God to whom veneration is being given; so in this instance it is worship as well. Often the charge is heard that the veneration of Icons violates the second commandment. This is why my earliest post cited it in full:

(Exo 20:4 NKJV) "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;.

It is here that most people like to stop, for this of itself would seem to settle the matter. However, if this stood alone as it is, that would mean that all forms of pictures and images are forbidden, period. But there are two more verses which are part of the second commandment which qualify what is said in verse 4:

(Exo 20:5-6 NKJV) you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, {6} but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

So you must not make an image in order to bow down to it. But, for what purpose is the icon made? The Israelites had many images in their temple. It specifically says that you shall not bow down in order to serve them - that is, over and above God. It is because this would take the place of God that God indicates that He is a jealous God who will not have other gods before Him, as He clearly states in the first commandment.
So, for the veneration of images to violate the second commandment, it would have to:
1. Be an image of some type,
2. We would have to bow to it,
3. We would bow to it in order to serve it,
4. And to serve it as a god, to supersede God.
Thus, it would turn into worship and break the second commandment. Veneration of the Saints through their images only applies to 2 of the 4 qualifications, thus it is not worship of the Saint or the Icon, nor does it break the second commandment.
Worship is intentionally giving veneration to a god. As long as that god is the God, then we have nothing to worry about.

The real question should not be, "Is venerating Icons worshiping an idol," but, "What am I worshiping?" In reality, if we are honest with ourselves, we tend to not want to venerate the Saints because we really worship our own egos and intellects. Venerating another person is humbling to ourselves, and our nature goes against that. Yet, veneration of others is what Paul was talking about in Phil 2:3, that we esteem each other as more important than ourselves. There is nothing like bowing and kissing another that illustrates this attitude better.

As one Orthodox theologian has expressed it:

Then we should ask ourselves, "Can I properly set my mind on the Saints above through honoring them through their Icons and make a heavenly reality more real to me?" If so, then you are within the teachings of the Church and are free, even encouraged to show the proper honor and respect to the Saints, the Theotokos, and to worship Christ as God.

Venerating Icons is only worship if the person doing it does it for that purpose. We do not worship icons; we worship God.

If you would like more explanation, I am happy to continue; if this is all 'fluff', then I can save us both time by stopping there.

I reiterate my willingness for a prayerful and edifying dialogue; polemic is another matter.

peace,

Anglian

Anglian · Aug 14, 2008

simonthezealot said:
Now doesn't this look ridiculous?

as a contribution to a serious discussion? Yes, very.

Peace,

Anglian

Rick Otto · Aug 14, 2008

Disrespect & accusations made with polite language & "scholarly language" are no more acceptable than point blank anger. Even worse, the false piety barely hides the underlying contempt.

We have been told plenty what we think & believe having words put in our mouths in the most abusive allowable terms (eg. "you're right & everybody else is wrong") so to accuse us of that as if you don't do it yourself is hypocracy on an Olympic extreme.

Pride in tradition & pedigree is detremental to percieving truth.

Anglian · Aug 14, 2008

Dear Simon,

As an additional contribution towards a discussion, let me offer the following distillation of the iconoclast controversy.

The iconoclast controversy began in 726 when the Emperor Leo III and a group of overzealous traditionalists, arguing that misinterpretation of religious images often leads to heresy, banned all pictorial representations and began a systematic destruction of holy images. Referring to the decrees of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod (Council) in Chalcedon (451) which defined that in Christ the two natures, human and divine, are united without confusion and without separation, the iconoclasts rejected the images of Christ because for them they were simply material images which either confused or separated the two natures of Christ. Such confusion or separation, in the iconoclasts' opinion, was tantamount to the heresies of Nestorianism, Arianism or Monophysitism.

The iconodules had to find powerful spokesmen who would come up with convincing formulations to prove that icons were not worshipped but venerated, and that such veneration was not idolatry. The iconodules based their defense of icons on the Doctrine of the Incarnation and on the Dogma of the Two Natures of Christ. St. John of Damascus (675-749) and St. Theodore of Studios (759-826) wrote extensive treatises explaining the reasons for and the importance of icon veneration. The Damascene argued that "it is not divine beauty which is given form and shape, but the human form which is rendered by the painter's brush. Therefore, if the Son of God became man and appeared in man's nature, why should his image not be made?" The Studite defended the icons on the basis of the ideas of identity and necessity: "Man himself is created after the image and likeness of God; therefore there is something divine in the art of making images. . . As perfect man Christ not only can but must be represented and worshipped in images: let this be denied and Christ's economy of the salvation is virtually destroyed."

The iconoclasts, by rejecting all representations of God, failed to take full account of the Incarnation. They fell into a kind of dualism. Regarding matter as a defilement, they wanted a religion freed from all contact with what is material, for they thought that what is spiritual must be non-material. But if we allow no place to Christ's humanity, to his body, we betray the Incarnation and we forget that our body and our soul must be saved and transfigured. Thus, Iconoclasm was not only a controversy about religious art, but about the Incarnation and the salvation of the entire material cosmos.

The Empress Irene suspended the iconoclastic persecutions in 780. Seven years later the Seventh Ecumenical Synod in Nicaea reaffirmed the veneration of icons:

"We salute (aspazometha) the form of the venerable and life-giving Cross, and the holy relics of the Saints, and we receive, salute, and kiss the holy and venerable icons. . . These holy and venerable icons we honor (timomen) and salute and honorably venerate (timitikos proskynoumen): namely, the icon of the Incarnation of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, and of our immaculate Lady and All-Holy Theotokos, . . . also of the incorporeal Angels -- since they appeared to the righteous in the form of men. Also the forms and icons of the divine and most famed Apostles, of the Prophets, who speak of God, of the victorious Martyrs, and of other saints; in order that by their paintings we may be enabled to rise to the remembrance and memory of the prototypes, and may partake in some measure of sanctification. . . To these icons should be given salutation (aspasmos) and honorable reverence (timitiki proskynesis), not indeed the true worship (latreia) of faith, which pertains to the divine nature alone. . . To these also shall be offered incense and lights, in honor of them, according to the ancient pious custom. For the honor which is paid to the icon passes on to that which the icon represents, and he who reveres the icon reveres in it the person who is represented."

However, the attacks on the icons were renewed by Leo the Armenian in 815. Only in 843, during the reign of the Empress Theodore were the iconoclasts defeated for good; the day of their defeat is celebrated each year on the first Sunday after Lent as Triumph of Orthodoxy.

I welcome engagement with these arguments.

Peace,

Anglian

simonthezealot · Aug 14, 2008

Anglian said:
Dear Simon,

Let me begin with what the 7th Ecumenical Council determined and work back from that:

I'll take some time and read that and for brevity make it its seperate post.

Anglian said:
The icon is not the reality; it directs us towards a reality. The Saints are real live people, and the icon directs us towards them; the Risen Christ is real; the icon directs us towards Him.

So the icons are a mediator/avenue/window to the saints and Christ ?

simonthezealot · Aug 14, 2008

Anglian said:
When we enter the Church we kiss the icon and perform a prostration towards the altar. That's the only other place icons are involved.

Funny Anglian in its root form the word worship comes from a variety of Hebrew words and denotes a number of ideas. One is the idea of kissing. see Psalms 2 the further derivation of the word worship construes bowing down ala Gen 2:5 along with Psalm 95:6

So the answer is YES it appears you guys worship these images/icons...

Thekla · Aug 14, 2008

simonthezealot said:
Funny Anglian in its root form the word worship comes from a variety of Hebrew words and denotes a number of ideas. One is the idea of kissing. see Psalms 2 the further derivation of the word worship construes bowing down ala Gen 2:5 along with Psalm 95:6

So the answer is YES it appears you guys worship these images/icons...

the Kiss of Peace is mentioned in the NT

Rick Otto · Aug 14, 2008

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

The prohibition was for men, not God.
Same as the incident where Jesus was criticized for gathering wheatberries on the Sabboth.

Thekla

Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man; David also 'transgressed' Sabbath law. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. God didn't transgress His prohibition against use of images when He said to use them in the Temple because His prohibition was against men devising them on their own initiative.

Rick Otto

And it wasn't against them in general, just for religious purposes.

Thekla

maybe you can find an OT example to support this ?

Rick Otto

Sorry. example of which?

Thekla

Per the bulk of the OT (as with Jeroboam) the restriction is against worshiping other gods; regional heathen worship included idols (false gods; demons per the Psalmist)

Rick Otto

When god commanded their use in His temple He didn't simply tell them to use them, He told them exactly which ones & how to make & use them, right? I think that's significantly different than saying, "Ok, I know I told ya not use images, but go ahead & put some in my temple."

Thekla

As with Christ's teaching on the Sabbath (and almsgiving, fasting, etc), here a distinction is shown between right use and wrong use.

Rick Otto

Perhaps, but the distinction I was pointing out was the one that illustrates how the giver of the law doesn't bind Himself with that law He binds the ones He gives the law to.

later nonjuror · Aug 14, 2008

The Anglican Church taught that we should receive the Consensus of the Greek Fathers not particularly the view of anyone man.
This is a slight development of the teaching s of S.Vincent of Lerins.
"If a question arises on which no Council has dealt then the enquirer is to collect the opinions of the ancients,(Fathers,) who remained in the Communion of the Church, masters of repute. Not to the individual, however great a Christian but to teaching in which they all agree."

Rick Otto · Aug 14, 2008

Venerating an image & venerating the person represented by the image is distinction that can only exist in the mind because it is a false distinction.
It allows making the image & bowing before it, both explicitly prohibited.
Subtle redefinition is the oldest trick in The Book.

simonthezealot · Aug 14, 2008

Anglian said:
(Exo 20:4 NKJV) "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;….”

It is here that most people like to stop, for this of itself would seem to settle the matter. However, if this stood alone as it is, that would mean that all forms of pictures and images are forbidden, period. But there are two more verses which are part of the second commandment which qualify what is said in verse 4:

(Exo 20:5-6 NKJV) you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, {6} but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Bow down NOR serve them ...not TO serve them!
YOU BOW DOWN...
YOU KISS AND VENERATE AND POLISH so i'd say you serve them as well

simonthezealot · Aug 14, 2008

Rick Otto said:
Subtle redefinition is the oldest trick in The Book.

EXACTLY NOT the good book either..

simonthezealot · Aug 14, 2008

Anglian said:
So, for the veneration of images to violate the second commandment, it would have to:
1. Be an image of some type,
2. We would have to bow to it,
3. We would bow to it in order to serve it,
4. And to serve it as a god, to supersede God.
Thus, it would turn into worship and break the second commandment. Veneration of the Saints through their images only applies to 2 of the 4 qualifications, thus it is not worship of the Saint or the Icon, nor does it break the second commandment.

I'd argue you hit 3 of 4. Not a comfortable place in my view..

simonthezealot · Aug 14, 2008

“Idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images."

-Charles Hodge

Thekla · Aug 14, 2008

Rick Otto said:
Venerating an image & venerating the person represented by the image is distinction that can only exist in the mind because it is a false distinction.
It allows making the image & bowing before it, both explicitly prohibited.
Subtle redefinition is the oldest trick in The Book.

Genuflecting, bowing, kneeling and kissing are common forms of showing respect in Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. They are not forms of "worship".

Unless you advocate cultural imperialism

Thekla · Aug 14, 2008

Rick Otto said:
Originally Posted by Rick Otto

The prohibition was for men, not God.
Same as the incident where Jesus was criticized for gathering wheatberries on the Sabboth.

Thekla

Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man; David also 'transgressed' Sabbath law.

Exactly. God didn't transgress His prohibition against use of images when He said to use them in the Temple because His prohibition was against men devising them on their own initiative.[/QUOTE]

per the Sabbath laws - Christ was clear that these were more than "Laws" - there was a purpose - and the Pharisees He chastised had skipped the purpose.

per eidolon - because when men devised them in the OT they did so to worship other gods (including self); a lack of faith in God

Rick Otto

And it wasn't against them in general, just for religious purposes.

Thekla

maybe you can find an OT example to support this ?

Rick Otto

Sorry. example of which?

of the use of eidolon/eikon outside of religious use

Thekla

Per the bulk of the OT (as with Jeroboam) the restriction is against worshiping other gods; regional heathen worship included idols (false gods; demons per the Psalmist)

Rick Otto

When god commanded their use in His temple He didn't simply tell them to use them, He told them exactly which ones & how to make & use them, right? I think that's significantly different than saying, "Ok, I know I told ya not use images, but go ahead & put some in my temple."

they were sculpted, though, or maybe not ...
I agree - but again see this within the OT as recording, among other things process towards/ preparing for skopos/purpose

the Law was a fence - it defined the Jewish people as the "people of God" and also (as in instruction in general) helped to form them -- as before, pre-Law/law of the Jungle; Law/human Law (equality/rights); NT Law/Law of God/ressponsibility/love

Thekla

As with Christ's teaching on the Sabbath (and almsgiving, fasting, etc), here a distinction is shown between right use and wrong use.

Rick Otto

Perhaps, but the distinction I was pointing out was the one that illustrates how the giver of the law doesn't bind Himself with that law He binds the ones He gives the law to.

God is not bound by Law, but gives Law - I agree.
But this depends on how you see the purpose of the Law, too.
To learn right use is to learn that all is for the glory of God.
To create an idol of Ba'al does not glorify God.
To testify of His glory by recounting and celebrating what He has done is right use - as the Psalmist recounts nature to the glory of God, not as nature worship.

Uphill Battle · Aug 14, 2008

doesn't anyone feel that this has gotten just a BIT stupid?

nobody's making you bow to an "idol" simon.

nobody can take away Icons from the other side either.

Anglian · Aug 14, 2008

Dear Simon,

Let us examine this word 'worship' you use so readily.

The Jews understand the difference between veneration and worship (adoration). A pious Jew kisses the Mezuza on his door post, he kisses his prayer shawl before putting it on, he kisses the tallenin, before he binds them to his forehead, and arm. He kisses the Torah before he reads it in the Synagogue. No doubt, Christ did likewise, when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue.

The Early Christians also understood this distinction as well. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (who was St. John the Apostle's disciple, and whose Martyrdom was recorded by the faithful of his Church, who were eyewitnesses of all that it recounts), we are told of how some sought to have the Roman magistrate keep the Christians from retrieving the body of the Holy Martyr

"'lest,' so it was said, 'they should abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this man'—this being done at the instigation and urgent entreaty of the Jews, who also watched when we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that it will be impossible for us either to forsake at any time the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved—suffered though faultless for sinners—nor to worship any other. For Him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we cherish as they deserve for their matchless affection towards their own King and Teacher.... The centurion therefore, seeing the opposition raised on the part of the Jews, set him in the midst and burnt him after their custom. And so we afterwards took up his bones which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place; where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birth-day [i.e. the anniversary] of his martyrdom for the commemoration of those that have already fought in the contest, and for the training and preparation of those that shall do so hereafter" (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:2-3; 18:1-3).

Let's look at the Biblical examples and the relationship of bowing and prostrating to worship. Let us look at some of the Hebrew words and examples in the OT. The primary word in the Hebrew for worship and bowing is described in Strong's concordance as:

shachah, shaw-khaw'; a prim. root; to depress, i.e. prostrate (espec. reflex. in homage to royalty or God):—bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.

However, this word is very context sensitive. There are many places where this word is translated as "worship" (Exo 12:27 (Uses "qadad" to bow the head and "shachah" to indicate worship); 1 Chron 29:20; 2 Chr 7:3; 20:18; 29:29-30; Neh 8:6; Psalm 22:29; 95:6). "Worship" in the context of this word specifically refers to the god which one serves.
At the root of this word, is the idea that one bows to another who is to be respected and/or is in authority over you. Bowing was a sign of submission to another person and showing honor. Also, it was a humbling of yourself before another person.

Consequently, this word is not just translated as "worship" but also frequently translated as "bowing" in context that would not suggest a worshiping attitude. It suggests a respect or recognition of another person's authority. This was frequently done in greeting another person. (Gen 27:29; 33:3-7; 37:10; 41:43; 42:6; 43:26; 47:31; 48:12; 49:8; Ruth 2:10; 1 Sam 20:41; 24:8; 25:23, 41; 28:14; 2 Sam 9:8; 14:22, 33; 18:21; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:15, 23 (obeisance), 31(reverence), 47, 53; 2:19; 2 Kings 2:15; 4:37; 1 Chr 21:21; Est 3:2 (reverence); Isa 60:14).

It is also translated as "bowing" concerning God's command to not bow and serve any idol or graven image (Exo 11:8; 20:4-5 ("shachah" used as bowing to an idol to serve it, thus being in submission to it); 23:24; Lev 26:1; Num 25:2; Deut 5:8-9; Joshua 23:7; 23:16; Judges 2:12, 16-19; 2 Kings 17:35; 2 Chr 25:14). That we could have no other God before us results in not bowing to another god. As Jesus says, we cannot serve two masters equally. Bowing in submission to an idol (the Hebrew word for "idol" means "empty and vain") suggested that they had taken their submission away from God. The emphasis of the bowing was to show whom one served when done to one perceived as a god.

Context is all important. The word could mean worship, or it could mean a simple sign of respect, or even affection in friendship as when David bowed before Jonathan. It is in this context that the word finds its broadest meaning. However, when we apply the action to a god, it becomes an act of worship. In that act of bowing to a god, it is an indication of submission to it and that you will serve it. It is the person's heart which is critical; who are they serving? In the Bible, whenever bowing to God or an idol is mentioned, the context of serving that god is usually included, the implication being that it is to the exclusion of other gods. It is this attitude of being in submission to God that the word "worship" holds for the Jew. It is not just offering up words and bowing, but an attitude of the heart to serve God and Him alone.
Therefore, one can see that bowing itself is totally context sensitive in the Hebrew mind set. Their worship was full of bowing, as their word for worship is so strongly linked to it. Bowing was done in greeting, in honoring, in showing respect, and in acknowledging authority. It is easy to see that this attitude would have prevailed in the early Church as a natural extension of that mind set.

Biblically speaking, bowing, and even prostration, was not in and of itself an indication of worship as much as it was a sign of respect and recognition of authority. However, they were used extensively in worship, for the ultimate recognition of respect and authority is to be recognized in our worship of God. Thus, bowing is used both to other people and to God. When it is used in relation to God, or anything being recognized as a god, it was designated as an act of worship.

I hope that this, which is a condensed form of the argument used by Louth, helps explain that there is a real difference in our minds between worship and veneration. We are not, as some would hold, simply playing hypocritically with words; and I am glad you do not hold such a view, even if you thought we were close to it. I hope this explains why we think you are very far from the mark - even though we can understand where your concern comes from. It is because I understand and respect your concern that I am happy to put the effort in to explaining the view of the Church.

peace,

Anglian

Philothei · Aug 14, 2008

How is kissing an icon or let us say the crucifix the same as kissing the idol of Zeus?

The Jews opposed to kissing ANY Christian symbol (although the Orthdox Jews kiss the Shema every time they go in and out from their homes) an idol... because Christ was a "blasphemere" since God had no son.. Not because they objected it be an idol...They had other motives for rejecting Christ. The icons was the "icing on the cake" in their proving that He had nothing to do with "their" God and Christians were worshiping a false god... an idol...

But this was all nice a dandy to do....

kissing a schroll....venerating it ... I can say they worship it if i wanted to be picky could I??

Or also kissing the Torah...

or a muslim woman kissing the Koran...

How this is different? Are these good folks worshiping the book?? or their content?

You decide...

Anglian · Aug 14, 2008

Dear Simon,

Let us also look at the Greek here with regard to worship.

The primary Greek word for worship is:

4352. proskuneo, pros-koo-neh'-o; from G4314 and a prob. der. of G2965 (mean. to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (lit. or fig.) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):worship. (combination of: 4314. pros, pros; a strengthened form of G4253; a prep. of direction; forward to, i.e. toward. and 2965. kuon, koo'-ohn; a prim. word; a dog ["hound"] (lit. or fig.):dog.)

That last is surely an odd way to come up with the word for worship of God, but I would imagine that the attitude would be the same that a dog has for his master. Although the elements of "kissing" and "prostration" are included in the definition, the word is never translated as such in the New Testament, but always as "worship". It occurs 60 times in 54 verses, so I won't quote all of them here.
The word is frequently used in relation to the way people approached Jesus. This was the way in which the Gospel writers intended to relate that Jesus was indeed God, for consistently through the New Testament, this worship is reserved for God alone and condemned when directed toward men or other beings. So its free use in relation to Jesus shows the attitude of the writers toward Him, that He is indeed God and worthy to be worshiped.
It is also appropriate to note here that while in the New Testament this word is used exclusively for worship to God, in general usage of the Greeks themselves this is not the case. The Greek translation of the Old Testament uses the word much like the Hebrew uses "shachah". A different Greek word is used there and in the Church Fathers to indicate divine worship specifically. In the New Testament, however, the writers used this word to do that job.
The word used often to indicate a prostration in relation to worship is the Greek word:

4098. pipto, pip'-to; a redupl. and contr. form of peto, pet'-o (which occurs only as an alt. in cert. tenses); prob. akin to G4072 through the idea of alighting; to fall (lit. or fig.):fail, fall (down), light on.

This is a broad term that basically means to fall down. It is used in a variety of context, like the blind leading the blind and both falling into a ditch, or that God knows when a sparrow falls to the ground. In relation to use with "worship", it refers to falling down before the one to worship.
The three incidence of improper worship of a person in the New Testament indicate the interaction of these two words.

(Acts 10:25 KJV) And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
(Rev 19:10 KJV) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
(Rev 22:8-9 KJV) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. {9} Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

It is for this reason that "to worship him" or "and worshipped him" are included, for otherwise it would be saying that they just fell down, but no reason as to why. Did they trip? Due to grief? Did someone push them? Or were these two people simply honoring the ones the fell down towards? No they fell down because they were worshiping them. The falling down would mean nothing without a word that defines what the falling down was meant to convey. In these context, the word "worship" is included for that purpose, which is "proskuneo".

There are several other words used in various context to indicate a bowing, kneeling, prostration action:

1120. gonupeteo, gon-oo-pet-eh'-o; from a comp. of G1119 and the alt. of G4098; to fall on the knee:bow the knee, kneel down.
To a person: Matt 27:29 (mocking Christ as a king)
5087. tithemi, tith'-ay-mee; a prol. form of a prim. theo, theh'-o (which is used only as alt. in cert. tenses); to place (in the widest application, lit. and fig.; prop. in a passive or horizontal posture, and thus different from G2476, which prop. denotes as upright and active position, while G2749 is prop. reflexive and utterly prostrate):+ advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, X kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make, ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down.
To a person: Mark 15:19 (mocking Christ as a king)
2749. keimai, ki'-mahee; mid. of a prim. verb; to lie outstretched (lit.or fig.):be (appointed, laid up, made, set), lay, lie. Comp. G5087.
2827. klino, klee'-no; a prim. verb; to slant or slope, i.e. incline or recline (lit. or fig.):bow (down), be far spent, lay, turn to flight, wear away.
Luke 23:5 (bowed before angels); John 19:30 (Jesus bows his head)
2578. kampto, kamp'-to; appar. a prim. verb; to bend:bow.
Rom 11:4 (in reference to bowing to an idol); 14:11 (in reference to bowing to God); Eph 3:15 (to God); Phil 2:10 (bow to God)

The interesting thing among these words and the Hebrew ones, is that the Greek has the actions of bowing and prostrating separated from the word for worship, which was not the case in the Hebrew. Hebrew was much more context sensitive while the Greek seems to use the word "proskuneo" to only refer to worship which can only be given to God. It is never used to refer specifically to prostration or bowing, though the elements of that are included in worship to God as indicated in the definition. However, to indicate a bowing action or a prostration, separate Greek words are used which are not always in the context of worship.

So, again, context, like intention, is all. We do not do these things blindly or lightly, nor have we ever done them. We abhor the worship of idols as much as you do, and the Church, having discussed these things in much the manner of my last three rather long posts, came down where it has been ever since.

I hope this will help you to inderstand our position. Which may be represented thus:
us = GOD

Peace,

Anglian

ECF's -Which ones were right?

let us love one another, for love is of God

let us love one another, for love is of God

The Dude Abides

let us love one another, for love is of God

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Thekla

Guest

The Dude Abides

Newbie

The Dude Abides

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

let us love one another, for love is of God

Love never fails

let us love one another, for love is of God

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency