Tackling Tradition 64: Revelation 22: 6 - 9

 And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”

7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”  (Revelation 22:6–9, ESV)


Many people read this as a lesson not to worship angels, & they are most certainly right about that.  That says, there is more going on here than that.   

Throughout the Book of Revelation, angels appear as non-angelic humanity & animal kind’s fellow image bearers who participate in the investigation & judgment if the created order.   Thus, when the messenger accompanying & paracleting John speaks to him here, exhorting John not to worship him, he isn’t merely reminding John that angels are not proper objects of worship (insofar as only God, THE LORD, is worthy of worship), he is also asking John not to engage in worship without him too. We have just seen the City of God come down from heaven, & in the city of God, angelic & non-angelic beings paraclete one another, exercise shared dominion, & worship THE LORD together.  

I LORD, Hear our prayer(s)!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18

  Paul is following the basic outline of a suzerain covenant in general     & the outline of Lev. 18 in particular.   Shema & Decalogue (Rom. 1:18 - 20)   God’s Image testifies to His attributes & Law.    God created people. His temple bears His Image & runs according to his Law & Gospel.    This corresponds to Lev. 18 : 1 & 2. A - Rom.    1:18 - 19.  God’s wrath falls on those who suppress His image.   B - Rom 1:20  - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made so that people are without excuse.  What is the teleological intent of the created order?    To serve as an epistemic warrant on par with God Himself? No!  It’s purpose is to serve as a pointer to God who is Himself the only sufficient epistemic warrant for all faith & practice....
Read more

On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here .  In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.    It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.     For example, Robert Gagnon writes: By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transpare...
Read more