Introduction
This is a sort of prelude to my earlier work on Icons and Saints. Though I did touch on this in a couple of works and most thoroughly in “On the Objections of Nicaea II”, I’ve come to feel that this portion of the argument is deserving of a deep analysis and study. What follows is the answer to the Protestant objection, “The veneration (Honor/Dulia) and worship (Latria) distinction is a later accretion”.
If someone were to bow before another, kiss a sacred object, prostrate before an image, or perform other acts of reverence, it is assumed that the recipient or object has been worshiped. From this understanding, terms like dulia and latria seem like theological loopholes, two names for the same action.
This article aims to demonstrate how the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly use the same language of bowing, reverence, and honor towards both God and creation while simultaneously maintaining a prohibition of idolatry.
So if the difference is not whether someone bends their knees, then how do we know if something is honor or worship?
Bowing Is Not Intrinsically Worship
We will begin first with the Hebrew verb, שחה (shachah), especially in its reflexive forms, which means to bow down, to make obeisance, or to prostrate oneself. This action is used both towards God and creatures.
Abraham bows before the Hittites (ויּשׁתּחוּ לעם־הארץ - Genesis 23:7), and he repeats this gesture in verse 12. We see this all over. Jacob bows before Esau (ויּשׁתּחוּ ארצה שׁבע פּעמים - Genesis 33:3), Moses bowed to and kissed Jethro (ויּשׁתּחוּ ויּשּׁק־לו - Exodus 18:7), Abigail to David (1 Samuel 25:23 - ותּשׁתּחוּ ארץ), sons of the prophets to Elisha (2 Kings 2:15 - ויּשׁתּחווּ־לו ארצה), and Nathan to David (1 Kings 1:23 - ויּשׁתּחוּ למּלך), and yet, no one would suggest that all of these prophets and patriarchs were idolaters and worshiped others besides God with no condemnation from God or the Authors of the texts.
So, on its face, the argument that since prostration occurred, then worship occurred fails immediately, through the many counterexamples in scripture; unless one says that the scripture is insufficient in handling these cases, then the argument does not follow.
In the Greek, these acts are translated as προσκυνέω (proskyneō).
This is crucial, because it shows how proskynesis cannot simply be defined as “worship,” as in the honor due to God alone. However, how it’s defined depends on who the act is directed towards, and there is one example where this is nearly impossible to deny.
To YHWH and the King
“Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless the LORD your God.” So all the assembly blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the LORD and the king.” - 1 Chronicles 29:20 NKJV
The Hebrew: “ויּקּדוּ ויּשׁתּחווּ ליהוה ולמּלך…”
The verb is not repeated or divided, and both objects take the preposition ל.
The Greek: “…κάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα προσεκύνησαν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ”
The Congregation performs the same bodily action, expressed in the same verb, for God and a creature, within the same sentence. If proskynesis were intrinsically “worship” proper, then the Author would be describing Israel as worshiping David alongside God. All translation committees have had to handle this verse, and yet none have removed the second object to resolve the tension.
If there were or are any fears or worries from this verse, the very distinction that is in question is evidenced in the very next verse:
“And they made sacrifices to the LORD and offered burnt offerings to the LORD on the next day: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel.” - 1 Chronicles 29:21 NKJV
The sacrifice and service are offered to God alone. So where in this sequence is worship given and to whom? Was it when the Congregation kneeled? Or when they prostrated towards the King? Or was it when sacrifice and service were offered to God?
Comparing the Greek and Hebrew
“Honor the LORD” (Proverbs 3:9) and “Honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12) use the same verb כבד (kabad) for God and for creatures. Phrases like “Fear YHWH your God” and “…revere his mother and his father…” use ירא (yare) “fear” and “reverence”.
Scripture is not saying that creatures are to be worshiped. Clearly, with the same word, the object receives the honor that is proper to it. This is determined by the relation between the actor and the object that separates worship from honor.
When Jacob serves Rachel in Genesis 29:20, the Hebrew word used for service is עבד (avad), which is used throughout Scripture for both ordinary service and service as worship. The Greek translates it here as ἐδούλευσεν (edouleusen), meaning ordinary servitude. We see the same in 1 Samuel 11:1, “and we will serve you”. It would be silly to think that Jacob or the men of Jabesh are worshiping humans.
“You shall not bow down to them or serve (avad) them.”- Exodus 20:5
This verse is important because here the Septuagint translates ʿavad with λατρεύω (latreuō or latria), explicitly as worship due to God alone. Another place where service is worship and not ordinary is in Joshua 24:
“Serve the LORD... put away the gods whom your fathers served... and serve the LORD. Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served... or the gods of the Amorites... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” - Joshua 24:14-15
Here in the Hebrew, עבד (avad) or “service”, is used. In Greek it is translated to λατρεύω (latreuō). Ordinary servitude δουλεύω (douleuō) is being distinguished by service as worship with λατρεύω (latreuō).
I hope with all the above examples that I've shown that collapsing avad with worship ultimately would cause one to misunderstand the creature-creator honor distinction that is explicitly used in Scripture. Downstream from that will cause other issues with their hermeneutic.
The Real Objection
Now let's say a thinking Protestant, true to their “Sola Scriptura” beliefs and in fear of being “scripture-gapped”, say, “Amen, I’m not saying that every instance of bowing to living humans is idolatrous. What I’m saying is that Exodus 20 prohibits bowing to images.”
This is the only objection in these debates that carries any real weight. It touches on the common and real worry of “accidentally” worshiping something other than God. I have thoughts on this idea of “accidentally” committing idolatry, but I’ll leave that for another day. For now, the thinking Protestants question must be stated directly:
“Does scripture distinguish between venerative and worship acts towards matter?”
And the answer is, yes. Yes, it does. Repeatedly.
This will quickly be demonstrated, because though usually my aim is to present and offer things that “Pop Apologetics” usually does not. For this instance, I will lay out a “montage” of sorts of common proof texts that we see used everywhere, all the time:
God commanded the making of cherubim, images of heavenly beings (Exodus 25:18–22), and that the Temple is to be filled with carved figures (1 Kings 6)…
“Now hold on…” interrupts the thinking Protestant while fighting “Ortho-bro derangement syndrome” (ODS) from images of Jay Dyer and Alex Sorin, “I happen to be a fan of the Arts. I have no issue with God commanding the making of images; reluctantly, I’d even grant them within the place of worship, but what I have an issue with is acts of honor given to them or those being used instrumentally during acts of worship to God.”
So let’s skip to that part. We could use examples like Joshua prostrating before the ark (Joshua 7:6), or the psalmist bowing towards the Temple (Psalm 5:7), or even Solomon commanding Israel to pray toward the house (1 Kings 8:29–30), and Daniel doing so (Daniel 6:10). These are good, but I think the best example is:
“…bow down to His footstool” - Psalm 99:5, 132:7
“רוממוּ יהוה אלהינוּ והשׁתּחווּ להדם רגליו קדושׁ הוּא”
But the thinking Protestant, halfway into posting a tweet on how an Ortho-bro broke into his house and killed his cat cause he made the grave mistake of calling his patron saint “Gregory of Palamas,” says, “It should be translated as, ‘…towards His footstool’ not ‘…to his footstool’. They are bowing to God, not the object itself.”
Though I will demonstrate how “to” is proper, for now I will show how it does not matter. “Towards” still shows that the footstool (which is the Temple/Ark) is being used instrumentally. The assumption is that if they read it as “Towards” then they can treat the Ark as just an object that just happens to be in the way. As if the Ancients built the Holy of Holies where it was as an aesthetic choice, similarly to how they put a cross on the wall behind their stages. But in the Ancient mind, the Ark was the divine arrival point; they were not bowing past it to get to God, but they bowed to it because God has already come down to meet us there. So it being used in worship as the physical marker for the location of God’s manifestation is an instrumental use in worship by definition.
The “ל” on “להדם” does not just mean “toward”. The same is used to show the recipients of honor, and that seen in the examples we already used like, Abraham bowing לעם־הארץ (Genesis 23:7) and 1 Chronicles 29:20.
This is even clearer in the Septuagint. The Greek uses τῷ ὑποποδίῳ (tō hypopodiō), meaning “To his footstool”, and it is not explicitly directional. This is proper, given its vital and integral use in worship. Using a holy object instrumentally was not treated as idolatry, but was treated as vital for worship rightly ordered.
Nehushtan, the Bronze Serpent
In Numbers 21, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent and have it mounted on a pole so that whoever looks at it will live. This is a divinely commanded, representational, manufactured object that’s instrumental as the medium by which Israel is delivered.
It survives for centuries with no complaints or reforming prophets or kings before Hezekiah.
“He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.” - 2 Kings 18:4
Read this verse carefully and how it describes Hezekiah’s reforms. He removes the high places and cuts down the Asherah, objects with no divine warrant and therefore needing no explanation for their removal. But as for the serpent, it specifically notes it was made by Moses (citing its divine warrant) and gives the reason why it was being removed. The Author is showing why the serpent was a distinct case from the other removed objects.
This shows a clear dilemma. If the second commandment meant that religious images became idolatrous due to being an image associated with divine acts, then the serpent would have been illicit from the beginning, and you’d have to say God commanded the making and use of an idol.
That goes back to the question, “How do we know the difference?” It’s clear that it was not that it was honored or credited as the means by which God delivered the people. It was when Israel's relation to it was changed from the image/icon to the source and finally the terminus of service and sacrifice. Which is the definition of Idolatry. All was well until it was given the honor that’s God's alone: sacrifice, service, which is worship… latria.
Philo of Alexandria on Images
Now, as I do, I see a chance to quote Philo, so I will quote Philo. Being a major authority in 1st-century Hellenistic Judaism, it likely would mean more to the thinking Protestant than any Church Father ever could.
He being as awesome as he is, and though it hurts to do so, he will be used here as an unfriendly witness.
In The Special Laws I.21–22, he extends God's prohibition on the making of gods with silver and gold to any material if these better ones can't be used. But he is not against images wholesale, as we see in other works of his.
In Life of Moses II.95-99 he describes the two angels on the mercy seat as symbols of God’s power:
“The Ark was placed on the forbidden ground of the inner sanctuary, within the veils. It was coated with costly gilding within and without, and was covered by a sort of lid, which is called in the sacred books the mercy-seat. The length and breadth of this are stated, but no depth, and thus it closely resembles the plane surface of geometry. It appears to be a symbol in a theological sense of the gracious power of God.” - Life of Moses II.95-96
In his works we see that the offense is not merely the making of images, but the making of gods and giving to them what is due to God alone.
“if anyone renders the worship [θεραπείαν; Service] due to the Eternal, the Creator, to a created being and one later in time, he must stand recorded as infatuated and guilty of impiety in the highest degree.” - The Special Laws I.20
Keep in mind that he is aware of λατρεύειν, as he uses it elsewhere in this same text. In Special Laws I.23 we see what, to Philo, makes an act idolatrous. He describes how poor men perform proskynesis to their neighbors’ wealth. He does not stop at the gesture itself because it hasn’t told us what is wrong. He continues by describing how they approach the wealthy houses as if they were temples and prayed there, asking for blessings from their owners ὡς θεῶν, as gods.
“…they have no wealth of their own…pay awe-struck homage to that of their neighbours, and come at early dawn to the houses of those who have abundance of it as though they were the grandest temples, there to make their prayers and beg for blessing from the masters as though they were gods...it is not fitting to assign divine honours to wealth” - Special Laws I.24-25
Notice the distinction: he’s not condemning honoring wealth, but giving divine honor due to God alone to wealth.
This is confirmed in his ordinary vocabulary, at Special Laws I.21 idolaters γεραίρουσιν (honor) statues through sacrifices. And yet, at I.52 Moses commands τιμαῖς γεραίρειν, to honor them with honors. So the problem is not honor itself, but the line in the sand is treating creatures as though they are gods.
So we see he gives us the same distinction found in Kings: an image can be divinely given and licit until it is served with what is due to God alone.
The New Testament
“Now, that’s all good and fine,” says the thinking Protestant, “but that’s the Old Testament which we don’t follow anymore; when we look at the New Testament, we don’t see this distinction. And actually we see an Angel who refuses being bowed to because, as he says, he is merely a servant like John.”
This is often the next response. I could go on and show how proskyneō (bowing) is used towards creatures by Christ in Revelation 3:9. How he would make them proskyneō, often translated as “worship” at their feet. But none of that matters cause the response will always be with Revelation 19:10; the brackets are mine:
“And I fell at his feet to worship [Bow to or pay homage to] him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
The objection is straightforward; here we clearly see proskynesis offered to a creature and it is rejected outright. It must be stated that this objection is usually overextended and stretched beyond what it can support.
First and most importantly, however, Revelation 19:10 should be interpreted so that it does not mean proskynesis to creatures is forbidden wholesale, because, as we showed in the same book and voice, Christ himself promised proskynesis directed to creatures. If we read it as most Protestants do, then a clear contradiction arises.
Secondly, in this verse and in Acts 10:25–26, the correction of not bowing is not a general prohibition against prostrating to creatures, as we noted earlier is all over the Old Testament. But notice that in these cases of refusal, it is fueled by someone being placed in the position of God. Not merely the physical act of paying honor.
What Is Worship?
Hopefully at this point my cumulative case met the goal of demonstrating the distinction between a material action and its formal meaning. Kneeling or prostration, a bodily movement, can occur before God or a king. It can express submission, supplication, honor, repentance, or adoration, but it is not the bent knees or downed face that tells us which of these acts occurred. That’s determined by the relation between the object and one’s relation to it.
Scripture’s conception of idolatry is far richer than what Protestants give it credit for. Idolatry occurs when a creature is placed in the position of God, the relation belonging to God. When it is given sacrificial or cultic services, when it becomes the source and terminus, given what Philo calls ἰσόθεοι τιμαί, divine honors, what is due to God alone.
It’s not “What physical act you did.”, but “What does the physical act mean, to whom was it given, and what kind of honor was given?”
Did you give just honor, or did you give sacrifice? Worship is prayer, sacrifice, incense, and cultic service given to a god.
Conclusion: From Scripture To The Later Developed Language
The distinction between veneration and latria did not come from the Church’s need for an excuse to bow to created things. As we see from Philo and (though I didn’t get into it to avoid writing a book), the Targums, this distinction was natural and unavoidable in the first-century interpretations.
The Scripture commands honor, reverence, and prostration towards creatures all over. Not just living creatures like parents or kings, but also images and temple furniture. God Himself commands the making of images, and not only their creation, but for them to be placed and used instrumentally in the holiest places. And when the line between honor and worship is crossed, it's explicitly said that the offense was not honor, or physical acts. But that it was the service, the incense, due to God alone.
Honor may be given to a creature according to the dignity that God has given it. It’s not about the physical acts; knees were bent, and bows were given to God and the King; they then sacrificed to God alone. The bow was shared; the altar was not.