Replies

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and questions, dear brother in Christ!

I see the Revelation 3:9 verse alongside the golden calf episode in Exodus 32:

And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for [as for] this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which [are] in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring [them] unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] unto Aaron. And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

And when Aaron saw [it], he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow [is] a feast to the LORD. - Exodus 32:1-5

Aaron and the other Israelis evidently thought they could worship (feast to) God in front of the golden calf much like some people think they can worship God at the feet of angels or other people alive or dead.

But God will have none of that.

And God spake all these words, saying, I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. - Exodus 20:1-6

And again,

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 shewed me these things.

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. - Revelation 22:8-9

When Jesus tells those who are of the synagogue of Satan that He will force them to worship at the feet of those He loves – it is a horrible punishment. They will not be allowed to worship God directly. They are pushed away. They are rejected.

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. - Revelation 3:9

It is never ever ever ok for any of us, the adopted children of God, to let someone worship at our feet, even if their hearts are intent on worshiping God (like the Israelis before the calf.) That is why the angel was so indignant with John: "see thou do it not ... worship God!"

Only when God Himself passes judgment on the synagogue of Satan, rejecting them, and forces them to worship at our feet will it be ok. God's will, not man's.

It is never ever ever ok to worship before any one or any thing. We are to worship God. Period.

There is only ONE Great Commandment:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. – Matthew 22:37-38

And if we don’t get that right, nothing else we do - no matter how theologically correct - will matter.

Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. – Revelation 2:1-5

It is a horrible thing to be denied the Light of God (the candlestick.)

To God be the glory, not man, never man!

Alamo-Girl, you are a published author, and so I KNOW that you are no slouch. But I have to chime in on your post one; I've been keeping my finger on the pulse of this thread and it appears to me that hay is being made where no hay can be made. A serious hermeneutical error is being made concerning Rev 3:9 with the stipulation that it is some sort of proof text pertaining to the premis of a categorical syllogism. One can view the syllogism as valid but unsound (based on the truth of the premis), or irrational (based on the logic employed to establish the conclusion). It is my argument that the truth value to that which Rev 3:9 entails to your argument is not just immaterial but outright irrelevent if one doesn't understand what the truth value means in the first place; and so the sylogism itself is irrational.

The Wiki entry for hermeneutics:

Hermeneutics is broadly used in contemporary philosophy to denote the study of theories and methods of the interpretation of all texts and systems of meaning. The concept of "text" is here extended beyond written documents to any number of objects subject to interpretation, such as experiences. A hermeneutic is also defined as a specific system or method for interpretation, or a specific theory of interpretation. However, the contemporary philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer has said that hermeneutics is an approach rather than a method and, further, that the Hermeneutic circle is the central problem of interpretation.
Essentially, hermeneutics involves cultivating the ability to understand things from somebody else's point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces that may have influenced their outlook. Hermeneutics is the process of applying this understanding to interpreting the meaning of written texts and symbolic artifacts (such as art or sculpture or architecture), which may be either historic or contemporary.

In his book, Hermeneutics, writer Henry A. Virkler provides this basic history and definition:

> The word hermeneutics is said to have had its origin in the name Hermes, the Greek god who served as messenger for the gods, transmitting and interpreting their communications to their fortunate, or often unfortunate, recipients.
In its technical meaning, hermeneutics is often defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics is considered a science because it has rules and these rules can be classified into an orderly system. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of a communication.¹ To be a good interpreter one must learn the rules of hermeneutics as well as the art of applying those rules.
Hermeneutical theory is sometimes divided into two sub-categories--general and special hermeneutics. General hermeneutics is the study of those rules that govern interpretation of the entire biblical text. It includes topics of historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analyses. Special hermeneutics is the study of those rules that apply to specific genres, such as parables, allegories, types, and prophecy."²

Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis is a form of theological hermeneutics, especially within the mainstream, self-declared 'orthodox' Protestant tradition, considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Thus Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics as generally understood. Within such traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. I'm not going to mention them but I adhere to their application.

Rev 3:9 is part that of a larger passage. The context of the larger passage can be established in Rev 1:20. John is being charged to address seven contemporary churches of his time; specifically John addresses the church at Philadelphia in Rev 3:7. That should illuminate the object of the verse, i.e., "thy feet". To whom does "thy feet" belong and what does "worship" entail?

One of the first tenets of hermeneutics is what does the passage (or verse) actually say? If the translation that one is interpreting is not quite clear, further investigation is required. There are several methods that can be utilized, i.e.,

Lexical-syntactical
Special literary
Historical/cultural
Contextual method
Theological

In that vein, lets endeavor to examine what Rev 3:9 says. However, in order to apply hermeneutics to the passage we have to agree on an unbiased authority. A.T. Robertson one such authority. Another would be Strong or Vine's; and in a wholly secular forum, Westcott-Hort. Mind you at this point we're NOT interpreting any doctrine, but examining just WHAT the passage actually says. If neither of those authorities are credible in one's mind, then nothing I say will have any merit whatsoever. According to A.T. Robertson:

In Rev 3:9, I give (didô), incorporates late omega form for didômi, but the mi form in Rev 17:13 (didoasin). These Jewish converts are a gift from Christ. For this use of didômi see Act 2:27; 10:40; 14:3. There is ellipse of tinas before ek as in Rev 2:10 (ex humôn) and see Rev 2:9 for "the synagogue of Satan."

Of them which say (tôn legontôn) rendered from ablative plural in apposition with sunagôgês. On the construction of heautous Ioudaious einai see on Rev 2:9 (Ioudaious einai heautous, i.e., the order of words being immaterial).

But do lie (alla pseudontai). Present middle indicative of pseudomai, explanatory positive, addition here to kai ouk eisin of Rev 2:9, in contrast also with ho alêthinos of verse Rev 3:7 and in Johannine style (Jno 8:44; I Jno 1:10; 2:4).

I will make them (poiêsô autous). Future active indicative of poieô, resuming the prophecy after the parenthesis (tôn--pseudontai, which say--but do lie).

To come and worship (hina hêxousin kai proskunêsousin). "That they come and worship" (final clause, like facio ut in Latin, with hina and the future active of hêkô and proskuneô). The English rendered here is from the NT Greek language which is based on Isa 45:14; 60:14 (Hebrew). The Jews expected homage (not worship in the strict sense) from the Gentiles, but it will come to the Christians at last (I Cor 14:24). Later Ignatius (Philad. 6) warns this church against Judaizing Christians, perhaps one result of an influx of Jews.

And to know (kai gnôsin). Continuation of the purpose clause with hina, but with the second aorist active subjunctive rather than the less usual future indicative. See both constructions also with hina in Rev 22:14. Probably a reminiscence of Isa 43:4 in egô êgapêsa se ("I loved thee"), first aorist active indicative.

The salient word appears to be "worship" (Strong's #4352). Strong's Concordances shows:

proskunew proskuneo, i.e., pros-koo-neh'-o is from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.

The promise to Philadelphia is much larger than that earlier to Smyrna (cf Rev 2:9). The promise to Smyrna was that "the synagogue of Satan" should not prevail against the faithful in her: to Philadelphia, however, that she should even win over some of "the synagogue of Satan" to fall on their faces and confess God is in her of a truth. Translate, "(some) of the synagogue." For until Christ shall come, and all Israel then be saved, there is but "a remnant" being gathered out of the Jews "according to the election of grace." This is an instance of how Christ set before her an "open door," some of her greatest adversaries, the Jews, being brought to the obedience of the faith. Their worshipping before her feet expresses the convert's willingness to take the very lowest place in the Church, doing servile honor to those whom once they persecuted, rather than dwell with the ungodly (cf. the Philippian jailer before Paul). And just who was Paul anyways? It would behoove one to read up on what Paul said about himself and how he conducted himself prior to his conversion.

Adam Clarke says of Rev 3:9 that "I will so dispose of matters in the course of my providence, that the Jews shall be obliged to seek unto the Christians for toleration, support, and protection, which they shall be obliged to sue for in the most humble and abject manner."

He goes on further to state:

To know that I have loved thee. That the love which was formerly fixed on the Jews is now removed, and transferred to the Gentiles.

Your useage of Rev 3:9 as some sort of proof text is not just flawed; it is outright doctinally incorrect. God is NOT allowing "worship" of beings (or organizations), because He rejected them; He's compelling them to worship Him in the very organazations they despised, detested, destroyed. All of Scripture MUST remain uncontradicted on any small matter (lest ALL all of it come under suspicion concerning the least). =====================================
Notes:

1. Bernard Ramm. Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd rev. ed., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 1

2. Henry A. Virkler. Hermeneutics. Baker Books, pg. 15, 16.