I know προσκυνέω can be translated as “kneel”, “bow”, “worship”, and other synonyms. When one reads the Gospel of Matthew in an English translation it becomes obvious that translators do their best to use the word they think matches the meaning of προσκυνέω in that particular context. For instance, in the ESV the thirteen uses of προσκυνέω are translated something like “worship” in 2.2; 2.8; 2.11; 4.9-10; 14.33; 28.9; and 28.17 or “knelt” in 8.2; 9.18; 15.25; 18.26; and 20.20. The NASB has something like worship in 2.2; 2.8; 2.11; 4.9-10; 14.33; 28.19; 28.17, “bowed” in 8.2; 9.18; 15.25; 20.20, and “prostrated” in 18.26. Of course, the basic idea would be to bow before a superior figure.
If one does this action before another it doesn’t mean that they see the other person at deity, per se. They could be a king or governor. That said, what I find interesting is how Matthew uses it.
What I am wondering out loud is how 4.9-10 impacts how we read this word through the rest of the book. Jesus is the figure being acted upon in 2.2; 2.8; 2.11; 8.2; 9.18; 14.33; 15.25; 20.20; 28.9; and 28.17. The only passages where he is not the focus of the bowing/kneeling/worship is 4.9-10 when Satan invites Jesus to bow before him and he says only God deserves such an honor and in 18.26 it is part of his parable where a servant falls before his master.
If in 4.9-10 Matthew uses the word as part of Satan’s invitation, and Jesus quotes Scripture that says God is the only one worthy of such admiration, does Matthew intend anything by associating the action with Jesus so often? Thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
The Greek word προσκυνέω (proskyneō G4352) roughly means to ‘make obeisance’, ‘to oblige’, or ‘subordinate oneself’ to authority. It is often translate ‘to bow’, ‘to kneel’, or ‘to worship’ because these are all demonstrations of ‘obliging’ or ‘making obeisance’ to authority figures.
Although there may be a more precise translations of προσκυνέω into English the stated goal of the translation process of the KJV was to produce a Bible that would be scholarly yet not overly formal so that it was not inaccessible to the (English) commoner. (It is possible this goal was an inherited artefact, by the KJV translation committee, from the excellent Tyndale Translation).
You astutely observe προσκυνέω doesn’t implicitly suggest deity. What προσκυνέω does implicitly suggest is ‘authority’, which both humans and divine entities can possess. Even if the divinity of Jesus was not explicitly contained in the use of προσκυνέω, if [Matt 28:18] is true “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”, divinity is explicitly necessary (to one who believes [Matt 28:18]).
In [Matt 4:9-10] the devil is asking Jesus to subordinate himself to the authority of the devil, or to recognize the authority the devil possesses apart from God. This is a form of idolatry, where something (namely our recognition of authority), is being placed in something other than God.
By associating the word προσκυνέω with Jesus so often, Matthew is being transparent about the authority Jesus possessed. He wasn’t the only one:
[Mark 4:41] “And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?”
See also [Matt 7:29][Matt 8:9][Matt 9:6,8][Matt 10:1][Matt 21:23-24,27].
I think Matthew is doing something different than Mark 4, since he probably edited it. I think Matthew uses it to heighten the Christology, but to what limit (Davidic Monarch, Deity, etc.) is unclear.
Interesting question about how Matthew’s readers might take his uses of the verb. Don’t know if this helps or just muddies the waters, but Isocrates uses the word with a human as its direct object while implying that mortal is being viewed by the subject of the verb as divine. This is 151 of Panegyricus. The translations by George Norlin and by Richmond Lattimore, respectively below, yield pretty different results:
Those, on the other hand, who stand highest in repute among them [i.e., the Persians] have never governed their lives by dictates of equality or of common interest or of loyalty to the state; on the contrary, their whole existence consists of insolence toward some, and servility towards others—a manner of life than which nothing could be more demoralizing to human nature. Because they are rich, they pamper their bodies; but because they are subject to one man’s power, they keep their souls in a state of abject and cringing fear, parading themselves at the door of the royal palace, prostrating themselves, and in every way schooling themselves to humility of spirit, falling on their knees before [προσκυνοῦντες] a mortal man, addressing him as a divinity, and thinking more lightly of the gods than of men. — Norlin
Those, again, who are in greatest repute among them have never yet lived a life of equality, common intercourse, or citizenship, but spend all their time either as oppressors or as slaves–the surest way for men to have their characters corrupted; their bodies they pamper through their riches, and their souls they render abased and fearful through their monarchical government; they are subjected to inspection on the very threshold of the royal palace, fall prostrate before the King, and in every way practice humiliation, worshipping [προσκυνοῦντες] a mortal man and addressing him as a deity, and holding the gods of less account than men. — Lattimore
Norlin’s translation seems to focus more on the humiliated state of the person who bows to another (in the Persian context), but Lattimore’s translation seems to bring out a more general argument against monarchies universally.
So here’s the whole bit as Isocrates wrote it:
Οἱ δ’ἐν ταῖς μεγίσταις δόξαις ὄντες αὐτῶν ὁμαλῶς μὲν οὐδὲ κοινῶς οὐδὲ πολιτικῶς οὐδεπώποτ’ ἐβίωσαν, ἅπαντα δὲ τὸν χρόνον διάγουσιν εἰς μὲν τοὺς ὑβρίζοντες, τοῖς δὲ δουλεύοντες, ὡς ἂν ἄνθρωποι μάλιστα τὰς φύσεις διαφθαρεῖεν, καὶ τὰ μὲν σώματα διὰ τοὺς πλούτους τρυφῶντες, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς διὰ τὰς μοναρχίας ταπεινὰς καὶ περιδεεῖς ἔχοντες, ἐξεταζόμενοι πρὸς αὐτοῖς τοῖς βασιλείοις καὶ προκαλινδούμενοι καὶ πάντα τρόπον μικρὸν φρονεῖν μελετῶντες, θνητὸν μὲν ἄνδρα προσκυνοῦντες καὶ δαίμονα προσαγορεύοντες, τῶν δὲ θεῶν μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὀλιγωροῦντες.
Interestingly, Matthew seems to be having Satan quote here from Psalm 91, but from the Greek Septuagint translation. Psalm 91:6 in Hebrew, of course, has “the destruction [קטב] that wasteth at noonday.” But in the LXX Greek and in the Greek of the gospel, that is rendered “the evil spirit [δαιμονίου] at noon-day.” The evil spirit is a “divinity” or a “deity” or is an allusion to Satan in this context.
@Adam: Agreed.
@J.K. : That is a fascinating example of how the word can be used elsewhere to refer to prostrating before someone as an act of worship.
The quotation from the Psalm is interesting as well. It is as if he is saying, “If you don’t fear the evil spirit do this…”
Hi, I believe you can find an interesting analysis in the book “How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? – Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus” by Larry Hurtado , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (November 2, 2005)
Here I quote some passages (if allowed):
– – the most important term, with the most interesting variation in usage among the Evangelists, is προσκυνέω (“make obeisance, do reverence to, worship”).In the LXX and the New Testament this verb also can be used to designate the reverence given, for example, by servants to their masters (Matt. 18:26), or by others who demonstrate by the gesture the superiority of another person (e.g., Gen. 27:29; 37:10; 49:8; Acts 10:25). More characteristically, however, in the LXX (e.g., Exod. 20:5; Deut. 4:19; Josh. 23:19) and also in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:5; Matt. 4:9-10; Luke 4:7-8), it is used to refer to the gesture of reverence given to a deity and intended specifically to register what we mean by the term “worship.” Indeed, an interesting feature of Jewish and early Christian usage is the absolute form of προσκυνέω (i.e., without an accusative or a dative noun as object) as the designation of what is involved in “worship” (e.g., ι Sam. 1:13; John 4:20; 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11)
(…)
[In the NT], the largest number of uses is in Revelation (twenty-four), indicative of the major emphasis of this writing on contrasting worship of the true God with the invalid worship of the “Beast” and its image. (…). [In the Gospels], the first thing to note is the variation in frequency of usage: it appears twice in Mark, three times in Luke (in two passages), eight times in John (in three passages) .- – pp. 141-142 —
Although this topic refers to Matthew, who deserves a dedicated chapter in Hurtado’s book, I now focus just on the Hurtado’s analysis of Luke’s use of the term (the analysis of the most extensive use by Matthew requires too much space here)
– – Other than in the temptation narrative (Luke 4:1-13), where Satan urges Jesus to worship him and Jesus refuses by citing the command in Deuteronomy 6:13 to worship the Lord God only (Luke 4:7-8), Luke’s only other use of προσκυνέω is in 22:52, where he portrays Jesus’ disciples worshipping the risen Jesus (προσκυνήσαντες αύτόν) and then joyfully returning to Jerusalem.
Luke elsewhere uses other terms that do not have the same association with the worship of deities to describe the respectful postures of people who come to Jesus in supplication or thankfulness.
That is, the only Lukan use of the term προσκυνέω to describe reverence given to Jesus is with reference to the risen Jesus […]Thus Luke somewhat carefully “periodizes” reverence given to Jesus, distinguishing between the period of Jesus’ ministry and the “post-Easter” period in the language that he uses to portray people’s actions – – p. 143
The whole book, of course, is worth reading – as well as J. Dunn’s “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?” for a different point of view. I personally find Hurtado’s work more convincing but both are worth reading (they’re sometimes in agreement, sometimes in disagreement, but quite often complementary).
@Talita:
Thank you for sharing some of those insights from Hurtado! I think they lend favor toward reading Matthew as saying something regarding worship and deity and not merely honoring a superior human. If so, this raises Matthew’s Christology higher than many would like to credit.
Hi Brian, your conclusion is in line with that of Hurtado.
Matthew shows very particular editorial
intention in this case: for example, despite the Matthew’s preference for προσκυνέω to characterize reverence given to Jesus (thirteen times!) you may note that in the only two passages where Mark uses προσκυνέω (Mark 5:1-20; 15:17-19) Matthew for some reason other terms. Assuming Markan priority this is a non-sense! This can only confirm that Matthew’s use of προσκυνέω is selective and intentional: according to Hurtado – -by using προσκυνέω to characterize reverence given to Jesus in many episodes, Matthew has chosen to make these scenes all function as foreshadowings of the exalted reverence of Jesus familiar to his Christian readers in their collective worship- -.
So, instead of using προσκυνέω to characterize the reverence given to the risen Jesus, Matthew projects back to the living Jesus the characteristic setting in which the original readers themselves
would have reverenced the risen Jesus as Lord.
Therefore I’d say yes, Matthew is intentionally (thru accurate and evident redactional work) placing post-Easter devotional practices of the community back to Jesus’ life.
Ciao!
Sorry for taking so long to chime in, given my interest in this topic. I think that Matthew is depicting Jesus as God’s agent, to whom to offer obeisance is to offer it to the one who sent him. Offering worship to a figure whose claim to authority was opposed to the one God’s, such as in the case of Satan, would be rejected, but that should not be understood to presuppose that any worship addressed towards a figure other than God, including a God-appointed one, would be rejected in a similar fashion.
@James:
That makes sense. Is your wording a way of saying that direct equivocation of Jesus w. God is anachronistic? Is this why you prefer agency language?