Hooberus,
Does Adoni restrict Jesus' lordship to a 'human' lordship only ?
Not necessarily, as in fact Adoni is used in the O.T. as a designation of ' Angels '. So it could refer to Jesus' Heavenly Lordship in that sense.
For example ,see Zechariah Chapter 4 , verse 4. Where an ANGEL is addressed as lord ( ADONI ).
Moffat's translation uses the expression " Sir " in this verse.
Therefore , according to the bible usage of Adoni we can see that it is used of men and angels but NOT of God.
Therefore, it could refer to either Jesus' human or heavenly lordship, and probably both. However, the term does restrict the meaning so that it could not be referring to him as being God.
Here are a few quotes from a website that investigated this matter that I think backs up the above points.
Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?
?Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.?
Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.
Adoni ? ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai ? ref. to God?Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).
?The form ADONI (?my lord?), a royal title (I Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI (?my Lord?) used of Yahweh.? ?ADONAI ? the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adonai [with short vowel] = my lords? (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ?Lord,? p. 157).
?Lord in the OT is used to translate ADONAI when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word?has a suffix [with special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction?between divine and human appellative? (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, ?Lord,? Vol. 3, p. 137).
?Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT?Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, II Kings 2:19 [etc.]). We have to assume that the word adonai received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai, [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords? (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).
?The lengthening of the a¯ on Adonai [the Lord God] may be traced to the concern of the Masoretes to mark the word as sacred by a small external sign? (Theological Dictionary of the OT, ?Adon,? p. 63 and Theological Dictionary of the NT, III, 1060ff. n.109).
?The form ?to my lord,? l?adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference?the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)? (Wigram, The Englishman?s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22) (Herbert Bateman, ?Psalm 110:1 and the NT,? Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).
Dean.
Dean Porter
JoinedPosts by Dean Porter
-
38
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8
by hooberus injehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.
" psalm 110:1 asv.
unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.
-
-
Dean Porter
-
38
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8
by hooberus injehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.
" psalm 110:1 asv.
unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus,
Thankyou for answering that question re: How many Jehovah's are there ?
I agree with you that there is only ONE Jehovah as this is clearly the scriptural position bearing in mind the Shema.
So, then the Trinity point of view must be that there is ONE God, who is ONE Jehovah But who are THREE persons.
You earlier quoted Genesis 19:24 as support of your view that two persons of Jehovah can be seen to be acting and be addressed seperately at the one time. This being so that to prove that Jehovah the Father in Psalm 110 : 1 can be seen as seperate to Jehovah the Son.
However, I think this creates a problem with the understanding of there only being ONE Jehovah. Consider.
In Genesis 19:24 the scripture does not state anything about different Persons of this Jehovah being spoken of here. It doesn't say that it was Jehovah the Father speaking to Jehovah the Son. Keeping in mind that the Jews did not worship a Triune God , this idea of several persons of Jehovah being mentioned here would be anathema to them.
Also, if Jehovah is spoken of twice here surely this , without qualification in scripture, means there are TWO Jehovah's.
Therefore , if Jehovah is THREE Persons , then this scripture would mean that there are SIX Persons mentioned here.
Thus it should come as no surprise that some Trinitarian Commentators have saw the need to leave this scripture alone and not use it as a Trinity Proof Text.
e.g.
Verse 24. The Lord rained-brimstone and fire from the Lord] As all judgment is committed to the Son of God, many of the primitive fathers and several modern divines have supposed that the words hwhyw vaihovah and hwhy tam meeth Yehovah imply, Jehovah the Son raining brimstone and fire from Jehovah the Father; and that this place affords no mean proof of the proper Divinity of our blessed Redeemer. It may be so; but though the point is sufficiently established elsewhere, it does not appear to me to be plainly indicated here. And it is always better on a subject of this kind not to have recourse to proofs which require proofs to confirm them. It must however be granted that two persons mentioned as Jehovah in one verse, is both a strange and curious circumstance; and it will appear more remarkable when we consider that the person called Jehovah, who conversed with Abraham, (see chap. 18.,) and sent those two angels to bring Lot and his family out of this devoted place, and seems himself after he left off talking with Abraham to have ascended to heaven, ver. 33, does not any more appear on this occasion till we hear that JEHOVAH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from JEHOVAH out of heaven. This certainly gives much countenance to the opinion referred to above, though still it may fall short of positive proof.
From Adam Clarke Commentary.
and also
24. Then the Lord rained.
To this point belongs what Moses says, that the Lord rained fire from the Lord. The repetition is emphatical, because the Lord did not then cause it to rain, in the ordinary course of nature; but, as if with a stretched out hand, he openly fulminated in a manner to which he was not accustomed, for the purpose of making it sufficiently plain, that this rain of fire and brimstone was produced by no natural causes. It is indeed true, that the air is never agitated by chance; and that God is to be acknowledged as the Author of even the least shower of rain; and it is impossible to excuse the profane subtlety of Aristotle, who, when he disputes so acutely concerning second causes, in his Book on Meteors, buries God himself in profound silence. Moses, however, here expressly commends to us the extraordinary work of God; in order that we may know that Sodom was not destroyed without a manifest miracle. The proof which the ancients have endeavored to derive, from this testimony, for the Deity of Christ, is by no means conclusive: and they are angry, in my judgment, without cause, who severely censure the Jews, because they do not admit this kind of evidence. I confess, indeed, that God always acts by the hand of his Son, and have no doubt that the Son presided over an example of vengeance so memorable; but I say, they reason inconclusively, who hence elicit a plurality of Persons, whereas the design of Moses was to raise the minds of the readers to a more lively contemplation of the hand of God.
Commentary by John Calvin. (1509 - 1564)
Therefore, this verse does not in fact support the view that you were wringing out of it.
As the above quotations allude to, this unusual turn of phrase is obviously a Jewish Idiomatic Figure of Speech used to emphasise the Divine Origin of this destructive incident.
Thus we can see in Moffats translation the Sense of the thought by simply rendering the verse, " and then the ETERNAL rained sulphur and fire 'FROM HEAVEN' on Sodom and Gomorrah".
Dean. -
126
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10
by hooberus inthe watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.
they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.
those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).
-
-
Dean Porter
Kenneson,
Now , of course I have read the whole chapter of John - Many times. Jesus is the embodiement of the Logos.
The point I was making that the Jews of that time were familiar with writings ( i.e. non-canonical writings ) that talked about Personified Wisdom and The Logos and the Angel of the Lord etc.
These 'figures' were in some circles thought to be angelic figures. Thus when like minded ones read John chapter 1 for instance, they would not automatically think of a triune Godhead but rather of High Ranking Angelic figures acting " with " God.
Hebrews, yes it outlines the superiority of the SON over the Angels.
However , put your objective head on for a moment. IF the Son, the LOGOS was a High Ranking Angel like a Seraphim then he would be superior to the Angels who are the lowest ranked Bene Ha Elohim. Yes !
By the way , the Son's superiority is contrasted by his Sonship. Yet, as I have just observed, the Angels were Bene Ha Elohim and were thus themselves by their very nature SONS of God.
The point is that the Son Jesus is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON. His Sonship is superior to the Angels but they are both Sons.
The 1st Peter quote is interesting. I will " take avizandum ' on that one.
The John 1 : 10 reference still refers to his Agency in creation as the underlying greek means by or through - not "OF".
By the way if you want to look into the area of the LOGOS and the begetting of the Son re: John chapter 1 etc. Have a look at the Unitarian thinking of Anthony J. Buzzard.
He makes some challenging thoughts on the Word / Logos.
Dean. -
126
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10
by hooberus inthe watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.
they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.
those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus,
You say....
The Trinitarian viewpoint is that all three persons with the Godhead 'participated' in creation.
Why do you only say 'participated' now. You seem to have watered down the roles of your trinity Godhead.
The point is, that, if God is a Trinity then all three persons are the source of creation regardless of what each did. Therefore it should be said that 'all things' are " of " each one of them.
Once again , 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 only states that all things are "of " the Father. Only the Father is the Source of creation. Thus only He is the Creator.
By the way, the "Trinitarian Viewpoint" can say what it wants. It means nothing unless scripture backs it up.
This verse , most definately , does not back it up.
Dean. -
38
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8
by hooberus injehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.
" psalm 110:1 asv.
unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.
-
-
Dean Porter
LittleToe,
As per my Unger's Bible Hand Book, The Masorites carried out their vowel pointing work from circa 600 A.D.
However, I think they were not the first to do this but only the most skilled and celebrated.
I see what you are getting at , but does it make any difference.
Surely the work of the Masorites was to safe- guard the text and the Oral Reading tradition ?
Dean. -
38
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8
by hooberus injehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.
" psalm 110:1 asv.
unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus, If this verse restricts anything, it restricts the second lord from being Jehovah. Therefore as you appear to concede , this psalm is not a trinity Proof Text. Dean.
-
126
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10
by hooberus inthe watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.
they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.
those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus,
with respect, I don't think you know what you are saying now. You seem to be confused by your own reasoning.
You stated....
Conclusion: Since Romans 11:36 teaches that all things are "of" and "through" Jehovah, and since 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches that all things are "of" the Father and "through" the Son, then both the Father and the Son must together be the Lord (Jehovah) of Romans 11:36. Note the word"through" in Romans 11:36 and the word "through" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 are the same Greek word.
Because 1 Cor. 8:5,6 does not refer to all things being " of " Jesus, this presents the problem that only the Father is the source of creation, which doesn't fit your trinitarian viewpoint.
Therefore you referred to Romans 11:36 to tie in the " of " statement to the LORD JEHOVAH as qouted by Paul from ISAIAH 40:13. Thus you then make the tenuous link in thought that Jesus is this LORD JEHOVAH referred to in Romans and is thus spoken of in the same terms namely that all things are " of " this Lord.
However, as Earnest pointed out , Paul also quotes ISAIAH 40:13 again at 1 Cor. 2:16 but adds the thought that although we don't know the Mind of the LORD we DO Know the Mind of the Christ.
Thus the clear inferrence is that the Lord Jehovah spoken of here is not referring to the Christ. Therefore once again Jesus does not have the phrase " of " used of him.
Therefore , whilst all things are " through" both the Father and the Son ; all things are only " of " the Father.
Unless you can show me a referrence to Jesus with "of all things" as I already asked.
The point being that in 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 Paul clearly outlines his Theology here.
The Father is God, the Source of Life; the Son is Lord i.e. the Agent of Creation who will rule it for the Father as the Messianic King.
"OF" such a small word but yet such a large meaning !
regards
Dean. -
126
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10
by hooberus inthe watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.
they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.
those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).
-
-
Dean Porter
Kenneson,
the phrase ' intermediate agent in creation ' means to me that Jesus was the Agency that the Father used to accomplish his work of creation.
The Father is the Creator , the Son is his agent.
Now I am fortunate to have some knowledge of Agent or Agency as a Legal Term in Scots Law. The Law of Agency is much the same I'm sure in most lands.
An agent is a party who is given authority or power from a Principal' party to act or accomplish some task for
or on behalf of the principal.
The Principal is thus the instigator and the party who is responsible for the work done even though it is the Agent who actually does it. The Principal would thus get the credit or in fact the blame for the result of the work.
Therefore , as I see it the greek text shows that the Father is the Principal party who instigated the creation because all things are " of " ( or 'out' of as the greek literally reads) whereas Jesus is the Agent who does the creative work for his principal and thus all things are " through' him.
You mention Genesis 1:26 but a point to note there is that God says let us MAKE man ( hebrew na-aseh ); he does not say let us CREATE man ( which is the hebrew word Ba-ra ).
So it appears he is not actually sharing the creative work but sharing the process of MAKING.
Also, if the Father and the Son were Co-Creators together, then surely Paul would have stated that all things were " of " the Father AND " of " the Son in 1 Cor. 8:5,6.
It is clear to me that Paul is drawing a distinction between the roles of the Father and Son showing that they are not the same. He shows that the Father is God , the Source of all things and Jesus is the Lord by which the Father accomplished this creative work.
This is the crux of the matter , Jesus is NOT shown to be the source of creation, only the Father is shown to be the source.
Also as a small issue , you mentioned the word in John 1:1 as being a ' HIM' actually the greek word can be translated either HIM or IT.
I am reading some seminar notes at this moment from a scottish universtiy and they suggest that it is now being understood how the Jews thought of Wisdom and the WORD as being Angels in some circles of thought. Interesting isn't it.
I will try to find the reference works you mentioned as they certainly sound worth reading.
regards
Dean. -
38
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8
by hooberus injehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.
" psalm 110:1 asv.
unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus,
for your information, off the top of my head. The word number 136 in your concordance is probably Adon.
which is the ' parent ' word for Lord as you put it.
There are derivative forms of it such as Adonai & Adoni. It is to be noted that both words are spelled the same in hebrew but are clearly differentiated by means of the ' vowel pointing '.
Note what a Jewish Exegesis website says of this matter in a quote from one of their articles on Psalm 110.
DISCUSSION ON PSALM 110 taken from Messiah Truth Website
In the rest of the verse, the Hebrew term (adoni; pronounced "ah-do-NEE"), my lord/master, is mistranslated in the KJV and in many other popular Christian Bibles as my Lord, thereby alluding (via the capital "L") to Jesus, G-d the Son in the Trinity. The Tetragrammaton, , the ineffable title of the Creator that is written in the Hebrew in terms of the four-letter sequence (yod-heh-vav-heh), Y-H-V-H, appears in vs. 1,2,&4, and is punctuated with vowels to be pronounced as "a-do-na-i". This is translated in the KJV as The LORD, alluding to G-d the Father, the second personage in the Trinity, by using all capital letters in order to distinguish it from The Lord, G-d the Son. The actual word (A-donai), another one of several common titles used in the Hebrew Bible for the Creator, appears as the first word in v. 5. It should be noted that in the Hebrew, both (adoni), my lord/master, and (A-donai), G-d, are identically spelled, but are punctuated with different vowels. The KJV, having made the "my Lord" mistranslation of [(adoni), my lord/master] in v. 1, had no choice but to render [(A-donai), G-d] in v. 5 as "The Lord" (i.e., G-d the Son)........
........(1) Since the specific term of interest is (ladoni), all 24 citations are shown. Moreover,
since Psalms 110:1 is one of nine verses among these 24 citation which contain both the
Tetragrammaton , and the term , all nine verses are marked with an asterisk (*).
It is evident from the data in Table IV.B-2 that the KJV translators understood rather well that the term (adoni), with and without attached prepositions, means my lord or my master. Specifically, regarding the term of interest in Psalms 110:1, (ladoni), in 23 cases the KJV rendered it correctly as to/unto my lord/master, and only in Psalms 110:1 they translated it as unto my Lord, with the capital L, which imparts to it the desired Christological significance. This fact becomes even more obvious when one considers the nine cases in which both the Tetragrammaton, , and the term (ladoni) appear in the same verse. On eight occasions, the KJV has LORD & lord/master, and only in one case, at Psalms 110:1, the combination LORD & Lord appears in the KJV.
According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, there is no connection between (adoni) and , The L-rd, because the appellation (adoni) is never used to address G-d; it is used exclusively to address a (mortal) man. ( end of quote ).
There is really no doubt about it, Adoni is not the same type of lord as the LORD Adonai.
You say that if this verse and use of Adoni ' could possibly ' just refer to his earthly lordship ( by which I take it that you are conceeding the point as you don't provide any proof against that conclusion). Therefore, I think the point is made that Psalm 110 did not give the Jews any expectation of a DIVINE MESSIAH or indeed GOD in the Flesh.
It is also evident that this verse does not picture Jehovah the Father speaking about Jehovah the Son as the tetragrammaton only appears addressed to the first LORD not the Second lord.
This is such an important point to understand because when the N.T. writers like Paul use the greek word Kyrios to refer to Jesus ; they are simply meaning Adoni and are not meaning Adonai. Thus by calling Jesus Lord in the greek they are not equating him with the Lord God Jehovah.
The confusion is that the greek has only one word for Lord whereas the hebrew has several which mean different things.
You say you 'may' address other points that I made at another time. However, I would like you to address the question I put to you in my last post and I would prefer if you gave me an answer now.
The question was ... If there is one God, who is three persons, then HOW MANY JEHOVAHS ARE THERE ?
cheers,
Dean. -
126
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10
by hooberus inthe watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.
they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.
those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).
-
-
Dean Porter
Earnest,
You took the words right out of my mouth as I was intending to make the same point.
So , obviously the Lord ( of whom it is said all things are " of " ) cannot refer to the Christ.
Therefore, Hooberus's tenuous link between Christ and the Lord here, to try and prove that creation is " of " christ, falls flat.
The Lord here is the Father.
Creation is "of " the Father because the Father is the Source of Life.
" Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament " re : 1 Cor. 8:5,6.
Yet to us there is one God, the Father (all hmin eiß qeoß o pathr). B omits all here, but the sense calls for it anyhow in this apodosis, a strong antithesis to the protasis (even if at least, kai eiper). Of whom (ex ou). As the source (ex) of the universe (ta panta as in Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16) and also our goal is God (eiß auton) as in Romans 11:36 where di autou is added whereas here di ou (through whom) and di autou (through him) point to Jesus Christ as the intermediate agent in creation as in Colossians 1:15-20; John 1:3.
regards
Dean.