20 Reasons Why the Trinity Is Unbiblical (5)
August 19th, 2010 by Guest Author
by Chuck LaMattina of Grace Ministry International.
5.Psalm 110:1, is quoted two times in the New Testament in association with the Lord Jesus Christ. The first time it is quoted it is in Matthew 22:41-45:
“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: 44
‘ The LORD said to my Lord,
“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.”
The second time is in Acts 2:32-36, quoted by Peter.
“This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘ The LORD said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
In the first instance, Jesus quotes the Psalm while questioning the Pharisees on how the Christ could be both David’s son and his Lord. In the second instance, Peter quotes the Psalm to show how God had promised to make Jesus both Lord and Christ. So, what does Psalm 110:1, state and what does it mean about who Jesus is? Here’s the verse,
“The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’”
The first word translated “LORD” with all capital letters is the Hebrew word “Adonai” This word “LORD” is usually a translation of the Hebrew “Yahweh” which is God’s personal name. But in some manuscripts “Adonai”, a title, was substituted for “Yahweh” from fear of using God’s name in vain. And “Adonai” is only ever used for the one true God in the Old Testament (about 450 times).
The second word translated “Lord” (with a capital “L” and then all small letters) is the Hebrew word “Adoni”. Notice the difference? “Adonai” ends in “ai” and “Adoni” ends in “I”. The title “Adoni” is used only for human beings who are superior to other human beings and never of God/Yahweh (for example Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, 2 Kings 2:19). “The form ADONI (‘my lord’), a royal title (1 Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the title ADONAI (‘my LORD’) used of Yahweh.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Lord,” p. 157).
The answer to Christ’s question to the Pharisees is that Jesus Christ is King David’s superior because God has made him both “Lord and Christ.” This is what Peter said. But Jesus Christ is not God. “Adonai” is God. He is the Father of “Adoni” the son of David, the Man, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Adoni is applied to YHWH in Judges 6:13. The Messneger of YHWH is YHWH for He is the recipient of prayer in Genesis 48:16 – and only God is to be prayed to.
Marc
The text reads…
I do not see how this proves your point since Gideon is addressing the angel as “my lord” [adoni, a human or angelic title in all of its 195 occurences!] and he speaks to about about someone else called “the LORD” [YHWH]. So where is adoni here applied to YHWH? Or is YHWH an angel now?
Isa 45.14!!
Can’t believe you asked that when I already wrote this in post #1:
The Messneger of YHWH is YHWH for He is the recipient of prayer in Genesis 48:16 – and only God is to be prayed to.
Isaiah 45:14
1. You must prove that it is prescriptive as opposed to descriptive.
2. The Gentiles (that’s what Isaiah 45 speaks of) have been shown to offer worship that is mispalced worship (worship not to God alone) right after coming to faith (2 Kings 5:17, 18) and another time right before (Acts 10:25, 26).
Marc
So YHWH is an angel now?
And back to prayer…
1. It does not matter, the point is there is not only “worship” taking place but “prayer” TO the nation of Israel.
2. I asked this before, why or how is it “misplaced worship” when the people of God are in view? Like Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 or even more succintly in Rev 3.9.
Xavier,
1. The Mesenger of YWH is YHWH.
2. Prayer to Israel? Yeah so. You are confusing is and ought.
3. I already addresed Revelation 3:9. Proskuneo does not HAVE TO mean absolute worship. Many times it is used as a gesture of respect.
Marc
1. So YHWH is an angel?
2. The point is not about “is” or “ought”, the point is that the nation is worshiped and prayed to here.
3. My question was…why or how is it “misplaced worship”?
1. One of the Persons of YHWH is the Messenger of YHWH.
2. No kidding! Still no proof if it is prescriptive.
3. Even Thayer says concerning proskuneo in Revelation 3:9 thats it is used “of homage shown to men of superior rank” and differentiates it with “to worship”.
Marc
1. So is the angel YHWH or not?
2. The meaning is clear, the nations will worship and PRAY to Israel.
3. Same word is used in reference to God.
1. The Messenger is YHWH. The word angel can be misunderstood – as you have already shown.
2. And it is also clear that others besides God have been prayed to….but it’s not prescriptive.
3. The same word can have various meanings.
Marc
1. Angels, like humans, are created beings. They cannot be the Creator.
2. It is still prayer and worship. Not “misplaced” unless the context or the text actually says so.
3. Yes for various people!
1. Agree with you about angels, humans and created beings. This Messenger was properly prayed to proving that He is God.
2. You are the one asserting that it is proper. You even wrote elsewhere they were commanded to. Those who assert must prove.
3. True! Proskuneo for these people in Revelation 3:9 is not absolute worship.
Marc
1. So the Creator God is also a created angel?
2. I have proven many, many times.
3. Its still worship.
Marc
PS: further proof that the Messenger is NOT God can be found in Judg 13.16 where the Messenger tells Manoah to prepare a burnt offering and offer it to God! And not to him.
Where does “the context” demonstrate that it was misplaced worship in 2 Kings 5:17, 18?
–
Judges 13:22 equates seeing the Messenger of YHWH with seeing YHWH.
Thanks for citing a book and chapter that actually refutes what you believe.
Marc
Yes, the people THINK they have “seen God”, they obviously did not since their still alive. And note their actually surprised to be alive, hence proving to the reader that it was a theophany they experienced through the angel of YHWH.
But you dodged my question…IF the Messenger is YHWH why doesn’t he tell Manoah in v.16 to make a burnt offering TO HIM but instead the Messenger says “offer it to YHWH”?!
You dodged my question in #15.
—————–
In answer to your question that just proves a multi-Personal God.
Marc
I was not suggesting any “misplaced worship”, you are.
The Judg 13.16 example proves that the Messenger is not YHWH. Nowhere is it taught YHWH is a multi-Personal God. Personal names should be understood as individuals, like you and I.
In post #11 you wrote that worship is not misplaced unless the context or text actuially says so.
————–
Judges 13:16 coupled with Judges 13:22 shows that God is multi-Personal. Some passages show a distinction between YHWH and the Messenger while others demonstrate that the Messenger is God – this is exactly what a Trinitarian would expect! However for the Unitarian they ignore Psalm 119:160 where it teaches that the SUM of God’s word is truth and single out a passage here and there while ignoring the ones that refute their theology.
Marc
Yes, as a response to your saying of “misplaced worship” in every other instance apart from when it refers to Jesus.
You mean like John 1.1?
You aserted that proskuneo in Revelation 3:9 “is still worship” (#13). No, it isn’t. I even cited Thayer who did not categorize it as such. Elsewhere I cited Robinson who wrote the same thing.
Please supply your sources that say it is worship.
——————
Still avoiding JUdges 13:22.
——————-
John 1:1?
a. Louw and Nida: In Jn. 1.1, ‘the Word was God,’ the meaning of theos may be described on the basis that all the componential features of theos are applied to the referent logos, which is in turn identified with ‘Christ.’ This is not to be interpreted as indicating that the two referents are identical (which was, of course, the position of those who maintained the so-called patropassian heresy), but that the distinctive features of theos are also fully applicable to another referent, namely, the logos or Christ; that is to say, it is legitimate to interpret Jn. 1.1 as ‘the Word was God’ but not as ‘God was the Word’ (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 12.1, theos, page 137).
b. Louw and Nida: arche: ‘in the beginning was the Word’ or ‘before the world was created, the Word (already) existed’ or ‘at a time in the past when there was nothing…’ Jn. 1.1 (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 67.65, arche, page 637).
c. Mounce: But in Jn. 1:1, the logos is not only from God, but is God. According to John, this logos was in the beginning, was with God, and was God Himself (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Word, page 803).
d. NIDNTT: “In the beginning” – not “at the beginning” of Creation (Gen. 1:1), but in the “time before time” of divine eternity – was the Word (pre-existence of the Word, Jn. 1:1), the Word was with God (personal reference, Jn. 1:2), indeed, “the Word was God” (essential divinity of the Word, Jn. 1:1) (3:1115, Word – B. Klappert).
e. TDNT: Concerning the Logos it reads:
Here, then, that which is en arche is that which is “before” all time, or, more correctly, that concerning which no temporal statement can be made (1:482, arche – Delling).
f. TDNT: The lack of article, which is grammatically necessary in 1:1, is striking here, and reminds us of Philonic usage. The Logos who became flesh and revealed the invisible God was a divine being, God by nature. The man born blind has some sense of this when, after his healing, he falls down in believing adoration before Christ, who addresses him with the divine “I” (Jn. 9:38f.). The final veil is removed, however, when the Risen Lord discloses Himself to Thomas, and the astonished disciple exclaims: ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (Jn. 20:28). In Jn. 1:1 we have Christology: He is God in Himself. Here we have the revelation of Christ: He is God for believers (3:105-106, theos – Stauffer)
g. TDNT: Only He who is beyond all human comparison and has always been most intimate with the Father can declare the Father, 1:1, 18. The ho wn eis ton kolpon tou patros does not refer to a single stage but to what has always been and always is (5:998, pater – Schrenk).
h.. Moises Silva: On page 278 of “Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation” Moises Silva wrote: proponents of some cults are fond of pointing out that the last reference to God in John 1:1 does not include the definite article and so should be translated “a god” or “divine.” Someone with little or no knowledge of Greek could easily be persuaded by this argument. A reasonably good understanding of predicate clauses in Greek, however, is all one needs to demonstrate that the argument has no foundation whatever (the article that accompanies the predicate noun is routinely dropped to distinguish the predicate from the subject of the clause – besides, there are numerous and indisputable references to God, as in verses 6, 13, and 18 of the same chapter, that do not include the article).
Earlier on page 215 Silva wrote: Just as God was personally present in the creation of the world, so did he become personally present in the accomplishment of redemption. It was not simply a poetic strain that led the apostle John to begin his gospel by describing Jesus as the Word. That Word was there at the beginning of creation with God – indeed, that Word was God himself, and all things were created by him (John 1:1-3; cf. also Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3).
Marc
“proskuneo“to make obeisance, do reverence to” (from pros, “towards,” and kuneo, “to kiss”), is the most frequent word rendered “TO WORSHIP.” [Rev 3.9] Vine’s Dictionary
“Proskuneo…to ‘worship’ him, was a signal recognition of the power and authority of the one so revered… such acts of self-abasement and reverence certainly do not necessarily indicate that the one so honored was conceived to be divine (Mt. 18:26; Rev. 3:9).” MMB Turner in “The Spirit of Christ and Christology, in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Guthrie, ed Rowden, IVP 1982, pp. 169-170.
The Jn 1.1 was asked as a lark. Since you accused me of singling out a passage for a verse here and there etc.
Where does Vine cite Revelation 3:9?
http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0003398
Your second citation proves what I have previously said in #10 point 3.
Judges 13:22 is a theophany…an appearance of God to a person. They were surprised to be alive because they didn’t realize that God can choose to appear to people and they wouldn’t die. You too fail to realize that now.
Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God who sees”; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?” (Genesis 16:13).
So Jacob named the place [fn]Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my [fn]life has been preserved” (Genesis 32:30).
They saw the God of Israel (Exodus 24:10).
They saw God (Exodus 24:11).
And don’t forgte Hosea 12:4, 5
Marc
Just showing you that there is nothing wrong is the translation of “worship”.
And one of those meanings is “worship”.
Marc
In the OT, God is depicted appearing as an angel [Gen 21:17-18], human being [Gen 17:1; 18:3], in natural cataclysms, in a burning bush [Ex 3], a cloud or dream [Gen 28:10-18], or a gentle breeze—forms often associated with the divine “name” or “glory” of God.
Did this mean that God was an angel, a human being, a natural cataclysm, a burning bush, a cloud or just a figment of your imagination? NO!
This was also a case of Agency, one who speaks and acts on full behalf of the one who sent him. This is commonly practiced in modern times in what is known as “power of attorney”.
In the Roman world an agent of the Emperor was called the Imperial legate, although the standard usage of the word “legate” today refers to a representative of the Pope.
According to the Jewish understanding of agency, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion:
And don’t forget the fact that according to Jesus’ own words, God cannot be seen.
http://kingdomready.org/blog/2007/05/01/god-cannot-be-seen-jesus-was-1/
You cited Vine concerning Revelation 3:9 and he doesn’t even cite the pasage in your support.
Last thread you cited zero lexicons and this one you cite one that offers you no support.
Go ahead and keep up making up definitions for the words.
No wonder you never agreed to a FORMAL written one one debate.
Later days.
Marc
The use of Vine’s proves proskyneo means “worship”, just like any other Koine Greek lexicon/commentary.
A FORMAL debate with someone who says the Father has a God is no debate at all.
Just like those who confess Jesus is YHWH. Where wlse can you go with someone like that?
All this has been, hopefully, for the benefit of others. Your argumentation and comments are revealing to say the least.
“Jesus Christ was no longer a man of flesh and blood like ourselves, but a heavenly being of supernatural origin in human form. With the help of a metaphysical system taken over from Greek philosophy, christological dogma came into being, and an attempt was made to describe the person of Jesus Christ in the form of the so-called “Doctrine of the two natures.”
So men said, but from the beginning they shrank back from the bare historical character of the revelation of God. The Church has been in danger of docetism from the very beginning. That is, from the very beginning right until the present day the Church has been tempted to stress the “divinity” of Christ so one-sidedly that his “manhood” threatened to become a mere semblance. In this way Jesus Christ was made an historical abnormality.
The “Son of God” was endowed with wonderful, indeed miraculous, qualities, to such an extent that his feet scarcely seemed any longer to touch the ground. What happened to this Christ was no longer the fate of a man but the fate of a remarkable, shadowy, fairy-tale figure, half man and half God.
God offered himself in an earthen vessel, but men down the ages have made it into a golden monstrance. They have woven a golden veil of pious adoration, love and superstition and spread it over the rugged contours of God’s action in history.
We can find iconography not only in Russia, but also in our own sermons and theological textbooks.” — Karl Barndt, The Historical Jesus, 1963