Judges 6 and the Hebrew Masoretic Vocalization of ADNY – Trinitarian Arguments Challenged
February 2nd, 2012 by Ron S.
Joseph’s paper as promised! Thanks Joe for the hard work on this and agreeing to post your work here as a KR Guest Author!
Judges 6 and the Hebrew Masoretic Vocalization of ADNY – Trinitarian Arguments Challenged
By: Joe Jerde
Key:
MS – Manuscript
MSS – Masuscripts
MT – Masoretic Text
TJon – Targum Jonathan
LXX × – Septuagint Codex Sinaiticus
LXX A – Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus
LXX B – Septuagint Codex Vaticanus
VetLat – Vetus Latina, Old Latin
Vg – Latin Vulgate
Pesh – Syriac Peshitta
This paper is inspired by a few different areas of debate all relating to each other and correlating to answer, “what is the correct Hebrew vocalization for the second “Lord” of Psalm 110:1?” I will also go over what I dub the “Masoretic Vocalization Conspiracy” being put forth by Trinitarian proponents in regards to the validity of the Masoretic[1] vocalization of the Hebrew root word  ××“× ×™ (ADNY). I’m assuming that you already have a basic understanding of the subject matter as this paper is not meant to cover all the basic details. If you are not familiar with the theological background of this debate, there are basically two sides (I’ll be arguing from the Unitarian position):
1) Trinitarians (who believe Jesus is God) take the position that the Hebrew word ××“× ×™ in Psalm 110:1 reads, “YHVH says to ‘adonai’ (a title given to God).”  Which in turn supports the position that the second Lord in this passage is Messiah Jesus as part of the triune God.
2) Unitarians (who don’t believe Jesus is God) take the position that the Hebrew word ××“× ×™ reads, “YHVH says to’ adoni’ (a title not given to God).”  Which in turn supports the position that the second Lord is not God, but rather the exalted human Messiah Jesus.
The difference between the vocalizations, adonai and adoni, is one vowel at the end of the word ××“× ×™ (ADNY) which gives the word not only it’s specific sound, but also its specific meaning. ‘Adonai’ is a title given to God. ‘Adoni’ is a title that is never given to God, but can be ascribed to angels and man. So you can see where the debate inlays as to whether the Masoretes did indeed write the vowel markings correctly. If the Masoretes did indeed correctly vocalize the second Lord in Psalm 110:1 as ‘adoni,’ it is evidence against the Trinitarian ideology that the second Lord is God. This is why the Trinitarian side has been hard at work to try and discredit the MT. What does the evidence say? What Trinitarian arguments are used to support the claim that ‘adonai’ is the correct Hebrew vocalization for the second Lord in Psalm 110:1? Let’s start with an argument from Trinitarian Dr. Michael Brown.
The reason I chose Dr. Brown in this paper, is because I’m going to answer a argument made by him that is in relation to a claim made by Dr. James White which was brought up in a video debate against Unitarians, Sir Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Good[2]. White claims that the Masoretes had a bias toward Christianity and a Triune God, so they purposely positioned the vowel points to support a ‘adoni’ vocalization for the second Lord in Psalm 110:1.
I first came across the argument made by Dr. Brown from a apologetic response he was directing to Rabbi Tovia Singer in one of his books, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3. I’m going to quote a few paragraphs from Brown’s statements and give you my responses below each of his statements:
Dr Brown: “First, he [Rabbi Singer] is INCORRECT in stating that “my Lord” is reserved “for the profane, never the sacred.” Just look in Joshua 5:14, where Joshua addresses the angel of the Lord as “my lord” (‘adoni). Yet this divine messenger is so holy that Joshua is commanded to remove the shoes from his feet because he is standing on holy ground, just as Moses was commanded when the angel of the Lord – representing Yahweh himself – appeared to him (Exod. 3:1-6). This is hardly a “profane” rather than “sacred” usage! Similar examples can be found in Judges 6:13 and Zechariah 1:9, among other places…”
My response: These three occurrences that Dr. Brown cites (Josh 5:14, Jud 6:13, Zech 1:9) of angels being called ‘adoni’ are warranted  because the angels are not yet actively being spoken through by God. Why would Joshua, Gideon, or Zechariah call an angel ‘adonai’ (a title given only to God) if they are at the time speaking to the angel? The title ‘adoni’ in these cases would be proper for the angels, as they are being given a title of superiority and respect, but not as God almighty. It is when an angel is speaking on behalf of God that the angel can take on the name of God. The occurrence in Exodus 3:1-6 is a perfect example in this regard as God is speaking directly through the angel to Moses, not the angel speaking on his own accord.
Dr. Brown: “…Second, Singer’s WHOLE ARGUMENT HINGES ON THE MASORETIC VOCALIZATION, which did not reach its final form until the Middle Ages. As every student of Hebrew knows, BIBLICAL HEBREW WAS WRITTEN WITH CONSONANTS AND “VOWEL LETTERS” ONLY; the VOWEL SIGNS were added hundreds of years later. Yet both ‘adonai (used only for Yahweh) and ‘adoni (used for men and angels, as we just noted) are SPELLED IDENTICALLY IN HEBREW, consisting of the four consonants a-d-n-y. How then can Rabbi Singer make such a dogmatic statement about the differences between these two forms in the Bible? His argument stands only if we accept the absolute authority of the Masoretic vocalization, which in some cases follows the original Hebrew by almost two thousand years [footnote] 277.”
My response: This is the part where Dr. Brown injects an assumption I dubbed “The Masoretic Vocalization Conspiracy.” While his statement is correct that the Masoretic vowel markings were introduced relatively late compared to the earliest Hebrew manuscripts, however, this is hardly evidence against whether the vocalization is accurate or not. As we will see in a moment as I continue to write on in this paper, Dr. Brown’s statements are full of over-generalization, and lack proper manuscript research.
Dr. Brown: “…Third, it is not really important whether we translate with “my Lord” or “my lord”, since Yeshua’s (Jesus’) whole argument [in Mat. 22] was simply that David called the Messiah “lord”, meaning that the Messiah had to be more than David’s son.”
My response: While I agree with this statement in a Christian apologetic way to “Counter Messianism,” it downplays the context of what is being written. Saying that the second Lord in Psalm 110:1 is God, and saying that the second Lord is simply an identity being more than David’s son, are two very different claims.
Dr. Brown: “…[Footnote] 277: …Interestingly, ‘adonai (with qametz) in Judg. 6:15 is rendered with “my lord” in the LXX (kyrie mou) as opposed to simply Lord (kyrie, as it is usually rendered with reference to Yahweh), a rendering possibly reinforced by Judg. 6:13, with ‘adoni. This, then, could point to a change in the Masoretic vocalization of ‘adoni’. – Taken from Michael L. Brown’s, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, Messianic Prophecy, section 4.29.”
My response: The phrase from Judges 6:15 in question here is the formula בי ××“× ×™, “Please, my lord!” is translated in the sense of imploring/prayer to a superior. Essentially Dr. Brown’s whole argument in this case, is to cast doubt upon the vowel usage in the MT by pointing out that the phrase in Judges 6:15, בי ××“× ×™, differs with the LXX (not all LXX MSS agree as we will find out), and that this creates a sort of ambiguity between the two vocalizations. Remember, the Trinitarian position also claims that there is a long time period between the original LXX and the MT. Though they fail to mention that there are many ancient MSS that agree with the MT’s reading of ‘adonai’ in Judges 6:15.
Below is a list that shows which MSS support either an ‘adoni’, or ‘adonai’, translation in Judges 6: 15:
MSS supporting a “adonai” translation in Jud 6:15:
- MT – בִּי ×Ö²×“Ö¹× Ö¸×™Â – Approx 9th century CE
- LXX A – εν εμοι κυÏιε – Codex Alexandrinus 400-440 CE
- TJon -בבעו יוי  – Approx 1st century CE
- VetLat – in me, domine – Prior to 3rd century CE
MSS supporting a “adoni” translation in Jud 6:15:
- LXX B – εν εμοι κυÏιε μου – Codex Vaticanus 325–350 CE
- LXX × – εν εμοι κυÏιε μου – Codex Sinaiticus 330-360 CE
- Pesh – Ü’Ü¥Ü ÜÜ¢Ü Ü¡Ü¢ÜŸ Ü¡ÜªÜ Â – Approx 1st century CE
- Vg – obsecro, domine mi – Late 4th century CE
Next we also see that most MSS (exception of the Vg in which there are variant readings) agree with the MT use of ‘adoni’ in Judges 6:13:
MSS supporting a “adonai” translation in Jud 6:13:
- Vg – obsecro, domine
MSS supporting a “adoni” translation in Jud 6:13:
- MT – בִּי ×Ö²×“Ö¹× Ö´×™
- TJon – בְבָעֻו ×¨Ö´×‘×•Ö¹× Ö´×™
- Pesh – Ü’Ü¥Ü ÜÜ¢Ü Ü¡Ü¢ÜŸ ܡܪÜ
- VetLat – in me, domine mi
- LXX × – εν εμοι κυÏιε μου
- LXX B – εν εμοι κυÏιε μου
- LXX A – εν εμοι κυÏιος κυÏιος
Before we go any further, let’s contrast how these same MSS translate the same Hebrew phrase, בִּי ×Ö²×“Ö¹× Ö¸×™, from 6:15, that’s also found in Judges 13:8[3]:
MSS translations of ‘bi adonai’ in Judges 13:8:
- LXX A – εν εμοι κυÏιε
- MT – בִּי ×Ö²×“Ö¹× Ö¸×™
- TJon – בבעו יוי
- VetLat – in me, domine
- LXX B – εν εμοι κυÏιε
- LXX × – ?
- Pesh – ܒܒܥܘ ܡܪÜÜ
- Vg – obsecro, domine
Now, a few things to point out from the MSS evidence in the lists above.
First, although the addition of the MT vowel markings come several hundred years later after the vowel-less Hebrew, we have several earlier MSS (LXX A[4], TJon[5], VetLat) that coincide with the MT rendering in Jud 6:15. These other MSS don’t give us the Hebrew vocalization, but they do give us an idea what the correct translation is. Using these MSS helps us to fill in the gaps from the time of the DSS to the MT. The assumption, that the Masoretes conspired to change the vocalization to fit their bias against a Trinity God, has now diminished under the weight of these MSS. Unless, somehow one can prove that these early MSS writers (many of them Christian) were all in on a conspiracy that spanned over several hundred years.
Second, the MSS that happen to disagree with the MT translation of ‘adonai’ in 6:15 end up being inconsistent. Remember how we contrasted the same Hebrew phrase, בִּי ×Ö²×“Ö¹× Ö¸×™, found in 6:15, that is also found in 13:8? Well it turns out that the opposing MSS (LXX B[6], LXX ×, Pesh, Vg) that supported ‘adoni’ in 6:15 now agree with the MT “adonai” in 13:8. Not only that, the MSS that agreed with the MT in 6:15 makes them consistent in their translation of 13:8.
Third, now that we have taken a look at the MSS evidence, what about the context of Judges 6? Let’s start with when the angel appears to Gideon:
12 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD [is] with thee, thou mighty man of valour. 13 And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where [be] all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
In vs13, Gideon calls the angel by the title ‘adoni’ realizing that the angel is not God. God then interjects and begins to speak to Gideon in vs14:
14 And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee? 15 And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family [is] poor in Manasseh, and I [am] the least in my father’s house.
And as we see in vs15 above, Gideon then responded directly to God, therefore, warranting the use of the vocalization given to God, ‘adonai’. Why some manuscripts are inconsistent in this passage could be due to confusion as to who Gideon is addressing. The angel didn’t leave Gideon’s presence until vs.21, so perhaps certain translators thought that Gideon was still addressing the angel and therefore in vs15 put ‘adoni’, a proper title for an angel. Either way we look at this, there is a clear distinction between when God is not directly present to Gideon (vs13), to when God is directly present to Gideon (vs14 “Lord looked upon him”). This would suggest that the Masoretes did in fact render the usage of ‘adonai’ correctly in vs15.
Certain scribes of the LXX may have also translated vs15 incorrectly from the vowel-less Hebrew. It’s possible to see how this could have happened as there are two occurrences of the root ADNY are in close proximity with each other. There would have been no vowels to go off of, so essentially they could have easily mistaken ‘adonai’ in vs15 to be referring back to the Angel in vs13, therefore translating as kurios mou (adoni). Or, given that not all of the LXX codices agree, and that the LXX A agrees with the MT in regards to Jud 6:15, perhaps scribal copyist error crept into MS copies over time. In the overall scope of this study, nothing is empirical as to what the original MSS read, but with the research into what many of the best ancient MSS we have, and with a understanding of the context, we can draw strong conclusions.
Does the Trinitarian argument cast doubt on the MT vowel pointings in accordance to ‘adoni’ and ‘adonai?’ Not at all. As I have just shown, it’s a weak position to take up given the overall manuscript evidence and plain context of the passages. I find it rather sloppy and dishonest in the face of the scholarly and laymen community, that Dr. Brown and Dr. White would make such bold claims against the MT without doing the proper research into what the overall MSS and context will reveal to them. This, BTW, is a point in which, I myself, have difficult times writing up Theological studies. I understand that what seems to be fact can change. This paper is not meant to be the end all empirical standard. If there are any errors that I have made, or new sources come to light, I will be happy to revise.
And finally, how does all this relate to Psalm 110:1? It clarifies for us that indeed the Masoretes, and prior scribes, had a sure understanding of the distinction between ‘adoni’ and ‘adonai.’ This adds to even more proof that the second Lord in Psalm 110:1 cannot be, and is not, God. I know there is much I didn’t go over concerning Psalm 110:1 as I wanted to focus on Judges 6 in this paper. If you are interested into further reading of this debate inquiring more detail on Psalm 110:1, I recommend reading a article done by Jaco van Zyl entitled, “Psalm 110 and the Status of the Second Lord – Trinitarian Arguments Challenged”… http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2011/1-pdf/jz-psalm_110_LXX.pdf.
Footnotes and References:
[1] Masoretic comes the the word Masoretes. The Masoretes (ba’alei hamasorah, Hebrew בעלי המסורה) were groups of mostly Karaite scribes and scholars working between the 7th and 11th centuries, based primarily in present-day Israel in the cities of Tiberias and Jerusalem, as well as in Iraq (Babylonia). Each group compiled a system of pronunciation and grammatical guides in the form of diacritical notes on the external form of the Biblical text in an attempt to fix the pronunciation, paragraph and verse divisions and cantillation of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, for the worldwide Jewish community. Since the creation of these writings there has sparked much debate in theological circles as to the accuracy of these vowel markings and if they represent the true Hebrew.
[2] Video clip from a debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White vs. Sir Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Good… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE2llq2AtFI
[3] The Targum of Judges – Willem F. Smelik – E.J. Brill, pg. 275
[4] See image of LXX A MSS showing a εν εμοι κυÏιε translation… http://www.berryosfiles.com/adoniqam/images/LXX-A-Judges6-15.jpg
[5] The Targum Jonathan renders Judges 6:15 with the יוי abbreviation for the Hebrew tetragrammaton in Aramaic… http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/get_file_info.php?coord=5100706 Interestingly, is that vs13 of the TarJon also agrees with the MT reading of ‘adoni’ by using the Aramaic, ‘×¨×‘×•× ×™,’ for ‘my lord.’ See the entire chapter here… http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/get_a_chapter?file=51007&sub=06&cset=H
[6] See image of LXX B MSS showing a εν εμοι κυÏιε μου translation… http://www.berryosfiles.com/adoniqam/images/LXX-Sinaiticus-Judges6-15.jpg
Joseph,
Again, GREAT JOB! Thanks for the excellent research on this.
BTW, since you asked – I did do a few minor changes to the structure of a sentence or two to smooth out the flow for the reader. They’re hardly noticeable, but you might want to compare to your original and then decide if you wish to use them yourself or not.
I look forward to seeing everyone’s comments on what you’ve written here. It should be fun! 🙂
Is there any credible biblical scholar/textual critic who even uses the unpointed Hebrew text?
This whole debate is scary in the way these people are now undermining the Hebrew scriptures in a way that is beyond belief!
Thanks for your splendid article on adoni/adonai.
You could add that Jerome in the Vulgate knew of the word ADONAI. Just search it in the software. The rabbis discussed Ps. 110:1 and remarked that when Abraham was sad that the King Messiah would take the place at the right hand, and God comforted him, so the legend went, by offering him a place at ADONAI’s left hand. Thus Abraham would have YHVH on his right hand as it is said in v. 5
Adonai at your right hand!
Later Kimchi, a Jew, complained that Jerome did not know the difference between the hireq (ee vowel sound, ADONI) and the quametz the ‘ah’ sound in ADONAI! This shows, against White, that the distinction of adoni and adonai was well known long before the Massoretic points were put in.
Thanks for your great work
BTW in Jud 6:5, the some few Hebrew texts have ADONI and not ADONAI. This is because it is slightly amibiguous as to whether the angel or God Himself is addressed. That difference is shown in the different Gk versions as kurios and kurios mou. You might be interested in this, and I think we should mention it, Dr. White wrote to me in 1998 and misreported the difference between kurios, ‘Lord’ and kurios mou ‘my lord.’ He said “actually ‘to my lord’ (to kurio mou) translates l’adoni, just as it would translate l’adonai. There would be no difference.” We know that this is untrue. L’adonai is not translated as to kurio mou!
We need to get this easy info out everywhere to recover the real Jesus and the real God. God does not speak to God.
This error is about 2000 years old now.
Ron S,
Thanks, sir, everything looks fine. 🙂
Something else I wanted to reiterate more into, is that there are really two attacks at once going on here:
1. One is the attack on the time difference between the MT and the DSS in correlation with the assumption that the creators of the MT had a bias against Christianity to purposely fix the vocalization according to their bias.
2. The other is, that the Masoretes may have unknowingly changed the vocalization of, adonai and adoni, which were used interchangeably. The idea that somehow the Hebrew root for ADNY became ambiguous in the MT.
Both arguments stem from the fact that the original Hebrew had no vowel pointings. If we take these arguments in the general form they as they appear (only comparing MT to DSS), they may seem plausible. However, the problem arises with both of these arguments, as I pointed out in my article above, is when we look at all the MSS evidence prior to the MT (LXX, Vg, Pesh, VetLat, TJon, ect).
Xavier,
Thanks, Xavier. Whatever I can do to help smite out the inaccurate general arguments coming from the Trinitarian side.
What software to you mean? BibleWorks? Do you have a source you could share with me? I’d be glad to look into it to add to the article.
Do you mean for Jud 6:15? You are also saying that there are Masoretic Hebrew MSS that vary on the vocalization, adoni and adonai, in 6:15? I’ve heard that the antwerp polyglot cites the Hebrew as adoni for 6:15, but I’ve never checked myself so don’t take me up on that one for sure. I know for sure the complutensian polyglot has adonai in the Hebrew for 6:15.
For Jud 6:15, I did mention the varying Septuagint MSS as I cited that the LXX A differs to LXX × and B. You can follow the links to images of this difference in the footnotes of the article above (footnote 4 and 6).
I believe he acknowledges this mistake now, right?
Joseph
Yes, BibleWorks along with your standard lexicons.
Yes and Yes. One of my lexicons notes the ambiguity in v.15 due probably to the scribes being thrown off by v.13 where adoni is used.
Nope and he is the type of person not admit his mistakes either.
Thank you, Joseph. I learned a great deal by reading your paper.
“Failing to mention” inconvenient historical facts seems to happen a lot in trinitarian argumentation. I only came to realize this after studying history from more objective sources. Most church-goers are completely oblivious when trinitarian scholarship omits certain facts that might cast their argument in a negative light. So frustrating!
My updated paper, with footnotes, photos of ancient manuscripts and corrections will appear in the Journal for the Radical Reformation. As soon as it does, I’ll send you a link to the Journal.
Joseph, you did a great job above, my friend. Refuting trinitarianism is easy – like pulling the plug of an unwanted hybrid-creature kept alive on machines. Well done again!
Jaco
Xavier,
Right, this becomes very apparent once the MSS evidence meets context. And the fact that Jud 13:8 they are all consistant is proof to this.
That’s unfortunate. I figured he was just espousing the MT Vocalization Conspiracy anymore.
Sarah,
Thanks Sarah, I’m glad I was able to shed some light on such a in depth topic.
The very same happened to me. The more I became a student to the truth no matter where it lead me, the more I distanced myself from Trinitarian doctrine, realizing it wasn’t holding up to the evidence.
Jaco,
Thanks Jaco, and yes, the doctrine does crumble very easily under the weight of context and MSS.
I’m looking forward to the revised edition of your paper. I even used part of your title “Trinitarian Arguments Challenged” for my article title as it fit well and has a nice ring to it. 🙂 Great teamwork, I’d say.
And thanks to everyone for the feedback. I’ll be looking at everything being discussed now, and later, and refining my paper with new insight and information.
Joseph, I’ll let you know as soon as the Journal is out. I think we can start a “Trinitarian Arguments Challenged” series, dealing with the more novel and desperate attempts by trinitarians, especially when issues of language, textual criticism and history are involved.
Take care, and thanks for your valuable contribution.
One of the many problems with the trinity doctrine is that it does not help people to obey Christ. How does your teaching help people to obey Him?
Hi Mike,
I don’t remember talking with you before so welcome to K.R.!!! Some people believe that everything Yshua said was aimed at the first century Jews and doesn’t apply to us. I disagree completely. I believe the teachings of Y’shua (including the parables) are the very core of the bible’s message to us. If I see anything that appears to contradict Y’shua’s teachings, then I dismiss it as probably being errant.
BTW – I’m a Unitarian/Socinian…
Hello Mike,
I clicked your green “name” and read the recent post on your website
“A Nonchurchgoer’s Guide to Jesus and His Kingdom”
“Why Are We Here?”
You write:
“Posted in Relationship with God by Mike Gantt on June 14, 2012
I don’t need a relationship with your church. I need a better relationship with Jesus Christ. Therefore, don’t tell me about your church. Tell me about Him!”
AND
“Think about His simple life of service and think about its implications. He is the proper starting point for all true thinking about God.
Jesus Christ is God.”
I am not in a church, however I fellowship on line with lhim.org and follow the teachings, classes, beliefs and creed of Jesus Christ as is taught by Living Hope Community Church.
I fellowship here on this KR(kingdom ready) blog with those who are really faithful followers of the Human being(resurrected) Jesus Christ and promoting the gospel of the kingdom and the creed of Jesus.
We do not, i repeat, do not believe Jesus Christ is GOD as you profess to.
Everyone here, submitting articles and debating, is mostly interested in helping themselves and others to be ready for entering the coming kingdom of GOD on Earth “the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
Timothy 🙂
Doubting Thomas,
I’m glad to hear of your focus on the teachings of Jesus. I don’t know how someone calls Jesus “Lord” without giving His teaching the greatest possible attention and obedience.
Timothy,
When do you think the kingdom of God is coming, and, when it does come, who do you think will be its king?
When I read Judges 6:8-14, It looks to me like the Lord sent a prophet to speak to Gideon in the name of the Lord, telling him what the Lord says to him which also included the fact that God had spoken to him when he spoke to Joshua, (Josh 24:14, Judges 6:10) and then the Lord sent an angel to appear and speak to Gideon, Gideon responds to the angel of God, then God speaks to Gideon, and when I read Ex 3:1-4, it looks like to me that God sent an angel to appear unto Moses, Moses responded, God saw this and began to speak to Moses.
It seems to me that I can’t say for sure that the angel spoke to Moses from the bush, other than by saying something to him by his appearance, though God did speak to him, both through the appearance of his angel and by his Word.
Mike Gantt,
These verses answer your questions in GODs words words.
Acts 1: (nasb)
6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?â€
7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.â€
Acts 2:
1 When the day of Pentecost [a]had come, they were all together in one place.
2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire [b]distributing themselves, and [c]they [d]rested on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other [e]tongues, as the Spirit was giving them [f]utterance.
[a] 2:1 Lit was being fulfilled
[b] 2:3 Or being distributed
[c] 2:3 Lit it
[d] 2:3 Or sat
[e] 2:4 Or languages
[f] 2:4 Or ability to speak out
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man [r]attested to you by God with [s]miracles and wonders and [t]signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of [u]godless men and put Him to death.
24 [v]But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the [w]agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held [x]in its power.
[r] 2:22 Or exhibited or accredited
[s] 2:22 Or works of power
[t] 2:22 Or attesting miracles
[u] 2:23 Lit men without the Law; i.e. pagan
[v] 2:24 Lit Whom God raised up
[x] 2:24 Lit by it
it is written
Timothy 🙂
Timothy,
How do those verses answer the questions I asked you?
I think the kingdom of God is coming right now and that God’s king is Jesus, and didn’t he put the holy Spirit in charge of the keeping of it?
Ray,
I don’t believe that God has a king…
Doubt Thomas,
I agree with you….GOD does not have a king.
1 Corinthians 15:
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “ All things are put in subjection,†it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
Timothy 🙂
Ray,
I just realized that I may have misunderstood you. You may have meant that God’s representative is “our” King, Y’shua/Jesus… 🙂
Yes that’s what I meant.
Sometimes things in print can be taken several ways. God chose himself a king to reign over all of his creation. He chose Jesus.
Ray,
Yes, sometimes we can misunderstand things very easily. It’s part of our human nature.. 🙂
Joseph, It is great to have your expertise on Ps. 110:1. I began work on this point about 20 years ago and never imagined it would turn out to be such a consipracy of silence on the Trinitarian side!
As you know DR. White found kurios mou as translating adonai, not adoni, in TWO verses. Thus he argued unfairly the two exceptions destroy the obvious rule, confirmed scores of times, that adoni is kurios mou and YVHH, or adonai is kurios. Now we have a good answer to this point from Yaco and I confirm that there is a singular referent in the two exceptions in Ps 16:1 and 35:23. Jaco has been most helpful here. So we can state the rule like this: When Yahweh (or adonai) appear in contrast to another individual, then adoni, is kurios mou. That is exactly what we find in Ps. 110:1, and the inspired NT confirms this.
So the NT is our base for claiming beyond doubt that Ps 110:1 is correctly pointed. The second lord is not Lord (adonai) but my lord the Messiah. Luke 2:11 echoes this and Elizabeth meets “the mother of my lord” (Luke 1:43) and he is the Lord Messiah (2:11) and the Lord’s (YHVH’s) Messiah in 2:26. What sublime simplicity and clarity on the part of Luke! We need to teach this everywhere.
I note above that the source of Dr. White’s stating that kurios mou and kurios would translate equally adoni and adonai, was not clear. It was in an email to me in 1998.
It is of course false. To the Lord, to kurio, is l’adonai, and to my lord (l’adoni) is to kurio mou.
This need not be so complex! One writer asks how all this helps to obey Jesus! Obeying Jesus means believing he is the Messiah not God. Ps. 110:1 is the major text, favorite NT proof text, which helps all to know that Jesus is not God. That helps people to believe and obey God and Jesus.
There are about 450 occs of adonai in the Hebrew Bible and 195 occs of adoni. See restorationfellowship.org site for more on this.
So you have 645 chances to see the difference between God and man (occasionally an angel). This is very easy.
“The Lord our God is one Person” (the Shema) is just as easy.