The Trinity: Pointing the Way
The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” Psalm 110:1 NASB
Lord/Lord – Sometimes reading a verse in English translation does nothing but confuse the real meaning. Such is the case here. Furthermore, since Yeshua quotes this verse in Psalm 110 in a discussion of the true status of the Messiah (cf. Matthew 22:44), we must be very careful to read it as it is written in the original, not as it ends up in translation.
Let’s start by getting the proper Hebrew words. The first occurrence of our translation “Lord” is God’s proper name, YHWH. The Hebrew text is neum YHWH (“announces YHWH”). This is followed by la-‘doni, unfortunately also translated “to my Lord.” Trinitarian exponents conclude that since adonai and YHWH are both designations of God, this conversation must mean that there are at least two divine beings in the Godhead. Patrick Navas quotes William Varner: “The psalmist David, in verse one, records a conversation between two members of the Godhead . . . A literal translation of the first phrase is: ‘Yahweh said to my Adonai . . .’ Yahweh . . . and Adonai are two names for God in the Old Testament. The only adequate explanation for this conversation between two persons with Divine names is that there must be a plurality of personalities within the Godhead.”[1]
In a careful analysis of the Masoretic pointing of this text, Navas demonstrates that there is a distinction between adoni and adonai. The difference is how the same consonants are pointed (indicating vowels and syllabication), but this tiny difference makes a huge difference in the meanings of the words. Adonai is used as a title (not a name) of God the Father (YHWH). Adoni (the same consonants but different pointing) is used to describe someone in a superior position like a king or a master. For example, in Genesis 24:12 Abraham’s servant uses the term adoni to describe Abraham as his lord. In this psalm, the second occurrence of the translated word “lord” is not adonai. It is adoni. The meaning is not, therefore, a second reference to a divine name. It is a statement made by David the king that there is someone of greater authority over him. In other words, the verse should be understood as follows: YHWH announces to my (David’s) master: “Sit at my right hand . . .” There is no indication in the text itself that this conversation occurs between two divine persons.
Anthony Buzzard comments: “It is amazing that a number of commentaries wrongly assert that the second lord is adonai. . . . Unfortunately, this [mistranslation] suggests that the Messiah is God Himself. In fact the Hebrew for ‘my lord’ is not adonai but adoni, which is never used of God but often of the king of Israel and other human superiors.”[2]
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament confirms Buzzard’s comment: “No doubt exists about the meaning of this word. The Ugaritic ʾadn means ‘lord’ or ‘father’ and the Akkadian adannu carries a similar meaning, ‘mighty.’ In the simple unsuffixed form or when pointed ʾădōnî or ʾădōna(y), for the first common singular suffix or with other pronominal suffixes. ʾādôn usually refers to men.”[3]
The distinction from adonai is also quite clear. “When ʾādôn appears in the special plural form, with a first common singular pronominal suffix ( o;ădōnā[y]), it always refers to God. It appears in this form more than three hundred times,. . .”[4]
Time to reconsider. It makes perfect sense that David recognizes the Messiah as his lord without designating the Messiah as God Himself. It makes even more sense that Yeshua uses this passage to declare the superiority of the Messiah over David as king. But there is nothing in the text itself that requires a Trinity in order to understand what is written. In fact, mistaking adoni for adonai only demonstrates how powerful the Trinitarian dogma really is. You may need to check the marginal notes in your Bible. See how your translators explain this passage. Then ask yourself what Yeshua’s comments would mean to orthodox Jews in the first century.
Unlearning is so difficult, isn’t it?
Topical Index: Messiah, adonai, adoni, Trinity, Matthew 22:44, Psalm 110:1, lord
[1]William Varner, The Messiah, Revealed, Rejected, Received, p. 68 as cited in Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition, pp. 137-138.
[2]Buzzard and Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, cited in Navas, pp. 141-142.
[3] Alden, R. (1999). 27 אדן. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (12). Chicago: Moody Press.
[4] Ibid.
Shalom Skip, thank you so much for these insightful teachings! I was wondering if we don’t confuse being sinless with divinity. The fact that Y’shua was sinless doesn’t mean he was divine, does it? I don’t think we really understand what being sinless would look like – we would all probably think that someone like that might be divine when we meet them. I’m starting to think that God created Y’shua as a second Adam, who always made the right choices in perfect obedience unto death. In that way he is the Messiah, the righteous one, who could pay our penalty. He is worthy of our honour and praise but our worship should be to the Father who sent him. Just some thoughts to ponder about 🙂
Blessings
Migdalah
A very important insight. We will have to follow this track for awhile.
“It makes perfect sense that David recognizes the Messiah as his lord without designating the Messiah as God Himself.”
Makes perfect sense to whom? If this Messiah is to be worshiped by obedience to his words, then David must be a polytheist, since, by definition, God is the one who makes the rules.
And still we skirt around the key issue: did the Messiah have a beginning? If so, he is not God. But if he had no beginning, then he is indeed eternal and has always existed.
What is love? Is there ever such an action or purpose that love accomplishes without a Lover AND a Beloved both? And in such an exchange, would not what happens BETWEEN them be the power in the deal? And to perfect this love, mustn’t it also be an equal exchange at both ends? There can be different kinds of love, which C.S. Lewis pointed out in his book The Four Loves, but only a love between equals can ever be a perfect love. Does not this love IN BETWEEN make this Lover and Beloved One? In this trinity discussion, are we in danger of according this supposedly Greek thinking of the NOUNS as important: these 3 God THINGS: rather than realizing that the whole point of the Godhead is, by definition, Love, and if we are to examine the reality of Him, we must, at some point in this discussion, start to discuss the nature of love itself if we are to try to understand what God is, and is not?
Please correct me, as I am no expert, but if an opposing point is false, then would it not then follow that to attempt to argue the falsity of it from ITS OWN STANDPOINT is to run the risk of according it the only legitimacy that it could ever possess in the argument? I have to ask, why has this discussion been posited from the standpoint of a TRINITY, or from the standpoint of criticizing that trinity, if what really is at stake is the essential nature of the Godhead? Is it not giving a trinitarian position, which is essentially an argument about 3 THINGS, the privilege of determining the basis of the discussion? Is this truly about nouns? Shouldn’t we instead, if I am reading this whole Hebrew outlook correctly (which you, Skip, say is about ACTIONS), be focusing on redefining and correcting a BASIS first, rather than just assuming that the trinitarian position automatically has the correct, or even only, basis? Are we really even having a true examination if, in fact, the trinitarian outlook does not satisfactorily define the essential NATURE of God correctly? Does it? If it doesn’t, then shouldn’t we be trying to start a little further back up the creek; perhaps in the VERB place, rather than trying to start off flat-footed in the NOUN place, that, as far as I am concerned for the purposes of this discussion, does not even define a correct starting place to think properly, much less set us up to get anywhere properly. Am I missing this?
If we are to seriously go about this, should not we accord the Trinity position the legitimacy it deserves (if we think it is serious enough to take on in the first place) by first giving the position we are to take it on FROM, through proper definition, a legitimacy all its own? Do we know where we are even coming from, and, for the purposes of chivalry, as well as dignity, should not there be proper heralds and banners proclaiming this position, before there are any attempts to engage?
Until then, I think I feel a little confused; kinda like watching shadow-boxing. When are the trumpeters going to start showing up so that we know which way to cheer?
Thanks for pointing us toward the ACTIONS involved. I’m not sure I would agree that PERFECT love requires equality. That would imply that God cannot perfectly love us since we are never going to be equal. I see what you are driving toward, but I think we need to be careful once again about the implications of the language. It seems to me that when God points us toward examples of the highest form of love, He points toward the love of a mother for he unborn child (certainly not equal) and then He says that His love is even greater than that.
But in the end, the idea of the Trinity is not established because of a verb purpose. It took the Church 400 years to come up with this doctrine. Why? if it were so clear in the writings of the apostles, then why didn’t it become obvious to the Jewish believing community right away? I think that answer must be connected to the progression of Christianity from Jewish/Hebraic thinking to Greek thinking. It took a long time for Hellenism to finally dominate all aspects of the Church and only then could the Trinity concept be formed. It relies of Greek categories (as Ian has so astutely pointed out). The idea isn’t possible in Hebrew thought because Hebrew thought doesn’t share the static nature of Greek.
You are right Laurita. We have to start at the beginning. What was God’s creative purpose? Einstein said “Show me the mind of God. All the rest are details.” So let’s not go to the beginning. Let’s go before the beginning. Before creation. To the eternal God. The all being essence. He is One. He is Love. The only problem is “one is the lonliest number”. God thought it not good to be alone. He is creating a comparable helper. Not just another to express love to, but One whose being or essence is an expression or image of God’s own eternal love.
WHOA! Where in the text does it say that God thought it not good for HIM to be alone? That verse is applied to MAN, not GOD. If you apply it to God, you suggest that prior to companionship He found His being NOT GOOD. Doesn’t work that way! Yes, let’s go back to the beginning, but if you are serious about that, then you must begin with the first word of Scripture (since there is NOTHING before that) and that means there is NO TEXT to tell us what it was like BEFORE the beginning. All the rest is speculation.
THE QUESTION
If Jesus is not God incarnated in human flesh, then who is He? Is He not human? Or is He not (at the same time) divine? If He is but a man, or man only- then He has no “business” receiving the worship of men and of angels. And while we’re in the neighborhood, – let us also cast doubt or aspersions on the manner of His birth- was He really (in reality) born of a virgin? –
Yes, it is so easy to not accept this, or to not believe this- and to say that this man, the second Adam, is not (really) Who He claimed Himself to be. And again, while we’re visiting in the neighborhood – this man, the second Adam,- this Man, the son of man (just so happened) to walk on water, and multiply bread, and give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and caused the lame to walk. But is there more? Oh yes.. how we need further “proof!”
Father Abraham, the father of many nations, saw His day and was glad. “God will provide HImself a Lamb…”- and did. Oh, but let us also, while we’re in the neighborhood, discount or ignore or look away from the tslav, the execution stake.. After all- we have the Torah and that (it seems) is all we need. If we just live according to the Torah, – all will be well. “Do” these things and we shall live.
But Houston, we have a problem! None of us, (no, not one with, of course, the exception of One) has kept the Torah “perfectly!” How do we know this?
~ because all have sinned ~, been weighed in the balances, – and we (all) have come up short! We just do not “measure up!”
Bring out the scales of justice! Let’s “weigh ourselves” (against each other?) After all, I’m far more “worthy” than the ol’ ‘nasty’ drunk laying there in the gutter!- or for that matter, -the prodigal son! As the rich young ruler might say, “Master, I’ve kept all the commandments from my youth til’ today!” (what a good boy am I!) And our LORD (yes, our LORD) said unto him- (good)- now go and sell all you have and give unto the poor- and he (poor fella) went away weeping because he had great riches. Hmm.. I wonder..- misplaced affections?
Is it our own inherited “goodness” that will win the approval of God? Come with me to the temple and we shall announce to all- “I thank Thee that I am not as these other sinners”- You know.. – “those” people.. Is this the prayer God heard? (and approved!) Or was it this (sinner’s!) prayer: “God, be merciful unto me- “the sinner!”
Maybe Rabbi Paul was on to something (or clinging to Someone) when he wrote: ~ This is a faithful saying and worthy of ALL acceptation.. (you know, there was a time when I believed “ALL” actually meant “all!”) All acceptation- for the sinner who is a Jew AND for the sinner who happens to be a (shudder) Gentile. All have sinned? Jews AND Gentiles?
Are we (sumdumguy inquired) all sinners- in need of a Savior? ~ Who, (Rabbi Sha’ul inquired) shall deliver me from the body of this death? ~ Yes, Paul,- “Who?”
(Dear John) Is Jesus the Nazarene the One? – or shall we look for another? And then again there is this small matter of His bodily resurrection from the dead. And come to think of it, I do remember someone saying- “Never a man spoke like this man!” – In His own words: “Who do men say that I AM?”
And then, – there is this: ~ And Yeshua said to them, “But what is it you are saying about me as to who I am?” Shimeon answered and he said to Him, “You are The Messiah, The Son of THE LIVING GOD.” ~ From that time on Jesus began to explain to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. ~
How does (just) a man, (only a human) know these things? – and.. did these things “come to pass?” Yes, -to all of the above. But.. is there more?
~ He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His Name is the Word of God ~ (Revelation 19.13)
The scriptures do tell us- there will come a day when every knee shall bow and every tongue (Hebrew included?) shall confess “Jesus is LORD” to the glory of God the Father.. Shall we practice this? – or wait until that day? – He will be worshiped – and rightly so! Why?
~ In a loud voice they were saying: ~ Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise! ~ (Revelation 5.12)
Shall we (today) hear them and join them in this joy-filled worship of the Lamb?
Is anyone suggesting that Yeshua is not the Messiah or that the Messiah is not divine or that the Messiah is not sent by the Father, incarnated in human form? Not at all. That isn’t the issue here. We will soon look at the words for “divine” and “Worship” to see what the text actually says, but there is nothing in this discussion on my part to suggest that Yeshua isn’t divine or isn’t the unique, special, sent messenger, the Jewish Messiah, the atonement for sin, the victor over death.
Can we please be careful in comments NOT to confuse the claim that Jesus is GOD-YHVH with the assertion that He is the Messiah (and all that it means to be the Messiah)?
Brett, gotta great book for you to read: The Divine Romance by Gene Edwards
“Build a Bride”, the called-out assembly, – is and ever has been the program of God!
Uptill now, this discussion has not about the Trinity. It is about the Deity of Yeshua.
I agree with Ian Hodge. We are skirting around the key issue.
1) Are the Gospels and Apostolic Scriptures inspired? [And I take into regard Skip’s view on inspiration]
If No, let’s return to Judaism wholesale. [Which one I don’t know, but still]
If Yes, we should believe the Gospels.
2) We see from John 1 that the Logos was pre-existent with God. The question becomes if the Logos was HaShem or if it was something else.
If something else, what was it? I, again, would like to refer you to Dr Heiser’s work on the divine council.
This would also show that we are not confused about the difference of divine and being GOD.
In addition, we need to see the term Logos in the way that the Second Temple period Jews saw it.
3) If the Logos is HaShem, do the Gospels equate Yeshua and with the Logos?
There is no doubt in my mind that John does this.
If not, someone needs to show me where I am going wrong in my logic.
Ergo: If yes on all accounts, Yeshua would be HaShem. Not exactly like the Father, but still HaShem.
Skip says: “Trinitarian exponents conclude that since adonai and YHWH are both designations of God, this conversation must mean that there are at least two divine beings in the Godhead.”
I am not sure about the Trinity either [I am not denying it, I just don’t know], but that is not why I believe the Yeshua is HaShem.
I believe I have shown before that the writers of the Gospels apply texts that ONLY apply to HaShem to Yeshua. They see John 1 as speaking about AND HaShem AND Yeshua.
And by the way, just because it took 400 years for Christians to come up with a solution how to fit this together, doesn’t make it wrong [or right for that matter]. If that would be true, Skip’s analysis of Yeshua’s work on the cross would be wrong, because I have not seen that kind of analysis for 2000 years. But it doesn’t make his analysis wrong [or right for that matter].
I am still unconvinced…
Just some questions. You say that if the Logos was not God, what was “it”? But immediately you have moved the discussion into static state Greek terms. Why isn’t it legitimate to ask, “If the Logos is pre-existent, what manner of action (verb) does this describe about YHVH?” Just as the “Spirit” can be seen as the action of YHVH among men in the creation, isn’t it possible to view the “Word” from the perspective of a verb? Is John so Hellenized that he no longer thinks like a Hebrew?
By the way, I absolutely believe that the apostolic writings are inspired and authoritative. Just not the way that the fundamentalist think of “inspired.”
Did Second Temple period JEWS think of the Greek term “logos” as YHVH? Would they have then concluded that there are TWO Gods? Or would they see “logos” in the same light as the Tanakh describe “Wisdom” in Proverbs?
You note, “Yeshua would be HaShem. Not exactly like the Father, but still HaShem.” But that’s not a Trinitarian view. Yeshua cannot be “less” than HaShem in Trinitarian thought. He must be Identical to the Father since there can be no division in YHVH. He has to be exactly the Father. Oh, he can be “manifest” as human, but that does NOT change his essential nature according to the Trinity. He is FULLY God and fully Man. So, in what sense can you say, “not exactly like the Father”?
Good point about the 400 years. The question is more than the time it took. The question is the categories of thought in Hellenism that support the doctrine.
What is it that you are not convinced about? I’m not sure.
Laurita, When the emperor has no clothes it takes a fearless child to expose his folly. The doctrine of trinitarianism is so entrenched into our cultic belief system that unless we expose its fantasy and falsity it will persist to confound, confuse and control men and women of good will (but poor theology). This issue is to big to sweep under the rug of truth as if it were a minor error of a few foolish and uneducated simpletons. It is one of THE major doctrines of the flailing, falling and failing Laodecian church. To seek to lessen its influence and power by ignoring its strength is to be still controlled by its power. Soon we shall shout: The ‘king’ is dead. Long live the King!
Skip,
I appreciate your careful dispassionate analysis of the text. It seems as though many of the comments throughout this series on the Trinity have either attempted to make passionate arguments for the traditional concept of the Trinity and/or that Yeshua is in fact the same “substance” as the Father. Some of the arguments have utilized Scriptures…others have not. The bottom line to me is that you haven’t attempted to “prove” anything one way or the other, but in fact you are just attempting to get beyond what we have been taught over the years. You want us to understand the texts in the same manner they were understood when written and during the lifetime of Yeshua. A noble and necessary goal I believe….
I would appeal to everyone in this community to give Skip a chance. Is your faith so tenuous that reading and understanding the Scriptures as they were written makes you want to freak out? Wouldn’t you rather base your beliefs on what the Scriptures actually say and meant rather than the way most of us were taught (with an agenda)? Let’s comment on what Skip is attempting to show us rather than attempting to “defend” our own beliefs each time he makes a TW concerning the Trinity.
There are many more verses that still need to be reviewed before any kind of conclusions can be made. Don’t over-react! Skip is not trying to shake your faith. I believe he is trying to strengthen it by giving us a solid foundation upon which to build it. I remember my professors in seminary (25 years ago) constantly making the comment…”How in the world do you realistically apply the Scriptures today if you don’t even know what they meant to the original hearers? Language, Context, Culture…say it again…Language, Context, Culture….
Thank you Skip for pointing out a very valuable lesson concerning a technical aspect of the Hebrew language…vowel pointing. Reading Psalm 110:1 with the proper context and wording makes all the difference. Now, we can try to figure out what Yeshus actually meant in Matthew 22:44, rather than inventing a meaning based on a poor translation of the verse he was quoting. If we believe the Scriptures to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, let’s not panic when we find out what they really say and mean. God is still in control!
Let’s give Skip a chance…!
Laurita wrote: I think I feel a little confused; kinda like watching shadow-boxing. When are the trumpeters going to start showing up so that we know which way to cheer?
Ha! A friend of mine and also one who reads Skip’s very deep, super challenging TW basically said a similar thing to me just the other day!
I felt Today’s Word was very clear and enlightening.
A question: Is there any scriptural reason why God could not have the Logos be whatever He wanted it to be? At whatever time, and for whatever purpose? That such a visible expression would be worthy of honor, but not necessarily “God”? My understanding of Logos doesn’t see any problem with this.
I have been reading the scriptures by “the institute for scripture research” 1998 ed. most recently. It has the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script “…said to my Master”
Gary, very well put.
You wrote: Skip is not trying to shake your faith.
Personally, I think everyone’s faith needs to be tested, to be shaken. What do we believe, each of us, and why?
Be o so careful of worshiping this translation or that paraphrase or so-and-so author or pastor or priest or pope… or PhD!
While the trinity has been “true” my whole life because I am “churched” (praise God I was delivered of Catholicism a bit after I started having children and felt like I was required to offer them up to the alter of Satan with all the urgent rituals screaming at me), so has been God in the cloud or fire or whatever wherever however He chooses to manifest Himself (Shekeniah Glory.) My God is THE ALMIGHTY, never made, but the Creator Himself. If Yeshua came from Him (? a Manifestation of Him) and did what He did to PLUCK ME FROM THE BURNING, I will forever seek Him and follow Him.
YHVH does and will give me the right WORD to learn from/to follow and also gives me “warning flags” or “sends up flares” when I’m being exposed to lies, but I have to WATCH FOR THEM and RECOGNIZE them! I think it’s AMAZING LOVE how God created a language (Hebrew) for His set-aside people AND THEN said that gentiles could join His family! Wow. Really. Wow. Think on that. He DESIRES to communicate clearly with us. He doesn’t play mind games.
God knows our hearts. If our hearts really do cry out for HIS TRUTH, the only truth (which takes dedicated time and quiet space), and we ache with the desire to serve Him, only Him, not what we think is Him, He will shower us with it.
Maybe we should spend today, Shavuot, reading “the red letters”…s-l-o-w-l-y. Imagine standing on the sand with Him.
Keep going, Skip, but pray hard before you post. Keep reading, all of us, but pray hard before we read… and comment. Seek God.
Thanks for the challenge, Skip! Indeed unlearning IS difficult!
To promote the conversation, the Trinitarian dogma is a “theosophical” construct; by saying that I mean only that it is an attempt to explain spiritual concepts through the limited means of man’s wisdom. And it was a construct intended to refute assertions that were clearly not biblical. (Is it then biblical?) Taken as a construct for discussion of spiritual concepts without then asserting that it is biblical doctrine is reasonable. Promoting it to a standard of orthodoxy is a mistake and fundamentally elevates man’s wisdom above that of Almighty! It is not a biblical doctrine and it certainly wouldn’t have been the thinking of an orthodox Jew of the first century.
When Jesus asked the Prushim whose son is Messiah, he chose the complete context of Ps 110 (which scripture the Pharisees would have been very familiar and likely would have been much discussed among them) to challenge their dogma. Even more do we need the complete context of the Scriptures to unlearn our dogma and convey the spiritual truth found through YHVH’s word.
Perhaps He intends that a little “labor” is necessary that we might be “born again”?
Just a quick inquiry, Assuming that this song was originally written in paleo script (some form), what would that do to this distinction? Perhaps there’s more than meets the eye in the psalm.
But the problem is the Paleo-Hebrew today is a backward translation of the Masoretic text since we have no originals and that means at best it only adds levels of meaning to what is in the MT. I will discuss this linguistic issue at the upcoming conference in Phoenix
For some reason, I was thinking about Mother Theresa yesterday
For all her pros and cons she had a divinity IMO that most people lack
I don’t want to compare MT to the Messiah, but some believed
The Messiah was to be a Priestly/King from the order of Melchizedek
Of a higher order of divinity than most of us, but not YHWH
Great article Skip! Blizzard believes that God originally created man as equal to Himself, and presents some scriptural evidence for this. But isn’t this another paradox? Can’t we find many verses that point in the opposite direction? What are your thoughts on man originally created as equal to God?
Never thought about that. Perhaps you could supply the link to Blizzard’s argument. I will say this. Heschel does note that MAN is the only created thing designated to carry the image of God. That is significant. But then we must be careful about “image” since we tend to think of this word according to our Greek noun ideas. Image in Hebrew is a verb. See my lectures on “Being Human.” By the way, if “image” is a verb, then this has bearing on the Trinity as well since the Greek idea of “person” is definitely NOT a verb.
Skip I have listened to your lectures and I know you believe that they are inspired. I also think that you are right on the way you have to view it. So there is no disagreement here. I am actually indebted to you for this! My point was that if we don’t believe in the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures, all the discussion is futile, and we don’t need to go on.
I said that we have to view the Logos as “it” [whether noun or action] was viewed by the Jews in the Second Temple period viewed “it”. Alan F. Segal wrote “Two Powers in Heaven.” If you read his book and Daniel Boyarin’s papers on this issue, you will see that scholarship has shown that during the Second Temple period there was an ongoing discussion within Judaism whether there were two powers in the “Godhead” [if I may use this word]. During the Second Temple period this was NOT viewed as a heresy [in the modern definition of the word – even the Greek word heresies only meant difference of opinion at that time]. It was still seen as monotheistic. One example is Gen 19:24 “Then YHVH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from YHVH out of heaven.” They saw the first YHVH has the Angel of YHVH who had a will separate from YHVH out of heaven but was YHVH nonetheless. So the people that believed that there were two Powers, wouldn’t have agreed with your statement that the second Power had to be exactly as the Father since they equated the Logos with the Angel of YHVH. Not just an action but a real being.
Daniel Boyarin showed that during the time of Justin Martyr there was a mutual effort to make a divide between the two ideas. He basically argues that Justin Martyr created Judaism and the Rabbis Christianity. But before this time, there was absolutely no problem in believing that there are two Powers. [Philo, who was a monotheist!, actually calls it somewhere two Gods (and he is talking about his own views by the way)]
Here is part of the abstract from “Beyond Judaism: Meṭaṭron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism.”
“I claim that late-ancient rabbinic literature when read in the context of all contemporary and earlier texts of Judaism – those defined as rabbinic as well as those defined as non-, para-, or even anti-rabbinic – affords us a fair amount of evidence for and information about a belief in (and perhaps culst of) a second divine person within, or very close to, so-called *** “orthodox” rabbinic circles *** long after the advent of Christianity. Part of the evidence for this very cult will come from efforts at its suppression on the part of rabbinic texts.”
Here is the link to the full PDF: http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Boyarin/BoyarinArticles/148%20Beyond%20Judaisms%20(2010).pdf
So in my view “He has to be exactly the Father” is begging the question. It is the point that needs to be proven by you since many in rabbinic circles during and after the Second Temple period believed that there was a second Power who is HaShem according to Boyarin!
Therefore I am not convinced by your arguments that Yeshua is not the same being as the Angel of HaShem who in my view and the view of the Two Power “cult” was seen to be HaShem himself, manifested in bodily form. Only in the case of Yeshua, it is not just an Angel, but God, who took upon Himself Flesh and emptying [however we need to define his] Himself of all His Glory.
He is LORD of Lords, King of Kings, worthy to be worshiped. And has Carl said: “If He is but a man, or man only- then He has no “business” receiving the worship of men and of angels.”
I have never argued that Yeshua is the Angel of HaShem and that means he is God. That might be the Christian idea, and it might be true, but I haven’t used it in this discussion.
As for Boyarin and others, don’t you think there is a distinction between “power” and “person.” That seems to me to be the root problem here. God can manifest himself in all kinds of ways and be observed in various verbs of power, but does that mean there are three “persons” in the “Godhead” (a word which is so loaded with Trinitarian theology that I choose not to use it).
I see no issue with the idea that HaShem is YHVH, the one true God, who manifests himself in various forms (as is clear in the Tanakh). It seems clear that the Messiah is the fully authorized, perfect representative of HaShem, sent by YHVH with all power and authority to fulfill the purposes of HaShem. It seems clear that the Messiah is unlike men in this role, that he came into the world as the special emissary of the Father, that he accomplished the Father will and is now glorified until he returns all creation to the authority of the Father. But it doesn’t seem clear that this ENTAILS that the Messiah must therefore be YHVH in essence and attribute.
But we continue. Let’s see what we can find tomorrow.
I greatly appreciate your addition here. But there are a couple of points to be made. First, if we accept that the Second Temple period influenced John’s gospel and gives us justification for “two powers” that are divine, it does not follow that the Trinity is the result of this Jewish idea. In fact, the Trinity requires that all three persons be equally God, so my original comment is still relevant. If Second Temple period Jews found reason to imagine that there were two powers, or even two “beings” (although that word has a lot packed into it), we still have the Trinity problem of THREE PERSONS in ONE BEING. I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity requires some kind of ontological equivalence. That should be quite clear from the link to Erickson.
So, the rabbis might be correct, but the Trinity remains a non-Jewish construction.
I am trying to find the link to the Erickson Article. Can you post that again please?
Here is the link to a statement defining the Trinitarian view. It was endorsed by Erickson in another web link pdf.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
Thanks Skip
Marty, I also believe that if God is defined as perfect love, then we must be created as such equally. How can perfect love create something that is less than itself? So my question then becomes WHEN were we created? At the moment of our worldly birth or the moment of conception (egg fertilization) or have we always existed as part of God’s eternal being and love and equal to God? Can we return or exist anywhere, Heaven or earth, in His presence in any state other than this same perfection? Do we need reincarnation to achieve this? Can someone else achieve this perfection for us in locum?
Perfect love implies someone to love which implies our pre-existence. Anything else is narcissism. We are told to look for God within ourselves, are we not? I too would like discussion on this as well some day.
Wow such great perspectives and energy around this.
It intrigues me that throughout history God continues to unveil and reveal His character, His righteousness, and as His people we get to love Him more and discover more of the love in us to be poured out like a wine offering. Skip, thank you! Your challenges have helped me savor the beauty of an unfolding flower that began unfolding before the earth was formed and will unfold eternally and yet each morning we each declare all of these are one. If we are close to an epochal revelation and unfolding beyond what we have known or imagined I hope these challenges prepare us and like our brethren before us, that we don’t get stuck trying to label the flower and forget to be enthralled by its beauty.
Thank you!
Well said, Gary Predoehl!
Skip — might Yeshua’s divinity come from the fact that He was of special creation? I suppose we could say that Adam (and Havaah) were also special creation but the things written about Yeshua show far greater indication of higher position than that given to Adam. We know His was a unique conception (in Miryam) as described in Matt 1:18; He was raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of the Father, God YHVH; and somehow He existed before the foundation of the earth and had a part in creation. But having said all that, it does not necessarily stand that He is deity.
Isn’t the Hebraic concept of YHVH echad one of absolute singular deity? And I see no conflict between recognizing that Yeshua is not the deity YHVH echad but is still divine because of who He is — the one who is lifted high above all others. Divinity and deity are not synonymous concepts, are they? (Except in modern English understanding…)
Yes, Yeshua as Messiah is absolutely special (my ONLY beloved) and his role puts him in the semantic domain of “divine” from a Hebraic point of view. He is NOT like Adam who was only the FIRST, not the ONLY.
We still have to answer Ian’s question about “uncreated,” but the answer is very complicated and involves a lot of philosophical background, so it has to be postponed while I work in El Salvador with simple people.
@ Gary Predoehl
Indeed!!!
Well said!
Darius (and Skip),
The way you have explained Yeshua is exactly how I understand Him.
I have been searching since 1985 for truth as one searching for hidden treasure and found the explanation of the oneness of God some years ago.
I thank Yeshua for the faith He gave to me to believe that it is He that does the works. That if we have the son, we have the Father and if we have not the son, we have not the Father.
He is the firstborn of all creation, the express image of the invisible God.
I had a wonderful few days listening to Bradford Scott in England, as he finished a talk in my town a few hours ago.
One of the best insights I had was about the way Yeshua teaches time; it being cyclical as opposed to linear (Darwinsim).
If we get away from the Darwinian viewpoint which found its way into Christendom a decade after the evolution theory came about, and go back to the cyclical teaching in the “Old Testament”, we will see that that describes the God we serve.
He is the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end;
Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent.
Actually, time in Hebraic thought is not quite cyclical. It is cycloidal. I have written about this in previous post and in my book on time.
YHVH seems quite certain that he, and he alone, is the only LORD and that he is the creator of all things apart from himself.
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other. . . .
21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
22 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
And then John:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. . . .
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
And your point is?
Of course, it also seems quite certain the YHVH is the ONLY savior (cf. Isaiah). So are we to conclude that Yeshua has nothing to do with salvation? Are we confusing nouns and verbs, agency and action, substance and description? I think that perhaps WE are far too philosophically complicated compared to the audience of Scripture. They understood the requirement of OBEDIENCE. We believe in the path of explanation. Maybe the descriptions found in the texts have a completely different goal than the one found in the development of doctrine.
Or maybe we are too philosophically naive. After all, Paul took the Greek philosophers head on when he provided them with the answer to the three issues-essence, motion, being-that they had failed to find without YHVH. 😉
Robert Alter’s translation has a slightly different take on this verse. His note says:
The LORD’s utterance to my master:
“…to my master. Though many translations render this as “my LORD” with a capital L, the Hebrew clearly shows ‘adoni, with a first-person-singular suffix, whereas the noun at the beginning of verse 5 reads ‘adonai, showing the plural suffix invariably used when the noun ‘adon is a designation for God. This is a royal psalm, and the speaker, by referring to the king as his master, would appear to be a court poet.
… till I make your enemies/a tool for your feet. God’s protection of the king against the nation’s enemies is a prominent theme in most of the royal psalms. God’s protection the king against the nation’s enemies is a prominent theme in most of the royal psalms. Some Egyptian murals actually depict an enthroned pharaoh with feet resting on the heads of kneeling captives.
I wonder if the reference to a plural suffix gave any suggestion of a trinity to other translators?
If you already think that the plural suffix means “Three Persons in One,” then you will read it that way. But the question is whether or not the AUTHOR and the original audience would have read it that way. Seems quite unlikely to me.
The meaning of a text is what the AUTHOR meant, not what the reader understands.
Donna/Skip
I see and understand that the word adoni (not adonai) is used in verse one….meaning as you say YHWH announces to my (David’s) master: “Sit at my right hand”…. but I also see that the word Adonai IS used in verse 5 repeating the “at your right hand” phrase – so then WHO is at the right hand? Adoni or Adonai and how does this fit?
@Ian: Regarding John 1, can we look at it this way: Isn’t your word “you,” whoever you are, and isn’t your spirit “you”? (I’m not sure how to make my reply get to you, Ian; it keeps ending up down at the bottom of the comments.)
Alter makes it pretty clear what the author intended with “The LORD’s utterance to my master…” Master is even lower case, so it is obviously human, not deity. The further explanation of it as a royal psalm by a court poet further identifies the master as an earthly king.
I was just wondering if the reference to “plural” might provide the “loophole” or opportunity for an incorrect interpretation.by someone who has already made up his mind.
“God can manifest himself in all kinds of ways and be observed in various verbs of power, . . .”
So Sabellius was correct after all in your opinion?
@Thomas – for some reason, only Skip’s reply appear immediately below any comment he is responding to. As a result, commenting on another person’s comment to create dialogue is near impossible.
We are aware of this. WordPress has indicated that they will not fix this problem, so Mark has volunteered to rewrite all the code to fix this. A huge effort.
Ian – Just so you know, I believe I’ve fixed the issues with the commenting. As Skip said, it was a huge undertaking but, I completely understand that having your replies and comments fall in the context of a thread or post is necessary to engage in proper dialogue.
If you experience any further problems please let us know.
Thank you. A much better dialogue can take place. 😉
I think you need to check it again. It appears unstable. Sometimes it works, other times it does not.
Could you be a little more specific Ian. It appears to be working. Is there some place you’ve posted that didn’t nest?
There was a comment that did not nest. I’ll try and find it. But the question I think might be how many levels of nesting can occur? I think I was trying to nest on a comment that was already nested.
Yes you are correct on the levels. I’ve increased it to the max, which is 10 levels deep, it was at 5.
My comment that did not nest is on the Trinity-Who Decides blog. You’ll find it lower down towards the bottom. I have certainly not reached even the 5 levels you originally had it set. 😉
This threaded comment is about to max out too, just so you know. My suggestion, would be to copy your comment you wanted to post in the thread you wanted it in, click reply again to the post your want to respond too, and paste it in.
I couldn’t tell you what the problem was, anything can happen, it’s software, and things don’t always go perfectly. The code I’ve wrote for this commenting system here though, is about as good as it’s going to get. You won’t find to many other blog’s that have this robust of a commenting system.
There are limitations to WordPress that I’m not able to fix, that’s just the reality and nature of web design. It took me over 3 days of solid work to do this as it is. It does appear though, by and large, that the commenting system is working pretty good, considering it wasn’t working at all.
So, I’m saying we’re just going to have to work within the limitations of what we have here. I just don’t know what more I can do.
Thanks for your understanding and patience Ian.