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.
Blizzard believes that God originally created man as equal to Himself,
Hi Marty,
My Bible states that God created mankind in the image of himself
in the image of God he created him
male and female he created them
But because they disobeyed God
they are cursed and thrown out of Paradise
To live in the dust
No longer like Gods
Just remember to read “image” from a Hebrew worldview, not ours.
man in Our image, according to Our likeness; Strong’s Concordance
But Strong’s concordance is really too naive to be the final authority here. It is just a simply approach and lacks much of the complexity of the issues. A good place to start, but not to end.
God created man in Our image, according to Our likeness; Strong’s Concordance
In English an image is typically a visual representation of something but God is nothing
So the sentence makes no sense to me on a literal level
Metaphorically speaking, I think “image” is intended to mean the way in which God behaves
And the “Sons of God” are expected to behave
On the one hand, God only does good things and his “Son’s” are to obey his commands
Adam and Eve were made with these expectations in mind
But they disobeyed God’s commands
Michael – God has been defined in one place as “God is Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.”
These are viewed as the communicable and incommunciable attributes of God. He did not make man infinite, eternal and unchangeable – but he did make man as a being with wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, truth” – although they are finite (created) versions of these attributes.
You are moving in the direction of a verbal based worldview which I believe is the correct understanding of “image.” The typical idea of attributes found in most Christian theology is based on a static structure, not a dynamic one. It follows the via negativa of Aquinas and ends up saying that we are essentially NOT like God at all. It is attribution by analogy, that is, we are kinds of like God but not really. For example, God is infinite, we are finite. God is eternal, we are temporal. Etc. All of this is discussed in my book where I attempt to show the inadequacy of such an approach, even if it is the usual one. I think that the Hebraic view makes a lot more sense.
Skip, I am not saying that you are arguing that Yeshua is the Angel of HaShem. I am saying that John made the connection. And if he did, it is a Jewish idea.
I understand that there could be a distinction between power and person. But even though they used the word power, I read that they saw the Angel of HaShem as YHVH with a separate will! So no Modalism or Sabbellianism.
I am not dogmatic about a Trinity, I just belief that Yeshua is YHVH in human form.
So I am at least a binitarian. Now I want to figure out how the Spirit fits in.
What if the Bible is deliberately vague about this?
How can you describe the color red to a blind person?
How can you describe three dimensions to a two dimensional “flatlander”?
How can God describe to an earthly being what it means to be another dimensional being?
This is why He describes Himself in His actions.
How do I understand that He emptied Himself? But there it is:
(Phi 2:5-11 YLT)
5 For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
8 and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death — death even of a cross,
9 wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that is above every name,
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow — of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth —
11 and every tongue may confess that Jesus (Phi 2:11 YLT) Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The Messiah was to be a Priestly/King from the order of Melchizedek
Hmmm
If you ever wondered who the character Zed was in Pulp Fiction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Yp2L6c2KM
Zed’s dead baby, Zed’s dead.
I must take to you to task for what I consider to be sloppy style. I apologize, but I find it difficult to sort out your terminology. As I understand it “divine being” is an anthropomorphism. All being is created by Hashem. Therefore the only divine being I recognize is Yeshuah. God is not a substance either. He doesn’t have a body. God is an eternal act – of covenant. We need to weed out all the conflations first before we can address the text. Finally God is not a word. Over focus on terminology can actually be detrimental to your argument. In the text we should examine exactly what the writer is referring to both literally and contextually. There is a messianic over tone which the author assumes the reader knows. We should examine these assumptions – both ours and the authors before we jump to conclusions. Poor form may work against your scholarship even if your right.
I don’t want to reply unless you intended this comment for me. Did you?
Skip
I read John 1 as if the Word is the Seed (sperm) its just easier for me to see it like this because the word is very often seen as a seed. In the beginning was the Seed (Sperm) and the seed was with God and the Seed was God. (Yep I can see this…because my seed (sperm) was in the beginning with me and is me. But….let go on….) All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made (Again, my seed was in me and with me, and there is nothing about my created daughter (or son) that was created without me…lets go on). In Him was life and the life was the light of men and the light shines in darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it. (no problems here). And the Seed became flesh and dwelt among us………(Just as my seed became flesh and now dwells among us)……I can see how my seed is “me” but not “me” at the same time. I do not look at my daughter and call her David. She is not David! She is my seed but she is not me!
Thank you David. That way of looking at this is very helpful. I’m still struggling, but at least this one Scripture is something I can get past now………… whew.
Yep. The word (Logos) isn’t the “seed” literally but the word is LIKE a seed (sperma). According to Yeshua. Helps me process it in my head a little anyway…….Even though my daughter wasn’t even there she was there. Just like Levi was in the loins of Abraham.
Sorry to be party pooper, but sperm is not with a male from his beginning. Sperm production starts with puberty and continues every day. You are confused with egg cells. Women are born with the all their egg cells.
This analogy also ignores the meaning of Logos/Davar/Memra [in this context] during the Second Temple period.
Can we agree that YHVH has in Him the source of all life? Both sperm and eggs can be understood as “seed”. From that standpoint, perhaps it can be a helpful analogy.
Biology is such a cool shadow of the real Substance! It’s all so cool!
Hebrews 7:9-10
Agreed! And how about Gen 3:15?
I think the application for “seed” being understood before an actual embryo is formed is supported in several places.
In the Tree of Life (a Messianic Jewish Family Bible) this verse reads “Adonai says to my Lord. . . You are a Koren forever.” What does Koren mean?
Psalm 110:1 is a huge neglected key to the relationship between Father and Son.
The second lord here is not Lord, (not adonai), but lord, ADONI, which is always, all 195 times, the non-Deity title. Surely we can understand that Jesus’ creed,. affirmed in agreement with a Jew, is the creed of Israel: “The LORD our God is one LORD.” ONE PERSON (Mk 12:29). This ought to settle the issue easily, as ought Luke 1:35 which defines what Son of God means. John and Paul are to be read in the light of this straightforward unitarian view of God. 1300 times in the NT the Father is GOD! There are in the Bible 11.000 occs. of the different words for God and not one of them means a Triune GOD. Surely this ought to get you thinking! No biblical writer using the word “GOD” ever meant a God in Three Persons. You might be interested in my “Jesus is Still a Jew” at youtube.
Inventing the divinity of Yeshua?
Since Christianity was invented (for political reasons) and to do away from Judaism and it’s Hebrew God, wouldn’t this be the perfect time to invent the divinity of Yeshua? Since Christianity did not choose the Hebrew God, Yahweh, it makes sense to create another God, and assign divinity to Him. Would Rome have decided on a religion where there is no devine being to be worshipped? They didn’t worship Yahweh. It seemed like a good time for Yeshua to “become divine”.
Yes, BUT – now we have to know what the disciples thought, and there is a lot of information about the expectation of a divine Messiah in the second Temple period. The problem is this: what does the word “divine” mean in Hebrew thinking? That will involve a long study of every occurrence of the word(s). Might take some time.
A different view on who wrote Psalm 110
In his book, The Teacher and His Preacher, Moshe Kempinski also stated that the first Lord (LeAdoni) is Yahweh and that the second Lord (Adoni) means “my master”. Moshe points out though that this Psalm begins with the words “LeDovid Mizmor” which means “For David a Psalm”. Many of the other Psalms King David wrote begin with the words ” Mizmor LeDovid” which means (A Psalm Of David). Moshe points out that this Psalm is written in David’s honour, and David is the master (Adoni) that the Psalmist/servant of David describes.
So this verse could then be read from the view of the servant ( Psalmist) of David; “Yahweh says to my King David, sit at my right hand, and I Yahweh will make David’s enemies his (David) footstool.”
If david is writing this Psalm then it means:
David is writing that Le Adoni (Yahweh) is saying to Adoni (Yeshua) that He (Yahweh) will make His (Yeshua) enemies His (Yeshua) footstool
OR
David is writing that Le Adoni (Yahweh) is saying to Adoni (Yeshua) that He (Yahweh) will make His (David) enemies His (David) footstool
Could this Psalm link with 1 Samuel 24:4 where David’s men said to him before he cut off the corner of Sauls robe, “And the men of David said to him, “Here is the day of which the Lord said (in Psalm 110:1) to you, ‘Behold, I will give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it shall seem good to you.’ Then David arose and stealthily cut off a corner of Saul’s robe.
The Lord said to you in 1 Samuel 24:4 could mean the Lord said to you through your servant/Psalmist?
I don’t think the position “sit at my right hand” is a term that is exclusively used for Yeshua. Sitting at God’s right hand could be a term used to symbolize God’s victorious protection over someone (King) and the term given to someone could be used as a mark of distinction. Given David is a King, and a man of distinction, he wrote, “Thy right hand has supported me” Psalm 18:36, “The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord does valiant.” Psalm 118:16
The Psalmist of Psalm 110, given that he is a servant of King David, would himself be familiar with terms like “sit at my right hand”, so it wouldn’t be strange for him to use that term in his Psalm just like David who is familar with the term and uses it in his Psalms (Psalm 18:36, 118:16).
Here is the complication though. Yeshua quotes Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:45 and says, “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
So according to Yeshua, David wrote Psalm 110. Is it possible, and dare I say it, that Yeshua could’ve been wrong in understanding who wrote Psalm 110?
Or perhaps Yeshua was doing a midrash..
Great piece of work here and helpful. So much complexity. Too bad we just can’t ask David, “Hey, what did you mean?” or “Did you write this one or not?” I guess I will have the chance to ask him someday. Won’t that be interesting?