by hooberus 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Now here are my main questions based on your quote:
According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, there is no connection between (adoni) and , The L-rd, because the appellation (adoni) is never used to address G-d; it is used exclusively to address a (mortal) man. ( end of quote ).
Does the word "adoni" mean that Jesus is only a man? Does the word adoni restrict him to being a human lord only?
Dean:
I would just ask you one simple question:
When were vowel points devised?
Hooberus, If this verse restricts anything, it restricts the second lord from being Jehovah. Therefore as you appear to concede , this psalm is not a trinity Proof Text. Dean.
LittleToe,
As per my Unger's Bible Hand Book, The Masorites carried out their vowel pointing work from circa 600 A.D.
However, I think they were not the first to do this but only the most skilled and celebrated.
I see what you are getting at , but does it make any difference.
Surely the work of the Masorites was to safe- guard the text and the Oral Reading tradition ?
Dean.
Hooberus,
Thankyou for answering that question re: How many Jehovah's are there ?
I agree with you that there is only ONE Jehovah as this is clearly the scriptural position bearing in mind the Shema.
So, then the Trinity point of view must be that there is ONE God, who is ONE Jehovah But who are THREE persons.
You earlier quoted Genesis 19:24 as support of your view that two persons of Jehovah can be seen to be acting and be addressed seperately at the one time. This being so that to prove that Jehovah the Father in Psalm 110 : 1 can be seen as seperate to Jehovah the Son.
However, I think this creates a problem with the understanding of there only being ONE Jehovah. Consider.
In Genesis 19:24 the scripture does not state anything about different Persons of this Jehovah being spoken of here. It doesn't say that it was Jehovah the Father speaking to Jehovah the Son. Keeping in mind that the Jews did not worship a Triune God , this idea of several persons of Jehovah being mentioned here would be anathema to them.
Also, if Jehovah is spoken of twice here surely this , without qualification in scripture, means there are TWO Jehovah's.
Therefore , if Jehovah is THREE Persons , then this scripture would mean that there are SIX Persons mentioned here.
Thus it should come as no surprise that some Trinitarian Commentators have saw the need to leave this scripture alone and not use it as a Trinity Proof Text.
e.g.
Verse 24. The Lord rained-brimstone and fire from the Lord] As all judgment is committed to the Son of God, many of the primitive fathers and several modern divines have supposed that the words hwhyw vaihovah and hwhy tam meeth Yehovah imply, Jehovah the Son raining brimstone and fire from Jehovah the Father; and that this place affords no mean proof of the proper Divinity of our blessed Redeemer. It may be so; but though the point is sufficiently established elsewhere, it does not appear to me to be plainly indicated here. And it is always better on a subject of this kind not to have recourse to proofs which require proofs to confirm them. It must however be granted that two persons mentioned as Jehovah in one verse, is both a strange and curious circumstance; and it will appear more remarkable when we consider that the person called Jehovah, who conversed with Abraham, (see chap. 18.,) and sent those two angels to bring Lot and his family out of this devoted place, and seems himself after he left off talking with Abraham to have ascended to heaven, ver. 33, does not any more appear on this occasion till we hear that JEHOVAH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from JEHOVAH out of heaven. This certainly gives much countenance to the opinion referred to above, though still it may fall short of positive proof.
From Adam Clarke Commentary.
and also
24. Then the Lord rained.
To this point belongs what Moses says, that the Lord rained fire from the Lord. The repetition is emphatical, because the Lord did not then cause it to rain, in the ordinary course of nature; but, as if with a stretched out hand, he openly fulminated in a manner to which he was not accustomed, for the purpose of making it sufficiently plain, that this rain of fire and brimstone was produced by no natural causes. It is indeed true, that the air is never agitated by chance; and that God is to be acknowledged as the Author of even the least shower of rain; and it is impossible to excuse the profane subtlety of Aristotle, who, when he disputes so acutely concerning second causes, in his Book on Meteors, buries God himself in profound silence. Moses, however, here expressly commends to us the extraordinary work of God; in order that we may know that Sodom was not destroyed without a manifest miracle. The proof which the ancients have endeavored to derive, from this testimony, for the Deity of Christ, is by no means conclusive: and they are angry, in my judgment, without cause, who severely censure the Jews, because they do not admit this kind of evidence. I confess, indeed, that God always acts by the hand of his Son, and have no doubt that the Son presided over an example of vengeance so memorable; but I say, they reason inconclusively, who hence elicit a plurality of Persons, whereas the design of Moses was to raise the minds of the readers to a more lively contemplation of the hand of God.
Commentary by John Calvin. (1509 - 1564)
Therefore, this verse does not in fact support the view that you were wringing out of it.
As the above quotations allude to, this unusual turn of phrase is obviously a Jewish Idiomatic Figure of Speech used to emphasise the Divine Origin of this destructive incident.
Thus we can see in Moffats translation the Sense of the thought by simply rendering the verse, " and then the ETERNAL rained sulphur and fire 'FROM HEAVEN' on Sodom and Gomorrah".
Dean.
According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, there is no connection between (adoni) and , The L-rd, because the appellation (adoni) is never used to address G-d; it is used exclusively to address a (mortal) man. ( end of quote ).
Is the one at the right hand of YHWH a human man?
Hooberus, If this verse restricts anything, it restricts the second lord from being Jehovah. Therefore as you appear to concede , this psalm is not a trinity Proof Text. Dean.If so, does the word "adoni" restrict him to being a human lord only?
Dean:
I see what you are getting at , but does it make any difference.
Surely the work of the Masorites was to safe- guard the text and the Oral Reading tradition
Ah, but of course it matters. Both the Mormons and the JW's believe that there was a huge apostacy after the apostle John died.
You are assuming that the oral reading tradition remained unchanged for centuries. It may be a correct assumption, but is unverifiable. Whereas the Dead Sea Scrolls at least verify the written word back to a certain point.
Hooberus,
Does Adoni restrict Jesus' lordship to a 'human' lordship only ?
Not necessarily, as in fact Adoni is used in the O.T. as a designation of ' Angels '. So it could refer to Jesus' Heavenly Lordship in that sense.
For example ,see Zechariah Chapter 4 , verse 4. Where an ANGEL is addressed as lord ( ADONI ).
Moffat's translation uses the expression " Sir " in this verse.
Therefore , according to the bible usage of Adoni we can see that it is used of men and angels but NOT of God.
Therefore, it could refer to either Jesus' human or heavenly lordship, and probably both. However, the term does restrict the meaning so that it could not be referring to him as being God.
Here are a few quotes from a website that investigated this matter that I think backs up the above points.
Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai (my Lord God)?
?Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.?
Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.
Adoni ? ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai ? ref. to God?Lord (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord]).
?The form ADONI (?my lord?), a royal title (I Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI (?my Lord?) used of Yahweh.? ?ADONAI ? the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adonai [with short vowel] = my lords? (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ?Lord,? p. 157).
?Lord in the OT is used to translate ADONAI when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word?has a suffix [with special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction?between divine and human appellative? (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, ?Lord,? Vol. 3, p. 137).
?Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT?Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, II Kings 2:19 [etc.]). We have to assume that the word adonai received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai, [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords? (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).
?The lengthening of the a¯ on Adonai [the Lord God] may be traced to the concern of the Masoretes to mark the word as sacred by a small external sign? (Theological Dictionary of the OT, ?Adon,? p. 63 and Theological Dictionary of the NT, III, 1060ff. n.109).
?The form ?to my lord,? l?adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference?the generally accepted fact that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni)? (Wigram, The Englishman?s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22) (Herbert Bateman, ?Psalm 110:1 and the NT,? Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).
Dean.
LittleToe,
with respect, my friend, I did not ask " does it MATTER "? Because I do think it matters.
What I asked was " does it make a DIFFERENCE " ?
That is to say , would the removal of the vowel pointing change or affect the meaning that could be taken from the verse.
You are correct in saying that I am 'assuming' that the Oral Tradition has remained unchanged over the years but I think that numerous bible translators who have relied upon the Masoretic text over the years have done the same too.
You mentioned the Dead Sea scrolls, and I recall reading something on them recently in this context. Do have anything specific on that point as to what the Scrolls may reveal about the accuracy of the Masoretic readings ?
You mention that the Mormons and the J.W.'s believe that a great Apostasy set in after the 1st Century : but I think that was in reference to the Christian Congregation NOT with regard to Judaism !
I found a page on the web which addresses this point and makes mention of the LXX and the bearing it may have on the Masoretic accuracy, here is a part of it.
SIT THOU AT MY RIGHT HAND
(Psalm 110:1)
by Allon Maxwell
CONFIRMATION FROM THE SEPTUAGINT
There are some who persist in reading the word ADONAI in this verse, instead of ADONI. This is usually justified by claiming that the Massoretes have assigned the wrong vowel points. However the "Greek factor" from the Septuagint version (LXX) supports the Massoretes.
The following information was passed on to me recently by Bill Wachtel. (5)
The Hebrew text in Ps. 110:1 is actually LADONI ("L" + "adoni").
ADONI = my lord.
LADONI = TO my lord.
In the Greek of the LXX, LADONI becomes:
"to kurio mou" (= to my lord)
If the text had read:
LADONAI (= to the Divine Lord) the Greek would have read simply "to kurio."
Thus the LXX confirms for us that the original Hebrew is ADONI, and that the Massoretes got it right.
THE MASSORETIC VOWEL POINTS
The following information on the Massoretes and their work has been condensed from various
books, encyclopedias and Internet sources.
The ancient Hebrew texts were comprised of consonants only. There were no vowels or punctuation
marks. The Massoretes were Hebrew scholars who, over several centuries, established a system of vowel
markings to indicate the traditional pronunciation and intonation. We call these the "vowel points."
This work was not completed until several centuries after the beginning of the Christian era.
One sometimes encounters people whose determination to retain Psalm 110:1 as a Trinitarian "proof text"
leads them to (selectively) discount the reliability of the Massoretic vowel pointing system, in favour of
some other personal preference, especially when it suits their particular theological bias. However unless
there is compelling documented evidence for changes of this kind, they are seldom helpful. We must be
very cautious about introducing arbitrary changes of this kind, lest we leave ourselves open to accusations
of "intellectual dishonesty."
The following summary will provide a brief introduction to the Massoretes:
- The work of the Massoretes was done principally in the period AD 500-900.
- Although there were different schools of Massoretes, their differences seem to have left us very few
variations in the meaning of the Hebrew consonantal text.
- It was the goal of the Massoretes to preserve the traditional meaning of the Hebrew text. (This was
perceived as necessary, because ancient Hebrew is a strictly consonantal language, and therefore prone
to error in transmission.)
- One of the ways they did this was to develop a system of vowel pointing, which indicates the traditional
pronunciation and meaning of the text.
- Since Hebrew is a consonantal language, there are many places where the same consonants are used for
quite different words.
(Note:- That is no different from English! Often the same consonants form different words when
associated with different vowels. Often the same combination of consonants and vowels has a
different pronunciation, and a different meaning. When that happens, we use context and tradition
to interpret the intended meaning.)
- The Massoretic vowel pointing indicates the traditional meaning, understanding, and pronunciation which
had formerly been passed down from generation to generation, by oral tradition, through their teachers.
- In cases where identical groups of consonants were traditionally understood to be different words, with
different meanings attached, the pointing system made that clear and preserved it for future generations.
- Our current English translations all rely heavily on the pointed text.
As a LAYMAN, I conclude that what we have now is the work of dedicated Jewish Scholars, which reflects the best consensus about what was ALREADY accepted as the traditional understanding of the text, over many centuries.
Consequently when the Massoretes reported "adoni" instead of "adonai," in Psalm 110:1, they were following the oral tradition. As we have already seen above, the LXX, which predates the pointed text by centuries, supports this conclusion.
The Massoretes knew that in the unpointed text for that verse, the word "ADNY" was properly read and understood as a human lord, "ADONI," and not the divine Lord, "ADONAI."
And in the providence of God, they inserted vowel points which preserved it that way for us (and our English translators).
5. Bill Wachtel has an M.A. in New Testament from Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. He was an instructor
at the former Oregon Bible College of the Church Of God General Conference, from 1962 to 1968, and president
from 1963 to 1968. At OBC he taught Greek classes, as well as other subjects.
______________________________________________________
Regards
Dean.
According to both Biblical and Modern Hebrew, there is no connection between (adoni) and , The L-rd, because the appellation (adoni) is never used to address G-d; it is used exclusively to address a (mortal) man. ( end of quote ).
Is the one at the right hand of YHWH a human man?
?Adonai and Adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human.?
Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.
Adoni ? ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Is Jesus now at the right hand of the Father a human man?
