Adonai and Adoni

[Thunderchild]

Unfortunately for the usual form of the doctrine of the Trinity, ChristGospel, the Bible says exactly that - Jesus, being in nature God, became a man.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in very substance God, thought it not robbery though being equal with God to empty himself: But making himself of no reputation, took upon himself the very substance of a servant, becoming the similitude of man: And becoming in fashion a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

 

[CHRISTgospel]

Hebrews 1: 3 - 4: "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of The Majesty in Heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."

Q. Who’s right hand did he sit next to? Aren’t Jesus and The Majesty the same being?

Q. If Jesus is supposed to be co-equal with God the Father, what does "He became superior mean?" Isn’t Jesus, if he is God, superior to all already?

SOURCE: www.geocities.com/jbaixeras/philippians2.htm

This verse has been used to try and prove the Trinity and the preexistence of Christ. The argument is that according to the verse, Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. The second argument is that Jesus being God, emptied himself of his divinity when he came as Jesus. We will look at both of these claims and in the process we will give you what I believe to be the correct interpretation of this verse.

Let me start by saying that this verse is probably the most written about verse in the Bible. It has been the topic of many a Bible scholar, and certain interpretations of this verse have caused quite a commotion.

Before starting let me state the best way to understand these verses. This hymn is best understood within the framework of Adam Christology (James Dunn, Christology in the Making pg. 114-115). Though the hymn is obviously about Christ, it defines him against the background of Adam’s failure. The hymn presupposes Adam’s fateful choice, his desire to "be like God," (Gen. 3:5), his failure, and his downfall. Jesus is the second Adam. Where the first Adam failed, the second Adam is victorious. Where the first Adam sought his own interests, the second Adam remained obedient to the point of death.

This Adam Christology is a feature of Paul’s writings (Rom.5:12 – 21, 1Cor. 15: 20 – 28) and of early Christianity. For example, the temptation stories in Mathew and Luke have in their background the temptation of Adam in Genesis. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. Adam’s ancestry is listed as the "son of God." It is interesting that Luke’s genealogy of Jesus, ending with Adam, is immediately followed with the temptation story. For the early church, the significance of Jesus was understood, at least in part, in light of the downfall of Adam. (Scott A. Deane, MATS, Philippians 2:6-11, Radical Reformation Vol.7 No.1, 1997)

As in any exegesis of any verse, one must always interpret it in the context in which it was written. So at this time please open your Bible and read from verse 1 – 12. First we are going to cover the context and then the point of this hymn, and then we will do a line by line exegesis.

Let’s review the context first. In verse 1-2 Paul is telling the Philippians to be of the same mind, to show the same love. In verse 3 he tells them not to do anything out of selfishness or vainglory, but to be humble. He tells them to regard OTHERS as more important than themselves. To consider other’s interests as more important than their own. All this is happening during a time of persecution.

Then in verses 5-8 he uses the life of Christ as an example of what he is speaking about. He tells them to have the same attitude as Christ.

The point of the hymn in this context is that suffering, humility, and obedience to God for the faith leads ultimately to exaltation.

Now that we have covered the context in verses 1-5, we are ready for the first controversy in verse 6. There are two different interpretations. The first is from the KJV, it states:

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

The majority of Bibles including the NAB, NASB, NRSV, NIV, and The Amplified Bible, just to name a few, interpret it as:

"Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped."

First let us get an understanding of the phrase "Who being in the form of God." The key being the word "form."

The word form (morphe) and image (eikon) are interchangeable. R.P. Martin ("Morphe in Philippians 2:6," Expository Times, Vol. 70, no.6, March 1959, 183-184) states:

"That morphe and eikon are equivalent terms that are used interchangeably in the LXX."

James Dunn states in Christology in the Making pg.115:

"It has long been recognized that morphe and eikon are near synonyms."

An understanding of image will help us in the understanding of form. Let us look at their definitions. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary it means:

Form (morphe) – nature. Comes from the base of the word meros that means to have an allotment, a division or share, piece, portion.

Image (eikon) – likeness, or figuratively a representation.

Being in the form or image of something means that it is not the original. If I have something that is in the form or image of a lion, then it is not really a lion. If it was, I would not have to say that it was in the form or image of a lion, I would just say that it is a lion.

Man was made in the image of God. God made man as a representation of himself. Someone he could share a piece of himself (having the spirit of God in us) with.

Gen.1:27 – "God created man in his image."

1 Cor. 11:7 "Because he (man) is the image and glory of God."

These verses do not mean that because we are the image of God that we are God. It means that God made us with his attributes. We have the ability to think (do his will) and to love like God.

These next two verses do not mean that Jesus is God in the same way that the verses above do not mean that man is God. They mean that Jesus is the image of God because as God’s anointed he does the will of God and loved us (as God does) enough to die for us. Jesus and God’s purpose are one and the same. Our purpose should be the same as Christ’s. This is what Paul is telling the Philippians in verse 5, to have the same attitude (the image) as Christ.

2 Cor. 4:4 – "Christ who is the image of God."

Colossians 1:1 – "He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God."

When we are reborn or renewed we then bear the image of Christ and of God (because they are one in purpose) because we put away the old self and put on the new self which now does the will of God.

Colossians 3:10 says it clearly:

"Stop lying to one another, since you have taken off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed, for knowledge, in the image of its creator."

This next verse is also a good example. The disobedient are said to have a form of godliness. It doesn’t mean that they are God, in this verse it means that they pretend to be like God (righteous), but in reality are not.

2 Tim. 3:5 – "Having a form (the disobedient) of godliness but denying its power."

The KJV basically says that Jesus did not think anything wrong of being considered equal with God. This is contrary to the Adam Christology that is being applied and in total contradiction to the context of this chapter which is humility, selflessness, to be a slave of, not to be equal with, especially with God.

Now let’s see how this understanding of the word "form" fits in this passage. Let us look at both verses again.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

"Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped."

Let us review the context of this chapter. It is about being humble. It is about putting others ahead of oneself. Of making others more important than oneself like Christ did. Christ put God’s interests (God’s will) and ours ahead of himself just like we should put other’s interests ahead of our own.

The KJV interpretation of verse 6 goes completely contrary to that idea. It does not convey humility, it states the opposite, grandeur. It says that although Jesus was like, or represented God, that he did not think that there was anything wrong in being considered equal to God. It is basically hypocritical.

The other Bible interpretations are in line with the context of the chapter. Their sense is determined by their role within Adam Christology.

The conclusion to these verses is that Jesus is the second Adam created in the image of God as Adam was. As Adam, Jesus is in esteemed position, they are both called "son of God." Like Adam, Jesus was faced with a choice: seek his own interests or God’s; obey or rebel.

Adam’s temptation was that he wanted to be like God (Gen. 3:5). Adam sought to grasp (the NRSV has grasp as, "something to be exploited") equality with God. But Jesus in contrast to Adam’s selfish choice did not seek to usurp God’s authority but instead took the position of a slave to God and obeyed him to the point of death.

Now on to verse 7-9. It says:

"Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him."

Let me start with the phrase "he emptied himself." Many people use this verse in defense of the Trinity when confronted with questions such as

"If Jesus is omniscient then how come he does not know the day of his return?

Their answer is that Jesus doesn’t know that because he emptied himself of His divinity when he came as Jesus.

This idea has an actual name. It is called the Kenotic Doctrine. Before going on, let me show you the Creed of the Council of Chalcedon, which is the definition of Jesus which all good Trinitarians adhere to, Catholic and Protestant.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by CHRISTgospel
Old Shepherd...my you are riled, yes?

Not a bit just pointing out the errors in your post.

And please do share what you feel Mr. Buzzard teaches against Christ's gospel.

Please do go back and read my posts. I posted evidence that two of the Buzzard's quotes were phony!

 

[OldShepherd]

Posted by CG
Hebrews 1: 3 - 4: "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of The Majesty in Heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."

Q. Who’s right hand did he sit next to? Aren’t Jesus and The Majesty the same being?

Q. If Jesus is supposed to be co-equal with God the Father, what does "He became superior mean?" Isn’t Jesus, if he is God, superior to all already?

This verse has been used to try and prove the Trinity and the preexistence of Christ. The argument is that according to the verse, Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. The second argument is that Jesus being God, emptied himself of his divinity when he came as Jesus. We will look at both of these claims and in the process we will give you what I believe to be the correct interpretation of this verse.

Before starting let me state the best way to understand these verses. This hymn is best understood within the framework of Adam Christology (James Dunn, Christology in the Making pg. 114-115).

Though the hymn is obviously about Christ, it defines him against the background of Adam’s failure. The hymn presupposes Adam’s fateful choice, his desire to "be like God," (Gen. 3:5), his failure, and his downfall. Jesus is the second Adam. Where the first Adam failed, the second Adam is victorious. Where the first Adam sought his own interests, the second Adam remained obedient to the point of death.

You start off quoting Heb 1:3-4 and then say, “This verse has been used to try and prove the Trinity and the preexistence of Christ.” and then start into a discussion of what appears to be Philip 2:6, ff., and never show any connection to Hebrews 1.

Second, this is a mildly interesting, but not convincing, cut and paste from Dunn and Deane. But it begs the question, i.e. presumes Dunn’s, Adam Christology theory to be true, proceeds on and interprets Hebrews to conform to, that presupposition, without ever offering any proof for his theory. Similarity is not proof!

The first thing you need to do, or Dunn since you are quoting him, is prove that the writer of Hebrews, presumably Paul, did in fact have Dunn’s Adam theory in mind when he wrote Hebrews. Good luck.

I don’t know who Dunn is. So in the meantime let us review the exegesis of Philp 2:6 by A. T. Robertson, who taught post graduate N.T. Greek, i.e. doctoral students, for forty seven years, wrote 40 books on the N.T., a 1200 page Greek grammar, and a six volume, Word Pictures in the N.T., (RWP), from which I am quoting.

{Being} (\huparchôn\). Rather, "existing," present active participle of \huparchô In the form of God (\en morphêi theou\). \Morphê\ means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. {A prize} (\harpagmon\). Predicate accusative with \hêgêsato Originally words in mos\ signified the act, not the result (ma\). The few examples of \harpagmos\ (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to \harpagma\, like \baptismos\ and \baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery").

{To be on an equality with God} (\to einai isa theoi\). Accusative articular infinitive object of \hêgêsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \theôi\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in #Re 21:16. {Emptied himself} (\heauton ekenôse\). First aorist active indicative of \kenoô\, old verb from \kenos\, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a \Kenosis\ doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).

CG: “An understanding of image will help us in the understanding of form. Let us look at their definitions. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary it means:
Form (morphe) – nature. Comes from the base of the word meros that means to have an allotment, a division or share, piece, portion.
Image (eikon) – likeness, or figuratively a representation."

Note, morphe is used only three times in the N.T. and only of Jesus! And in Phip 2:6 Jesus was existing in the “morphe” of God and was equal with God. The form of equal, “Accusative articular infinitive” makes it a done deal, not something considered and rejected.


3444 morfh morphe mor-fay’
perhaps from the base of 3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); TDNT - 4:742,607; n f
AV - form 3; 3
1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision
2) external appearance
For Synonyms see entry 5865 & 5933

Note, eikon is not listed as a synonym for morphe in Strong’s. And either you or Dunn misrepresent the meaning of meros.

3313 meroV meros mer’-os
from an obsolete but more primary form of meiromai (to get as a section or allotment); TDNT - 4:594,585; n n
AV - part 24, portion 3, coast 3, behalf 2, respect 2, misc 9; 43
1) a part
1a) a part due or assigned to one
1b) lot, destiny
2) one of the constituent parts of a whole
2a) in part, partly, in a measure, to some degree, as respects a part, severally, individually
2b) any particular, in regard to this, in this respect

504 eikwn eikon i-kone’
from 1503; TDNT - 2:381,203; n f
AV - image 23; 23
1) an image, figure, likeness
1a) an image of the things (the heavenly things)
1a1) used of the moral likeness of renewed men to God
1a2) the image of the Son of God, into which true Christians are transformed, is likeness not only to the heavenly body, but also to the most holy and blessed state of mind, which Christ possesses
1b) the image of one
1b1) one in whom the likeness of any one is seen
1b2) applied to man on account of his power of command
1b3) to Christ on account of his divine nature and absolute moral excellence

As I said,"eikon" and "morphe" are not synonyms! After this I will go back and respond to your post with the long laundry list of out of context "proof texts." But first, since you like to ask questions, here is one for you.

Q: Who is God calling God in Psalm 45:6,7? Hint, Heb 1. Another helpful area of research are the writings of Link to: The Early Church Fathers (ECF), Irenaeus and Justin are most helpful.

Psalm 45:6 ¶ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
hdy rza rwql

 

[Thunderchild]

The word form (morphe) and image (eikon) are interchangeable. R.P. Martin ("Morphe in Philippians 2:6," Expository Times, Vol

Oh, Old Shepherd already dealt with it, and with far more academic aclarity than I could have mustered.

Does Eikon mean "in very substance" - the same meaning as "morphe"? .... Didn't think so.

 

[Thunderchild]

3313 meroV meros mer’-os

 

OK - what gives with the Greek Letters appearing in posts. How does one go about doing it?

 

[Thunderchild]

Ah - so that is how it is done. Wunnerful.

 

[Thunderchild]

kai ous men eleeite diakrinomenoi

 

[Thunderchild]

No - I would not have keyed in God the Son.

To take up the correlations properly, it would have had to read:
God the Father/ man the spirit
God the Word/ man the soul

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Ah - so that is how it is done. Wunnerful.

Apologize for not answering sooner, been gone for a day or two, back for a day, then gone again. You seem to have found the proper Vb code for the Greek. Hebrew should also display using . Another way for the Hebrew is using the ISO code. For example Hebrew aleph is ISO code 1488, type &#****;, where **** represents a number from 1488 to 1514, e.g., א I recommend also using for the Greek. Notice how small the Greek you posted is. But place the size code outside the font code, or you will see the code displayed as Greek characters. Experience.

 

[OldShepherd]

CG,

Just in case you are too busy here is a brief quote from, Link to: Irenaeus, Against All Heresies, Book III, (AD 120-202)

Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

Chapter VI-The Holy Ghost, Throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, Made Mention of No Other God or Lord, Save Him Who is the True God.

1. Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."22 Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven."23 For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: "Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee."24 For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God-both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: "God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods."25 He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God-that is, the Son Himself-has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: "The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth."26 Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, "God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; "27 that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, "I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not."28 But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High."29 To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."30

And also a quote from Link to: Justin Martyr’s, Dialogue with Trypho, (AD 100-165)

Chapter XI.-The Law Abrogated; The New Testament Promised and Given by God.
"There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing" (I thus addressed him), "but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.

I answered, "This, too, has been already demonstrated by me in the previously quoted words of the prophecies, my friends; which, by recalling and expounding for your sakes, I shall endeavour to lead you to agree with me also about this matter. The passage, then, which Isaiah records, `Who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken away from the earth, '232 -does it not appear to you to refer to One who, not having descent from men, was said to be delivered over to death by God for the transgressions of the people?-of whose blood, Moses (as I mentioned before), when speaking in parable, said, that He would wash His garments in the blood of the grape; since His blood did not spring from the seed of man, but from the will of God. And then, what is said by David, `In the splendours of Thy holiness have I begotten Thee from the womb, before the morning star.233 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, '234 -does this not declare to you235 that [He was] from of old,236 and that the God and Father of all things intended Him to be begotten by a human womb? And speaking in other words, which also have been already quoted, [he says]: `Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hast hated iniquity: therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows. [He hath anointed Thee] with myrrh, and oil, and cassia from Thy garments, from the ivory palaces, whereby they made Thee glad. Kings' daughters are in Thy honour. The queen stood at Thy right hand, clad in garments embroidered with gold.237 Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear, and forget thy people and the house of thy father; and the King shall desire thy beauty: because he is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.'238 Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things,239 as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.

לקיך אזך י&#1491ה

 

[sojeru]

Hi Old shepard,
You said:
In the pre-Massoretic pointed Hebrew scriptures "Adonai" was written aleph-daleth-nun-yod but "Adoni" was written aleph-daleth-nun-yod. Notice that the Hebrew consonantal spelling is exactly the same. Could it be that the Massoretic vowel pointing was a 10th century Jewish backlash against the Trinity and Christianity? Particularly since the only real Trinity outside of Christianity originated within pre-Christian Judaism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree completely,
here is another insight, Next to Gd was the king(earthly) and angels- andyes, angels were revrenced a respect, however not in the stature of a "lord" unless it was one who is like dani'el(not a king).
And if David, the king were to call someone else "my lord"---WHILE BEING king, he would be denouncing his throne and thus his house cannot inherit the thone.
Messiah was right in what he said.
A house is a family, it makes no matter if that person is not of that seed, however they MUST be a part of that family. Jesus by human ature was levite/jehudite of the family of judah- He on the other hand was the "seed/word sprinkled on the ground of the farmers hand". and was adopted by Joseph the son of David of the throne. How was he adopted? BABA BATHRA 8 (a jewish tractate) gives evidence on how he can be allowed to sit on the throne as being the first born to a man that is not his biological father.