Tag: god

PSALM 110:1: ADONI OR ADONAI?

The following is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 5: The Lamb upon His Throne: Jesus’ Divine Seat, Chapter 36: Sitting at God’s Right Hand, pp. 677-681.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.

LORD, MY LORD, AND THE LORD

Before we discuss Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 in his answer to Caiaphas’s question, we need to discuss the different forms of the word “lord” as found in most English Bibles. The ESV translates verse 1, “The Lord says to my Lord,” as do several other modern versions (CSB, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT). Other English versions read almost identically: “The Lord says to my lord” (NABRE, NIV, NRSV, TNK). As we discussed earlier in this book (see especially pp. 469–70), where English Bibles have the title “Lord” (with small capital letters), this translates the Hebrew divine name YHWH, commonly represented in English as Jehovah or Yahweh. Thus, a more literal translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 110:1 would be “Yahweh says to my lord” (cf. ASV, LEB). The Septuagint reads, “The Lord [ho kyrios] said to my Lord [tō kyriō mou]” (Ps. 109:1 LXX), and this is how it is always quoted in the New Testament. It is also likely that Jesus used a form of the Aramaic word for “Lord” (mārēʾ) in place of YHWH when he quoted the verse aloud, as this was the conventional Jewish practice at the time. As Darrell Bock points out, “The minute such a substitution was made, the ambiguity would exist in Aramaic.”⁶ So don’t blame English versions for the two occurrences of “Lord.”

Unitarian apologist Anthony Buzzard leverages the use of ʾădōnî in the MT of Psalm 110:1 as one of his main arguments against the deity of Christ. He complains about translations that say “my Lord,” insisting that the word must be translated with a lower-case l, “my lord.” According to Buzzard, ʾădōnî should always be translated “lord” while ʾădōnāy should always be translated “Lord.” He goes so far as to assert, “The clarity and precision of the Hebrew text was marred by the ‘curse of the capital.’”⁷Buzzard also especially reproaches “Trinitarian” authors who have erroneously stated that Psalm 110:1 uses the word ʾădōnāy and who infer from this mistaken premise that Psalm 110:1 explicitly identifies the future Messiah as God.⁸ Buzzard actually tries to argue in reverse, claiming that ʾădōnî is the form of the word for “lord” that “expressly tells us that the one so designated is not God, but a human superior.”⁹In short, according to Buzzard, the fact that Psalm 110:1 calls the future Messiah (Jesus) ʾădōnî proves that Jesus is not God!

We have already thoroughly responded to Buzzard’s view of the title “Lord” in the New Testament, which focused on Acts 2:36 as his main proof text (see pp. 477–81). Here we will address his interpretation of Psalm 110:1, which will require a deep dive into the forms of the Hebrew noun. Buzzard’s argument presupposes that the distinction between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy predated the time of Jesus; indeed, his argument requires that the distinction was in place when Psalm 110 was written. This is definitely not the case with regard to the written text. We are not dealing with two different nouns. In ancient manuscripts, the noun as represented by these two standard forms ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy would appear exactly the same, with only what we would call the consonants, ʾDNY (אדני).¹⁰ Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left, so aleph [א [is the first letter [transliterated in English letters like this:ʾ]. By the way, the yodh [י[, not to be confused with the English transliteration of aleph, can express a consonantal sound or a vowel sound. That’s why you will see yodh transliterated sometimes with i and sometimes with y.) The full spellings on which Buzzard’s argument depends derive from the little marks, called vowel points, placed under or after the consonants in the medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Thus, ʾDNY becomes ʾaDoNY (ʾădōnî) and ʾaDoNāY (ʾădōnāy, or adonai).¹¹ This distinction between the two forms is not represented in any visible way in ancient Hebrew texts. Looking at Psalm 110:1 in an ancient manuscript, you would see simply ʾDNY.

Buzzard knows this. He admits that the vowel points “were added much later than New Testament times.” However, he argues that the medieval Masoretic scribes who produced the Hebrew manuscripts (the MT) added the vowel points to preserve “how the text was read in the synagogues.” In other words, he claims that while the ancient manuscripts did not distinguish visually between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy, the Jews used these two different forms when reading or reciting aloud from the Hebrew text. Furthermore, Buzzard asserts that the result is absolutely reliable: “The Masoretes who faithfully pointed the Hebrew text with meticulous care distinguished between a nonDeity lord and the Deity who was the Lord God. . . . The Jews were almost fanatically careful in what they regarded as the sacred task of copying the scriptural text.”¹²

As one might expect, we do not have any way of knowing precisely when Jews began using the two different forms of ʾDNY when speaking the words of Scripture aloud. However, the dominant view in biblical scholarship is that the distinction probably arose long after Psalm 110 was written, and quite possibly after the period of the New Testament. In any case, the idea that the forms of this word were fixed in every occurrence from biblical times down to the Masoretic era is untenable. Even some of the reference works that Buzzard quotes in support of his view make this quite clear. For example, Buzzard quotes selectively from the entry on “Lord” in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons, but he omits (without an ellipsis) the following statements from the same pages he cites:

It is difficult to trace precisely this development from the use of ʾădōnāy as a title to its use as a name, because it cannot be excluded that the Hebrew text of the OT was edited according to new theological and liturgical insights. In the transmission of the text the final form of this name may have been used to replace older forms. . . . We have to reckon with the possibility mentioned above of editors changing the original text, e.g. its vocals, according to later principles.¹³

Buzzard even goes so far as to alter one of the entry’s sentences in a way that clearly changes its meaning. He quotes it as saying, “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.”¹⁴ The bracketed words “God is addressed” lead the reader to understand the dictionary to be explaining why people in Old Testament times addressed God with this particular form of the noun. However, what the entry says is this: “The reason why this is written ʾădōnāy instead of the normal ʾādôn, ʾădōnî, or ʾădōnāy may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords.”¹⁵ In context, the author was explaining why this particular written form of the word was adopted, some centuries after the Old Testament books were originally written.

In another reference work from which Buzzard quotes selectively, he omits the following statement in the same entry: “Original reading probably in all cases ʾadōnay.”¹⁶ That is, according to this reference work (a lexicon, which uses shortened sentence structure), the Hebrew text originally used ʾadōnay where it later, due to the editorial work of the Masoretes, distinguishes between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy.

There is something peculiar that follows from the claim that Psalm 110:1 was originally understood as expressing the word ʾădōnî to mean a “non-Deity lord” in contrast to ʾădōnāy. In the MT, the word ʾădōnî occurs 278 times, including Psalm 110:1. Yet it occurs nowhere else in the Psalms (the longest book of the Bible) or in any of the other wisdom books of the Old Testament (Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes). On the other hand, in the MT, the Psalms uses the word ʾădōnāy 54 times. These statistics don’t prove what the word originally meant in Psalm 110:1, but they do raise some doubt about the claim that Psalm 110:1 originally expressed the specific form of the noun found in the MT and did so in order to deny that the future Messiah would be deity.

According to Buzzard, “There should be no need to have to argue that the Hebrew Masoretic text is correct in Psalm 110:1. There is not a shred of evidence of corruption of the text here.”¹⁷ However, just a dozen pages earlier, Buzzard had expressed his approval of the Septuagint wording of Psalm 110:3b, which he quotes as follows: “From the womb, before the morning star, did I beget you” (see Ps. 109:3b LXX).¹⁸If this wording of verse 3 is correct, though, it means the Masoretes failed to preserve the correct wording, because in the MT Psalm 110:3b says something like, “From the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours”! Besides the reference to the dew (which is in the Hebrew text but not in the Greek text), the main difference here is that the Hebrew consonantal word YLDTYK can be given vowel points to say “your youth” (yaldūteykā, as in the Hebrew MT) or “I have begotten you” (yelidtîykā, as translated in Psalm 109:3 LXX, exegennēsa se, cf. Ps. 2:7).¹⁹

There are significant textual variants even among the medieval Hebrew manuscripts in Psalm 110:3. For example, the MT in the first part of verse 3 refers to “holy garments” (hadrê qōdeš, see ESV, NLT; cf. LEB, NASB, NIV), while other medieval Hebrew manuscripts as well as some ancient witnesses to the text have “holy mountains” (harrê qōdeš, see NRSV, cf. NET).²⁰ In this instance, the variant is not merely a difference in vowel pointing, but in the consonantal text itself. The bottom line is that serious biblical scholars, while they greatly respect the MT, do not take it as absolute, let alone profess to do so where convenient while elsewhere preferring alternate texts, as Buzzard does with Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110:3.

Buzzard’s whole line of argument here proceeds from the false premise that if the Bible describes the Messiah in human, non-divine terms, this means he cannot be divine. In orthodox Christian theology, Jesus the Messiah is both human and divine. The divine Son came into the world as a mortal human, lived, died, and rose from the dead. Biblical affirmations of the humanity of the Messiah are a feature, not a bug, from an orthodox perspective. Likewise, the fact that Psalm 110:1 refers to the Father as Yahweh and the Son as “my lord” is no more problematic theologically than the New Testament practice of using “God” for the Father and such titles as “Christ” for Jesus (see pp. 677–81).

As for Buzzard’s assertion that Psalm 110:1 should be translated with “my lord” rather than “my Lord,” many translators and commentators already take this position. They would agree with him that since ʾădōnî is regularly translated “my lord” elsewhere in the Old Testament, we should do so also in Psalm 110:1, assuming we are translating the MT. This is a respectable position, though it does not justify Buzzard’s inflamed rhetoric. There is another side to this issue, however. This is not just anyone who is being addressed as “my lord.” Whoever this figure is, he is being invited to sit at God’s right hand and to rule as a king and priest forever (110:1, 4). As Jesus argued, that makes this figure greater than David; it makes him greater than any other human. Read in this way, the form of address found in Psalm 110:1 goes far beyond the ordinary courtesies of ancient cultural conventions in which someone politely addresses a king or other authority figure as “my lord.”

From a New Testament perspective, ultimately Psalm 110:1 pointed ahead beyond any Old Testament king to the one whom the New Testament calls “the Lord Jesus” or “the Lord Jesus Christ.” If we translate Psalm 110:1 as part of the whole canon of Scripture, it is not wrong to capitalize “Lord” in this context. We turn, then, to consider whether this New Testament perspective is a valid way of reading Psalm 110.

6. Bock, “Use of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ Trial,” 81.

7. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 162.

8. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 157–61. Buzzard’s most notable example of a scholarly work making this mistake is Louis A. Barbieri Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2:73.

9. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 158.

10. In one instance, ădônāy is spelled with the consonant vav, also called waw (ו), in the middle, functioning like the vowel o (Judg. 13:8).

11. The root noun ʾădōn (אדנ (or ʾādôn (אדונ (occurs 44 times in the OT, 20 times meaning a human lord or master (Ps. 105:21; Jer. 22:18; 34:5) and 24 times the Lord God (e.g., Josh. 3:11, 13; Pss. 97:5; 114:7; Zech. 4:14; 6:5). With the definite article, hāʾādōn or hāʾădōn, the title always means “the Lord,” that is, God (8 times).

12. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 168, 172.

13. Klaas Spronk, “Lord,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 531, 532.

14. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 174–75, bracketed words Buzzard’s.

15. Spronk, “Lord,” 532, emphasis added. 16. BDB, s.v. ʾādôn, 10; cf. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 174.

17. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 173.

18. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 161. Buzzard claims quite implausibly that Psalm 109:3 LXX means that God “begat” the Messiah when Jesus was born of a virgin. The text says that the Messiah was begotten before the “morning star” or perhaps the “morning,” which is more consistent with his preexistence (see above, chaps. 10–12).

19. Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Revised Edition), vol. 5: Psalms, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 815.

20. See NET Bible, 2nd ed. (2019), Ps. 110:3 n.

This next excerpt is from pp. 687-689.

SITTING AT GOD’S RIGHT HAND IN HEAVEN

There are, of course, many other passages in the Old Testament (especially though by no means exclusively in the Psalms) that point forward in various ways to the Messiah. However, Psalm 110 is unique in speaking of the Davidic king (with the Messiah as the full realization of this picture) as sitting at Yahweh’s right hand. A few texts speak of Solomon sitting on the throne of Yahweh (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8), while others speak of Yahweh sitting enthroned in Zion (Ps. 9:7, 11) or of Jerusalem or the temple as his throne (Jer. 3:17; Ezek. 43:4–7). The Old Testament also occasionally speaks of Yahweh being “enthroned on the cherubim,” that is, sitting on or between the images of the cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:22; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; Pss. 80:1; 99:1). Yet nowhere except in Psalm 110:1 does the Old Testament picture Yahweh and the human king sitting enthroned side by side.

More commonly, the Old Testament pictures God’s “throne” as being in heaven (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron. 18:18; Pss. 11:4; 33:13–14; 97:1–2, 9; 103:19; 113:4–6; 123:1; Isa. 66:1). Psalm 2, a text that in other respects has several clear verbal and thematic parallels to Psalm 110, actually contrasts Yahweh sitting enthroned in heaven (Ps. 2:4) with the Davidic king sitting on his throne in Zion (2:6).

Evidently, Jesus drew on Psalm 110:1 in his response to Caiaphas because it said something that went beyond what more conventional messianic passages said. While in a purely metaphorical, typological sense, Psalm 110:1 might be read as saying that Solomon or other Davidic kings sat at God’s “right hand” on the throne in Jerusalem, Jesus took the statement in its fullest possible sense—that he was actually going to be ruling alongside God in heaven. Indeed, had Jesus claimed that he was going to rule as Messiah from Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin would not have considered such a claim blasphemous (though presumably they would have vociferously disagreed). Many if not most Jews hoped for a messianic king who would do just that.

On the other hand, Caiaphas probably would not have deemed it blasphemous for Jesus to claim he was going to enter God’s presence in heaven. The Old Testament reported that other human beings had done so without even dying (notably Enoch and Elijah). “The possibility of a heavenly abode offended no Jew who believed in an afterlife for the righteous.”⁴² However, to sit at God’s right side, meaning alongside God in heaven, was another matter altogether. In the religious and cultural milieu of Jesus, to claim to be a king who would sit at God’s right hand in heaven was tantamount to claiming equality with God.

As we explained earlier in this chapter, Jewish literature during the general time period of the New Testament also does not speak of any human or angelic creature sitting alongside God in heaven. There are texts that picture some figure, such as Moses or (possibly) Enoch, sitting on God’s throne, and we will discuss these references in the next chapter. However, even these texts do not speak of such figures sitting at God’s right hand in heaven. As best we can tell, this element of Jesus’ statement was unprecedented.

We may illustrate the point with the story of the King of Siam and Anna, the nineteenth-century English schoolteacher hired to teach his children, most memorably told in Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein’s musical The King and I. Anna flouts Siamese court protocol by barging into the king’s throne room unannounced, standing in the king’s presence when he is sitting, or by sitting with her head as high or higher than the king. Protocol required that all subjects of the king were to keep their heads lower than his at all times. This sort of royal protocol was well understood (and usually scrupulously observed) in most cultures until the rise of democracy in modern times—the very cultural shift celebrated in The King and I. For Jesus to claim that he would sit at God’s right hand was akin to claiming, in what used to be called an “Oriental” cultural context, that he would be entitled to have his head as high as that of the king.

Jesus, then, was claiming the right to go directly into God’s “throne room” and sit at his side. The temerity of such a claim for any mere human would be astonishing to the Jews of Jesus’ day.⁴³ The priests of the Sanhedrin, to whom Jesus made this claim, could not, as a rule, even go into the inner sanctum of the temple, known as the holy of holies. Many of them had probably never been inside it. The holy of holies could only be entered on a specific day in specific ways by one specific person. Failure to follow instructions resulted in death. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies with a bull to sacrifice for personal purification and a ram to burn for atonement. This was followed by a change of garments and ritual washings (Lev. 16:3–5). In other words, God’s presence in the temple was entered cautiously.

If entrance requirements to the earthly holy of holies were so strict, we can imagine what the Sanhedrin priests would have thought about Jesus claiming he would enter God’s heavenly sanctuary. Worse still, Jesus claimed he would enter the heavenly holies of holies and sit down. As Darrell Bock puts it, Jesus’ claim “would be worse, in the leadership’s view, than claiming the right to be able to walk into the holy of holies in the earthly temple and live there.”⁴⁴ His statement amounted to claiming that he owned the place!

42. Darrell L. Bock, “Jesus as Blasphemer,” in Who Do My Opponents Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, LNTS 327 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 78.

43. What follows in the rest of this paragraph and in the next is essentially repeated from Komoszeswki, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, 178.

44. Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 375.

45. Richard Bauckham, “The Power and the Glory: The Rendering of Psalm 110:1 in Mark 14:62,” in From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of G. K. Beale, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L. Gladd (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 83.

FURTHER READING

PSALM 110 IN EARLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Examining Psalm 110:1 — A look at Its Implications on God being a Multi-Personal Being and upon the Deity of Christ

Psalm 110:1 – Another Clear Testimony to Christ’s Deity Pt. 1

The Binitarian Nature of the Shema [Part 1]

DAVID’S MULTI-PERSONAL LORD PT. 2

APPEARANCE OF THE TRINITY TO ABRAHAM AND DAVID PT. 3

Revisiting the implications that Psalm 110 has on the divine identity of the Messiah Pt. 1

Solomon Was Not David’s Lord! Psalm 110:1 Revisited… Again!

JESUS CHRIST: THE LORD AND THE LORD’S SON

THE KING OF ISRAEL IS THE KING OF THE NATIONS

Daniel’s Dyadic Monotheism

The prophet Daniel saw a vision where he beheld two distinct divine Persons reigning forever over the entire world, where all nations and peoples in all languages worshiped them both:

“As I looked, ‘thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened… In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped (yipelachun) him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed… Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High (elyonin). His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship (yipelachun) and obey him.’ Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14, 27 New International Version (NIV)

The Aramaic word elyonin is plural and literally means “Most Highs/Highest Ones.” It is apparent from the context that the plural is an obvious reference to the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man, since they both reign over all creation together and forever.

The following expositor brings out the significance of Daniel’s imagery and its implication the complex nature of the one true God of Israel:

“The imagery of clouds in this scene is significant… But by far, its most frequent association is with theophanies–that is, appearances of God. Fifty-eight of the eighty-seven occurrences of anan appear in the context of God’s presence.⁶³ The Pentateuch, especially, speaks of visible manifestations of YHWH’s glory in the cloud atop Sinai and over the tent of meeting (e.g., Exod 24:16; 40:34-35), and his presence in the pillar of cloud guides the people through the wilderness (e.g., Num 14:14; Deut 31:15). Later texts about the temple also refer to the cloud (1 Kgs 8:11; Ezek 10:4).

“But it is not just the presence of clouds in Dan 7 that is significant–we already know YHWH (the Ancient of Days) is present in the throne room (see above on 7:9-10). What is particularly significant about the clouds in Dan 7 is that someone is coming with them (7:13b). Those of us outside of Daniel’s context may well picture someone floating into the throne room on a billowy heap of clouds,⁶⁴ but this is probably not what Daniel would have seen. In Daniel’s ancient Near Eastern context, he would have seen someone riding the clouds like a chariot. The Old Testament speaks of YHWH riding his cloud chariot through the heavens (Ps 104:3; cf. Ps 65:5[4] where the rider imagery is present without specifying the clouds), and the prophets speak of YHWH riding a cloud in judgment (Isa 19:1; cf. Jer 4:13; Nah 1:3). In the wider Canaanite world, the storm god Baal, was the Rider of the Clouds who controlled the weather and thus agricultural fertility. Armed with a bolt of lightning, he bestowed rain on faithful worshipers. In Ugarit, a fifteenth-century-BCE city-state on the Syrian coast north of Israel, Baal was the divine hero who had defeated Yamm in the sea god’s attempt to become god over the pantheon. Baal’s victory won him kingship among the gods, and he served as vice-regent under his father, the high god El, an aged wise figure who presided over the world and was attended by a divine council.

“Do not miss what is happening in Daniel’s vision. There is a fiery scene surrounding YHWH, seated on the throne, and there is a cloud with someone riding on it. In the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who rides the clouds. In this single vision, there are two YHWH figures: the Ancient of Days on the throne and the cloud-riding YHWH receiving the eternal right to rule. Daniel was seeing two powers in heaven–the one on the throne and a vice-regent, sharing YHWH’s essence and receiving everlasting dominion and power.

“Daniel’s vision of the throne room provides a stunning portrayal of the divine council in Israelite theology, as well as highlighting its most significant difference from other divine councils of the ancient Near East. In the Canaanite divine council, the Rider of the Clouds was El’s vice-regent and received eternal right to rule when he defeated Yamm. But Baal was a different god than El. In the Israelite divine council, however, the vice-regent position ‘was not filled by another god, but by Yahweh himself in another form. This “hypostasis” of Yahweh was the same essence as Yahweh but a distinct, second person.’⁶⁵ Israel’s divine council was headed by YHWH (El/Elohim), but its vice-regent shared the essence of YHWH. This has profound implications for understanding monotheism according to the Old Testament. Israel’s divine council had a ‘second person’ sharing YHWH’s essence–exactly what was needed to understand Jesus’ claim to be one with the Father in the New Testament.⁶⁶” (Wendy Widder, Daniel: A Discourse Analysis of the Hebrew Bible (23) (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament), Daniel L. Block (general editor) [Zondervan Academic, 2023], pp. 378-380; emphasis mine)

And:

“Perhaps the second reason ‘the Son of Man’ was Jesus’ favorite title is because it is in Daniel’s vision of ch. 7 that we find the clearest Old Testament picture of the divine council and in it, Jesus’ relationship to YHWH–probably the truth about him that his listeners had the hardest time grasping and accepting. In Daniel’s vision of the Israelite divine council, YHWH sat at the head of the council but shared his essence with a second power that was a distinct figure,¹⁴² to whom he gave everlasting dominion and power. This portrayal of the divine council shows that the Old Testament ‘monotheism’ had room for a ‘second person.’ Perhaps sending his listeners back to the vision of Dan 7 was Jesus’s repeated invitation for people to recognize him as that second person, to understand and believe that he was one with the Father (see the discussion above, pp. 378-380).¹⁴³

“We know that at least Jesus’s educated audience understood what he was doing in claiming to be ‘the Son of Man.’ We know this because they charged him with blasphemy when he used the title at his trial. Jesus told the Sanhedrin, ‘In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven’ (Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69), a clear reference to Dan 7:13, and they all heard him claim to share the essence of the Father,¹⁴⁴ the one who would ultimately exalt him and give him the everlasting kingdom. It was not a claim they could– or would–tolerate; they demanded his death.”

142. Any discussion of the nature of the Trinity ventures into a field of heretical landmines. Jesus will identify himself as the great “I Am,” which means he too is YHWH of the Old Testament; that is, “YHWH” is not simply God the Father, but all of the Godhead in singular reference. What we can say (without falling into heresy) is that there is an internal complexity within God that was not altogether apparent in the Old Testament. Jesus can be both distinguished from God and also identified as God…

144. The language of “essence” is loaded with later patristic theological value, but for our purposes, it means that the New Testament religious leaders understood Jesus to be claiming a specialized and exclusive relationship with God that put him on a par with him. Jesus was claiming an ontological share in the identity of Israel’s God. (Ibid., pp. 398-399; emphasis mine)

FURTHER READING

EARLY CHURCH & DANIEL’S MESSIANISM

Appearances of Christ in Daniel

Daniel’s Son of Man as the Messiah

The Son of Man Rides the Clouds Pt. 1a, Pt. 1b, Pt. 2a, Pt. 2b

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

CHRIST’S TITLES IN REV. 1-3

In this post I will demonstrate how the characteristics and functions attributed to Christ in Revelation 1 are either repeated or paralleled with the names and descriptions made about the risen Lord at the start of every exhortations and/or warnings to the seven churches, that John was commanded to write and send his scroll to. These messages to the seven churches are found in in chapters 2-3.

FIRST EXAMPLE

“and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler (ho archon) of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood.” 1:5

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: This is what the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning (he arche) of the creation of God, says… ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.’” 3:14, 21

It is clear that the terms archon and arche are meant to parallel one another, especially since later in the context of chapt. 3 Christ states that he will grant all those who conquer to be seated with him on his throne (Cf. 2:26-28). This, therefore, indicates that arche can also be rendered as “ruler,” i.e., Jesus is the Ruler of God’s creation, which is precisely how some versions render the expression (Cf. CEB, CJB, ERV, EHV, EXB, NCV, NIV, ).

SECOND EXAMPLE

“and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.” 1:13

“and having in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp two-edged sword which comes out of His mouth, and His face was like the sun shining in its power.” 1:16

“As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” 1:20

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: This is what the One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says:” 2:1

THIRD EXAMPLE

“And His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters,” 1:14-15

“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: This is what the Son of God, the One who has eyes like a flame of fire and His feet are like burnished bronze, says:” 2:18

FOURTH EXAMPLE

“and having in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp two-edged sword which comes out of His mouth, and His face was like the sun shining in its power.” 1:16

“And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: This is what the One who has the sharp two-edged sword says… Therefore repent. But if not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.” 2:12, 16

FIFTH EXAMPLE

“And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, ‘Do not fear; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.’” 1:17-18

“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: This is what the first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says:” 2:8

SIXTH EXAMPLE

“and having in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp two-edged sword which comes out of His mouth, and His face was like the sun shining in its power.” 1:16

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: This is what He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says:” 3:1

SEVENTH EXAMPLE

“and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” 1:18

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: This is what He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says:” 3:7

All scriptural references taken from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB),

FURTHER READING

REV. 3:14 REVISITED… ONE MORE TIME!

DANIEL 8 & HANUKKAH

In this short post I will be citing several commentaries on Daniel 8:11-14 to show its relevance to Hanukkah. All emphasis shall be mine.

af. Daniel 8:11 sn The prince of the army may refer to God (cf. “whose sanctuary” later in the verse) or to the angel Michael (cf. 12:1).

ag. Daniel 8:11 tn Or perhaps “and by him,” referring to Antiochus rather than to God.

ah. Daniel 8:11 sn Here the sanctuary is a reference to the temple of God in Jerusalem.

ai. Daniel 8:12 tc The present translation reads וּצְבָאָהּ נִתַּן (uts^evaʾah nittan, “and its army was given”) for the MT וְצָבָא תִּנָּתֵן (v^etsavaʾ tinnaten, “and an army was being given/will be given”). The context suggests a perfect rather than an imperfect verb.

aj. Daniel 8:12 tn Heb “in (the course of) rebellion.” The meaning of the phrase is difficult to determine. It could mean “due to rebellion,” referring to the failures of the Jews, but this is not likely since it is not a point made elsewhere in the book. The phrase more probably refers to the rebellion against God and the atrocities against the Jews epitomized by Antiochus.

ak. Daniel 8:12 tc Two medieval Hebrew mss and the LXX have a passive verb here: “truth was hurled to the ground” (cf. NIV, NCV, TEV).

al. Daniel 8:12 sn Truth here probably refers to the Torah. According to 1 Macc 1:56, Antiochus initiated destruction of the sacred books of the Jews.

am. Daniel 8:12 tn Heb “it acted and prospered.”

an. Daniel 8:13 sn The holy one referred to here is presumably an angel (cf. 4:13 [10AT], 23 [20AT]).

ao. Daniel 8:14 sn The language of evenings and mornings is reminiscent of the creation account in Genesis 1. Since “evening and morning” is the equivalent of a day, the reference here would be to 2,300 days. However, some interpreters understand the reference to be to the evening sacrifice and the morning sacrifice, in which case the reference would be to only 1,150 days. Either way, the event that marked the commencement of this period is unclear. The event that marked the conclusion of the period was the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem following the atrocious and sacrilegious acts that Antiochus implemented. This took place on December 25, 165 b.c. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah each year commemorates this victory.

ap. Daniel 8:14 tn Heb “will be vindicated” or “will be justified.” This is the only occurrence of this verb in the Niphal in the OT. English versions interpret it as “cleansed” (KJV, ASV), “restored” (NASB, TEV, NLT), or “reconsecrated” (NIV). (NET Bible)

11. It magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host. Note the progression, ‘magnified himself’ (4), ‘magnified himself exceedingly’ (8), until pride showed its ultimate goal in defying the Prince of both stars and monarchs, their Creator and God. This defiance took the form of a sacrilegious attack on the temple such as had taken place once already under Nebuchadrezzar. The continual burnt offering (Heb. tāmîd): ‘the continual’ is a technical term referring to the daily sacrifices, morning and evening, prescribed in Exodus 29:38–42. By the one word the whole sacrificial system is implied. The place of his sanctuary was overthrown represents a fair translation of the writer’s enigmatic style, with its ambiguous pronouns and prepositions. The word ‘place’ (mākôn) is reserved for God’s abode (cf. 1 Kgs 8:30, ‘heaven thy dwelling place’; 2 Chr. 6:2, the temple). An attack on the place set aside for worship of God is tantamount to an attack on God himself.

12. The obscurity of the first part of this verse is noted in the margin of rsv, and has puzzled translators from early times. The grammar is difficult and the sense hard to establish. The host was given over to it (Heb. ‘a host’ or army) seems to mean that the horn gained military support⁴ against (rather than together with) the daily sacrifices through transgression, on account of the transgression of God’s people. By a slight change of pointing and by redividing the consonants it is possible to translate ‘hosts he delivered up’, but then a verb needs to be supplied: [‘It rose up against] the continual burnt offering …’

Truth (God’s truth, that is) was cast down to the ground or, as we might say, ‘dragged in the mud’, and yet the horn not only went on with his plans but prospered.

13. In his vision the seer overheard the dialogue of two holy ones (see note on 4:10) asking not why this should be, which calls in question God’s moral ordering of events, but how long (cf. Ps. 6:3; Isa. 6:11; Zech. 1:12), which presupposes that God is limiting the triumph of evil. The rest of the verse summarizes what has gone before, though the trampling of host as well as sanctuary seems to add a further detail.

14. And he said to him is logical, and follows the ancient versions, but the Hebrew ‘to me’ may be the original. The seer was asking the same question. The answer is given in terms of the evening and morning sacrifices which would never be offered (verse 11: cf. Gen. 1:5) and by dividing this number by two the number of days can be arrived at, namely 1, 150, during which the sanctuary will be desecrated. This is less than three and a half years (cf. 7:25), a relatively short time, after which the sanctuary shall be restored, or ‘vindicated’ (Montgomery). (Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 23, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978], 175–176)

The Seleucids, 321–150 bc. Seleucus I, a Macedonian commander in Alexander’s army, took control of the province of Babylon in 321 bc; his dynasty ruled until 60 bc. The diagram includes those Seleucids who correspond to the king of the north in 11:5–39.

This horn progressed to such an extent that it affected heaven, much as the influence and power of Nebuchadnezzar had reached a point where it touched heaven (4:22 [19]) with its great arrogance. God decided to respond at that point and become involved. The heavenly armies, the heavenly beings, and the stars (8:10) refer to fierce opponents engaged in conflict both on earth and in heaven. Both earthly and heavenly realms suffer at the hands of this “small horn.” This is the genius of apocalyptic language and narrative. It reveals and ties together (earthly) history and (heavenly, spiritual) metahistory. “The glorious land” is none other than Israel (cf. 11:16, 41), God’s place of beauty reflecting the beauty of heaven. This small horn challenged God, the Commander of heaven’s army (8:11) by attacking the commanders and armies of his holy people on earth and by taking away their place of worship and daily expression of praise and worship of their God. Defeat for God’s people on earth is defeat for God’s forces in heaven. In all of this, the small horn (8:9) is like the little horn of chapter 7.

The Temple was not destroyed but cast down—that is, its function was interrupted (8:11) for a period of time. Antiochus IV did all of this (according to 1 Macc 1:41–64; 2 Macc 6:1–17; 9:1–10:9) to try to unify his kingdom as one people, with one religion, a Hellenistic cult. He saw a chance to combine the Seleucid (Syria) and Ptolemaic (Egypt) realms; others in the fourth empire of Daniel would have schemes even more grandiose (Green 2007:128). The actions of Antiochus IV parallel the themes of chapter 3 of Daniel in many ways, for there, an abominable idol was set up by the king, and everyone was forced to worship it. It is difficult to decipher 8:12; the NLT has a viable rendering (see note). Accepting this rendering, the army that was restrained is to be understood as both the earthly forces of the holy people Israel and their supportive cast in heaven. The small horn’s sin is specifically the removal of the daily sacrifice (8:11). Since the small horn succeeded, the truth of God’s law, true worship, and the proper expression of praise to God were under vicious attack, to the extent that the holy Scriptures were torn up and burned when they could be found (1 Macc 1:56–57).

Another possible rendering of 8:12 (see note) indicates that “an army was given over,” that is, permitted to be defeated for the time being during this rebellion. The rebellion, not only consisting of the actions of the small horn, would then also indicate the failure of some of God’s own people to keep his covenant. Subsequently, his wrath is poured out upon them (cf. Longman 1999:204; Collins 1993:335).

Verses 13–14 reveal that God is sovereign over all. The answer to the question of 8:13 translates into 1,115 days. The fact that two heavenly beings do the calculating makes the answer certain. During this time the Jews, the holy people, were compelled to “depart from the laws of their fathers, and to cease living by the laws of God,” and even to pollute the Temple (2 Macc 6:1–6). These events on earth brought about actions in the heavenly realm and vice versa, for God’s holy place and holy people on earth were being threatened and defiled. This period of time amounts to about three years or a little more (see note on 8:14), depending upon whether a 360-day year or a 365-day year is in mind.

Apocalyptic timing gives parameters of time that do not have to be worked out with mathematical precision. The times set by God to complete his goals are real, but are not intended to be worked out in detail so that his people can arrogantly predict the timing and events of history. They are markers of assurance and to be observed from the perspective of faith. God’s sovereignty orchestrates his plans according to his purposes. Accordingly, history records that Antiochus polluted the Temple in December (15th of Kislev), 167 bc, offering unclean sacrifices on it on the 25th of Kislev. It was cleansed and rededicated in December (25th of Kislev) three years later (cf. 1 Macc 1:54; 4:52–53; 2 Macc 10:5). (Hanukkah continues to commemorate this event; cf. John 10:22.) God had set a time when he would rescue and bring an end to the evil machinations of Antiochus IV. The word used to describe the restoration of the Temple in Daniel indicates not that it was to be rebuilt, but “set right”—i.e., made functional again. (Exactly why it must be set right will yet be revealed in 11:31; cf. 9:27.) Hence, the Temple was not physically destroyed (see note on 8:11). It is also significant to note that God’s people were not delivered en masse from this time of oppression until the end; that is, the end that extends far beyond the time of Antiochus IV. (Eugene Carpenter, “Daniel,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel & Daniel, ed. Philip W. Comfort, vol. 9 [Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2010], 413–414)

8:11 Although the “Prince” has been identified by some as the high priest Onias III, who was assassinated in 170 b.c., v. 25 calls this person the “Prince of princes,” a title that refers to God. Montgomery rightly contends, with the majority of scholars, that the “Prince” in v. 11 “can be none other than God.” Moreover, the language of this verse indicates that the Prince is no mere man.

Not only would the “horn” consider himself the Prince’s equal; he would also set himself “against” the Prince (an alternate translation of the Heb.). He felt that he and his Greek gods were above Yahweh, and he blatantly attacked Yahweh and his worshipers. For example, Antiochus insisted that the Jews refrain from following the Jewish religious laws (diet, circumcision, Sabbaths, and feasts); he desecrated Yahweh’s temple; he required allegiance to himself and the Greek gods rather than to Yahweh; and he showed disrespect to Yahweh by persecuting his followers (cf. 1 Macc 1:41–50). These were blatant offenses not only against the saints but against their God, “the Prince of the host.”

The “daily sacrifice” (Heb tāmîd, “continuity,” offerings made continually) refers to those morning and evening sacrifices the priests offered each day on behalf of the nation (cf. Exod 29:38–41; Num 28:3–8). Young argues that tāmîd is not limited to the daily sacrifices but denotes “all that is of continual, i.e., constant, permanent, use in the Temple services.” But the term is merely an abbreviated form of ʿōlat tāmîd, “a continual burnt offering” (Exod 29:42), which specifically designates the daily sacrifices. In either case the point is that temple worship would cease. In 167 b.c. Antiochus issued the order that the regular ceremonial observances to Yahweh were forbidden, and thus sacrifices ceased being offered to him (cf. 1 Macc 1:44–45).

“The place of his sanctuary” could refer to Jerusalem, but more likely it is the temple itself. “Brought low” does not mean that the temple was destroyed but that it would be desecrated (cf. 1 Macc 1:20–23, 47, 54; 2 Macc 6:2–5).

8:12 “Because of rebellion” (Heb. pešaʿ, also “revolt,” “transgression”) may allude to the sins of the Jewish people themselves that brought about divine judgment in the form of Antiochus’s persecutions, the particular acts of sin perpetrated upon Israel by Antiochus,³¹ or both. Probably the first alternative is correct because the books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees report that many in Israel were not faithful to their God and even adopted the idolatrous Greek religion (cf. 1 Macc 1:11–15, 43). These sins would have brought about God’s chastening in order to purify the nation.

During the three horrible years specifically in view (167–164 b.c.), the Jewish people (“the host of the saints”) were “given over” to Antiochus (the little horn) in the sense that the Syrian-Greek tyrant controlled Palestine and was able to persecute its citizens. The “daily sacrifice” would be terminated by Antiochus (cf. v. 11).

“It [the little horn, Antiochus] prospered in everything it did” reads literally, “And it acted and prospered.” The NIV’s rendering is possible, but these clauses may also mean that Antiochus would “act as he pleases and prosper” (cf. NASB). The latter understanding of the passage well describes Antiochus’s actions. For a time he held absolute power over Palestine and was successful in his military and political endeavors.

The evil dictator threw “truth … to the ground” (cf. Ezek 19:12) by repressing the true teachings (religion) of Yahweh and attempting to destroy the Hebrew Scriptures, which embodied the true religion. According to 1 Macc 1:56–57: “The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Where the book of the covenant was found in the possession of any one, or if any one adhered to the law, the decree of the king condemned him to death.” The satanically inspired king was endeavoring to rid the world of the Word of God as tyrants have attempted to do many times since. But as Jehoiakim discovered, one who tries to destroy the truth of God will find that he has only destroyed himself (Jer 36:20–31; cf. Dan 8:25).

8:13 Without introduction two heavenly beings suddenly appeared on the scene. Daniel “heard” an angel (“a holy one”) “speaking” (to another angel). A second angel (“holy one”) said to the one who was speaking, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled?”

The angel’s question is, How long would temple worship cease and the persecution of the saints described in Daniel’s vision continue? No services would be held in the temple because it would be defiled by Antiochus, and idols would be set up in the temple precincts. “The rebellion that causes desolation” likely alludes to the Zeus statue (or altar) set up by Antiochus in the temple and designated in 11:31 “the abomination that causes desolation.” The angel desired to know the duration of this period of desolation. Here it is demonstrated that angels are deeply interested in the affairs of God’s people.

8:14 The question also was asked for Daniel’s sake, since the answer was given to Daniel rather than the angel. Daniel was told that the desolation would last “2,300 evenings and mornings.” Most scholars believe that 2,300 evenings and mornings involve only a total of 1,150 days, since the 1,150 evening and 1,150 morning sacrifices (which would not be offered) equal a total of 2,300.³³ This method of calculation results in a period that was a little more than three years. In December 167 Antiochus set up an altar (and possibly a statue) to Zeus in the temple (1 Macc 1:54), and Judas Maccabeus rededicated the temple on December 14, 164 b.c. (1 Macc 4:52). According to the three-year view, the beginning date would be sometime near the setting up of this altar to Zeus, and the termination date would be the rededication of the temple; 1,150 days before December 14, 164 b.c. would fall in September/ October (Tishri) 167 b.c., whereas the altar to Zeus was set up one month and fifteen days later in December 167. Either the date is to be taken as a close approximation or, as Archer suggests, the daily sacrifice may have been abolished even before the altar was erected, a suggestion that is plausible.

On the other hand, Keil argues quite convincingly that the 2,300 evenings and mornings represent a total of 2,300 days, and many scholars follow this view.³⁶ First, Keil points out that in the Hebrew text the phrase is literally “until evening morning, 2,300.” He then demonstrates that in Old Testament usage an evening and morning specified a day (e.g., Gen 1). Second, he shows that when the Hebrews wished to make a distinction between the two parts of a day, the number of both was given, for example, “forty days and forty nights” (Gen 7:4, 12). Third, Keil correctly observes that appeal to Dan 7:25 and 9:27 to support a period of three and one-half years here is not valid since these passages do not describe the activities of Antiochus IV. Neither does Dan 12:11–12 speak of Antiochus (see discussion at 12:11–12).

S. J. Schwantes presents additional problems with the 1,150-day view. (1) “Daily sacrifice” (tāmîd) does not appear in v. 14 at all. It is found in 8:13 and is simply assumed to be the meaning of the “evenings and mornings” in this verse. (2) The term encompassed both sacrifices offered in the morning and evening (cf. Exod 29:38–42). The word tāmîd, therefore, represents one entity, not two. Thus “2,300 evenings and mornings” denotes 2,300 days with both a morning and an evening offering. (3) When the two daily sacrifices of the tāmîd are specified, the order in the Old Testament is always morning and evening, never evening and morning. Therefore Schwantes concludes with Keil that the expression reflects usage in Gen 1 and must represent 2,300 full days.

The case for the 2,300-day view seems conclusive, indicating that the period in view covered six years and almost four months. December 164 (the reconsecration of the sanctuary) is the termination date given in the text, thus the 2,300 days began in the fall of 170 b.c. Something significant must have occurred at that time that marked the beginning of the persecution, and such an event did take place. In 170 b.c. Onias III (a former high priest) was murdered at the urging of the wicked high priest Menelaus, whom Antiochus had appointed to that position for a bribe. From this point trouble between Antiochus’s administration and the Jews began to brew (cf. 2 Macc 4:7–50). In 169 b.c. Antiochus looted the temple and murdered some of the Jewish people (cf. 1 Macc 1:20–28). The altar to Zeus was not set up until 167 b.c., but the persecution had been going on long before that event. According to the 2,300-day view, therefore, the whole persecution period (the time that the saints “will be trampled underfoot”) was involved, not just the span from the cessation of the sacrifice and the desecration of the sanctuary until the rededication of the temple.⁴¹

Verse 14 concludes by stating that after this period of persecution, the temple would be “reconsecrated.” Just over three years after the altar to Zeus was set up, Judas Maccabeus cleansed and rededicated the temple on December 14, 164 b.c. (cf. 1 Macc 4:52). Today the Jews celebrate the Feast of Hanukkah (“dedication”) to commemorate this momentous event (cf. John 10:22). (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 226–230)

FURTHER READING

A Justification of the Translation of Dan. 9:24-27 in the KJV

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 1

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 2

MORE ON DANIEL’S MESSIANIC TIMELINE

MESSIANIC TIMELINE OF DANIEL REVISITED AGAIN

Jesus as the God of Gods Revisited

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

CHRIST & THE SCAPEGOAT