Acts 4:26, isn't the Christ himself the Lord?

Question

Acts 4:26 (DRB):

The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes assembled together against the Lord and his Christ.

The question is so simple:

Isn't the Christ himself the Lord?, How to say (against the Lord and his Christ) if he means by the Lord Jesus?

I know that Acts 4:26 is quotation from Psalm 2:2, but according to Trinity teaching, isn't Jesus himself the Lord?

The same is to be said with Revelation 11:15.

Revelation 11:15 (DRB):

And the seventh angel sounded the trumpet: and there were great voices in heaven, saying: The kingdom of this world is become our Lord's and his Christ's, and he shall reign for ever and ever. Amen.

Answer 1

Acts 4:25–26:

²⁵ Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? ²⁶ The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

Acts 4:25–26 is part of a quotation by the apostle Peter of David, as indicated by the phrase διὰ στόματος Δαβὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου εἰπών (“who by the mouth of Your servant David has said”). Peter is quoting Psa. 2:1–2, originally spoken by David:

Psa. 2:1–2:

¹ Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? ² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, ^{KJV, ©1769}

The capitalized “LORD” is the method by which the KJV indicated the Tetragrammaton, i.e., יהוה. In the Septuagint, the Tetragrammaton was translated into Greek by a declension of κυρίος,¹ which itself translates into English as “Lord.”

Context is Key

When “Lord” (κύριος) and “Christ” (Χριστός) occur together and are separated by a simple copula (e.g., καί), the former refers to the Father while the latter refers to Jesus Christ.

Frequency: Rare

Rev. 11:15:

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. ^{KJV, ©1769}

Καὶ ὁ ἕβδομος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ ἐγένοντο φωναὶ μεγάλαι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαι, ἐγένοντο αἱ βασιλεῖαι τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ^{TR, 1550}

cf. Acts 4:26

---

When “Lord” (κύριος) and “Christ” (Χριστός) occur together and are separated by a double copula (e.g., καί...καί),² both refer to Jesus Christ.

Frequency: Rare

Acts 2:36:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. ^{KJV, ©1769}

ἀσφαλῶς οὖν γινωσκέτω πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ ὅτι καὶ κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν αὐτὸν ὁ θεός ἐποίησεν τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε ^{TR, 1550}

---

When “God” (θεός) and “Lord” (κύριος) occur together, in this order, and are separated by a simple copula (e.g., καί), the former refers to the Father while the latter refers to Jesus Christ.

Frequency: Rare

1 Tim. 5:21:

I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. ^{KJV, ©1769}

Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων ἵνα ταῦτα φυλάξῃς χωρὶς προκρίματος μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ πρόσκλισιν ^{TR, 1550}

cf. 2 Thes. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:1

---

When “God” (θεός) and “Lord” (κύριος) occur together and are not separated by a copula (e.g., καί), both refer to the Father.

Frequency: Common

Luke 1:32:

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: ^{KJV, ©1769}

οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαβὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ^{TR, 1550}

This couplet, κύριος ὁ θεὸς, is common in quotations of the Old Testament where it was used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew יהוה אֱלֹהִים. It is also common in books of the New Testament with a substantial Old Testament influence (e.g., the apocalyptic style of Revelation).

cf. Luke 1:68; 1 Pet. 3:15; Rev. 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 18:8, 19:6, 21:22, 22:5, 22:6

---

When “Lord” (κύριος) and “Christ” (Χριστός) occur together without being separated by a copula, both refer to Jesus Christ.

Frequency: Rare

Col. 3:24:

Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. ^{KJV, ©1769}

εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας τῷ γὰρ κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε· ^{TR, 1550}

---

Footnotes

¹ Because the Jews would pronounce אֲדֹנָי wherever the Tetragrammaton יהוה was written in scripture.
² Thayer, p. 315, καί, 5.:

καί...καί, a repetition which indicates that of two things one takes place no less than the other: both...and...

References

Wilke, Christian Gottlob. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. Trans. Thayer, Joseph Henry. Ed. Grimm, Carl Ludwig Wilibald. Rev. ed. New York: American Book, 1889.

Answer 2

The Aramaic Bible in Plain English of Acts 4:26 says,“The Kings of The Earth stood up and the Rulers held counsel together against THE LORD JEHOVAH and against his Messiah.

The Sovereign Lord is THE LORD JEHOVAH, while Jesus is adoni (my lord} lord Christ. Psalm 110:1 says, Jehovah saith unto my Lord/adoni, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Luke 1:43 says, And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?

Luke 2:11 says, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.

God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:35-36 says, For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord/adoni, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages! The Lord in this verse is the Almgithy God not his Christ.1 Chronicles 29:11, Daniel 4:17 Revelation 12:10.

Answer 3

Acts 4:26...Isn't the Christ himself the Lord? is the question. Answer: Yes he is! The real question should be, however: Should the title of Lord be used in respect of the Father?

Soon, all nations will have to know that the Almighty is again to be known by his name, JHVH (Jehovah), or YHWH (Yahweh), which will no longer be profaned..."And I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned (disrespected) among the nations..." Ezek, 36:23 NASB. No longer will a mere title (Lord) be accepted as a substitute for...What did he say? Oh, yes, he said...My great name... Jesus, while on earth, with regard to the main prayer, the "Our Father", discloses the importance of the reverence of the name by saying that it should be (continually) sanctified/hallowed and even sees fit to lead off with same.

   As it was in the OT, so should it be in the NT

Why, oh why, should the onus be on us, mere mortals, to have to differentiate between the Almighty and Jesus, when it comes to the majority of "modern day" bible translations, which let's face it, have a trinitarian bias, when it comes to identification (but not limited to). We should use their names. At least they have ascribed names, and as was the custom in biblical times, they have distinct meanings, which is more than we can say for the, so called, Holy Spirit (capitalization's not mine), who doesn't even have a personal name, but let's leave the, so called, HS, aside for now.

 Angels, people, animals and other inanimate things, have names. Would it be consistent for the one who saw to the creation of all these things to be nameless?

"All scripture is inspired by God..."..2 Tim,3:16. Hence translating the Bible is a weighty responsibility. Words of warning:- "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."..Rev,18,19 of the NASB.

In times past, God's name in the form of the Tetragrammaton was made part of the decoration of many religious buildings.

Would we be showing honor to Jesus to remove "ALL" mention of his name in the Bible and replace it with a mere title, like "Teacher," or "Mediator"? Of course not! We can relate to Jesus when we use his name, at least in the way it is commonly pronounced in our language.

"O magnify "Jehovah" with me, you people and let us exalt his name together."..Psalm of David, 34:3, as rendered in the NWT. How can readers of Bible translations that omit God's name respond fully to that exhortation... In the NASB, "Jehovah" is substituted by "Lord"... In short, it truly matters...

Consequently, we can see that removing the name can lead to confusion. Psalm 110:1 says: "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Authorized Version). Who is talking to whom? How much better the rendering: "The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: 'Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.'"..NWT.

John W.Davis, a missionary in China during the 19th century, a Trinitarian by the way, said this... If anyone should say that there are cases in which the use of Jehovah would be wrong, let him show the reason why; the onus probandi [burden of proof] rests upon him.....

Finally, for now at least (particularly as I truly respect a few of you posters with the Trinitarian bent, to the point of even being in awe), I, at the risk of possible ridicule now quote a passage from Page 27 of the JW's pamphlet, headed: The DIVINE NAME That Will Endure Forever....

How does Jehovah view those who remove his name from the Bible? If you were an author, how would you feel about someone who went to great lengths to remove your name from the book you authored? Translators who object to the name, doing so on account of problems of pronunciation, or because of Jewish tradition, might be compared to those who Jesus said "strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!" (Matt, 23:24). They stumble over these smaller problems but end up creating a major problem - by removing the name of the greatest personage in the universe, from the book that He inspired.....

Answer 4

To answer the question in a nutshell,

1. Yes Christ is called Lord in his own right
2. God is also called Lord or LORD, but only in those Bible versions which remove God's name in the over 7000 times it is used.
3. No, that does not mean Jesus = Jehovah God. It means your Bible is a commercial product pandering to various interests and not seeking truth.

I feel much is misunderstood here, and the confusion, as others have pointed out, has to do with the concealing of God's name. Further confusion is caused by using NT quotes of OT passages. It's worth noting that

• The model prayer says "Hallowed (or Praised) be your name", not "HIDDEN be your name, but it is hidden, isn't it.
• God's personal name has been found in Greek Manuscripts as late as 150 A.D.
• A Hebrew Version of Matthew was preserved by Jews out of the sight of Christians, for the purpose of 'saving' any who started believing Jesus was the Messiah. It was copied only when word, and had Septuagint passages added where text was lost, but it used God's name throughout Matthew. One copy was published in the 14th century by a Jew called Shem-Tob ben Issac Ibn Shaprut in 1380 or 1385 in a polemic against Christianity.

Another Hebrew MS using God's name came to light in the 1500s. The Pope ordered every copy of the Talmud siezed. All sorts of Hebrew documents were taken around Rome. Jean du Tillet saw one that looked interesting, asked to keep it, and was allowed. It was another slightly better preserved version of Matthew using God's name. It is in the National Library in Paris.

Someone (George Howard?) did a textual analysis of this Matthew and could even trace where it went by the Septuagint variations that were used where the text was missing! Du Tillet's Matthew is more authentic.