The Hebrew Background to the New Testament

I thought the following reproduction of a few paragraph's' from Anthony
Buzzard's booklet "Who Is Jesus?" would be helpful. One of the pitfall's of the average believer today is the failure of current Christianity to understand the Hebrew context of Jesus and His message. Indeed, it would appear that this disconnect happened centuries ago in the time when the creeds of Christianity were formulated. The following is a useful summary of the early Church's understanding of Hebrew Scripture concerning Jesus.

It will be useful by way of summary and to orient ourselves to the thought world of the authors of the New Testament to lay out the principal passages of the Hebrew Scriptures from which they derived their unified understanding of the person of Christ. Nowhere can it be shown that the Messiah was to be an uncreated being, a fact which should cause us to look outside the Bible for the source of such a revolutionary concept.

The original purpose for man, made in the image and glory of God, was to exercise dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26; Psa 8). That ideal is never lost beyond our recovery for the Psalmist speaks of the “glory” with which man has been (potentially) crowned so that “all things are to be subjected under his feet” (Psa 8:5, 6). As the divine plan unfolds it becomes clear that the promised “seed of the woman” who is to reverse the disaster caused by Satan (Gen 3:15) will be a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:13-16). He will call God his Father (2 Sam. 7:14) and be appointed as God’s Son, the Messiah, to whom God entrusts rulership of the earth (Psa 2). Prior to taking up his royal office, however, the Messiah is to sit at the right hand of the Father and bear the title “Lord” (Psa 110:1).

As Son of Man, representative man, he will take his place in heaven prior to receiving from God authority to administer a universal empire (Dan 2:44; 7:14; Acts 3:20, 21). Having at his first coming suffered for the sins of the people (Isa 53; Psa 22), he is to come again as God’s firstborn, the ruler of the kings of the earth (Psa 89:27), foreshadowed by David who was also chosen from the people (Psa 89:19, 20).

As the second Moses, the Messiah was to arise in Israel (Deut 18:18), deriving his divine Sonship from a supernatural birth from a virgin (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:35), and being confirmed as God’s Son through his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4). As High Priest, the Messiah now serves his people from heaven (Heb 8:1) and awaits the time of the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21), when he is destined to be reintroduced into the earth as King of Kings, the divine figure of Psalm 45 (Heb 1:6-8). At that time, in the new age of the Kingdom, he will rule with his disciples (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor 6:2; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 2:26; 3:21; 20:4). As Adam heads the original creation of human beings on earth, so Jesus is the created Head of the New Order of humanity, in whom the ideals of the human race will be fulfilled (Heb 2:7).

Within this Messianic framework the person and work of Jesus can be explained in terms understood by the apostles. Their purpose even when presenting the most “advanced” Christology is to proclaim belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God (John 20:31), who is the center of God’s whole purpose in history (John 1:14). Though Jesus is obviously coordinated in a most intimate way with his Father, the latter remains the “only true God” of biblical monotheism (John 17:3). Jesus thus represents the presence of the one God, his Father. In the man Jesus, Immanuel, the one God is present with us (John 14:9).

-- Who Is Jesus?, pages 25&26, by Anthony Buzzard

Another Undeniable Proof

T

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him" (1 Cor 8:6) [1]  _New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

It is interesting that, in defense of the Trinity, this verse is sometimes offerered as a proof. Yet, it proves no such thing, because it makes a clear distinction between God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord. Also, there is no  mention of the Holy Spirit here, so how can it be said to support a doctrine of "three in one"? At best, it might be a proof text for a Binity, but certainly not a Trinity!

But it appears much more likely that Paul knew nothing at all of a Trinity, or a Binity. Rather, Paul makes reference here of one, single, unitary God, and one Lord, Messiah. In verses 4 and 5, Paul's language is clear. He speaks of only One God (v4); and though there be many lords (v5), yet for us (Christians) there is only one Lord Messiah (Christ), and that is Jesus.

This is so clear, I don't know how it can be mistaken, or misconstrued to mean that the one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, is One God but two co-equal Persons of the same essence within the one godhead. Keep in mind that it is not Paul's objective here to make a theological statement about the nature of God; he is not even making a philosophical observation about the nature of God. What Paul is doing is drawing attention to the fact that although pagans may recognize many gods and many lords, real or imagined, Christians worship the One True God and follow the one Lord, Messiah Jesus. The "so called" gods of the pagans, are no gods at all. In other words, although the world may worship many different gods, for the Christian there is only one God, and He is the Father. Although the world may recognize many lords (masters), for the Christian there is only one lord, the one sent by God, and that is Jesus Christ.

God is directly referred to as "the Father" about 70 times in the New Testament, and many more indirect references are made; but Jesus is never called God with the correlative "Son"; ie. God, the Son. Jesus is, of course, the Son of God, and the Christ (Messiah), neither of which is the same as God. 

Albert Barnes, a Trinitarian, acknowledges the following regarding "One God, the Father" in 1 Cor 8:6:

The word “Father” here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction - the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him. 

This is manifest: (1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term” Son” when he comes to speak of the “one Lord Jesus Christ;” and, (2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father “to his creatures.” He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name “Father” is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psa 103:13; Jer 31:9; Mal 1:6; Mal 2:10; Mat 6:9; Luk 11:2, etc. __Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) (emphasis mine)

These are valid points with which I heartily concur. However, Barnes then goes on to suggest that at other places in Scripture the term "Father" does mean the 2nd person in the Trinity as suggested by the following Scriptures: Luk 10:22; Luk 22:42; Jn 1:18; Jn 3:35; Jn 5:19-23, Jn 5:26, Jn 5:30, Jn 5:36; Heb 1:5; 2Pe 1:17, etc. This distinction is made, in Barnes opinion, because of the correlative use of the term "Son". But in review, I see no warrant for making this distinction other than a personal bias of keeping up the tradition of the Trinity. We do not question whether Jesus is the Son, only what it means to be the Son.

One of the most quoted Old Testament Scriptures found in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1

"The LORD says to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The word LORD, in all capital letters, is not a true translation of the Hebrew text. It is a well known fact 

among scholars that in order to preserve the holiness of God's name, and because of their literal adherence to the command about taking God's Name in vain, scribes replaced the sacred Name with four letters - JHVH or YHWH - known as the tetragrammaton. These four letters are representative of God's actual Name, Jehovah, or Yahweh.

Remember, this is a Psalm of David; it is David speaking here, in the Spirit. The LORD (Yahweh, Almighty God), speaks to someone that David calls "my Lord". God is not speaking to Himself. This is a clear reference to Messiah. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary says of the phrase "to my Lord"

According to Jesus’ interpretation of the passage (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44), this is a reference to the Son of God in heaven in the presence of the Father. David himself confesses the Son to be his Lord, that is, his master or sovereign. --Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible commentary (Ps 110:1). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

The point in all this is to say that Paul surely understood Jesus to be the human Lord, Messiah, and in no way, God Almighty. This, in fact, is what he argued for with all who would listen (Acts 18:5; 18:28). The word "Lord" is used here in the sense of governor, master, or king. The idea is that Christians acknowledge only one ruler over their lives, the one who God sent to be the Christ. Whether, as some suggest, Lord does not necessarily indicate an inferior status than God, is irrelevant. There is no question that God "gave" all authority to Jesus, both in heaven and in earth (Mat 28:18). What we must recognize is that the titles Lord and Christ do not indicate shared essence; ie. to call Jesus Lord or Christ is not the same as saying he is true God (as the creed says, "very God of very God").

Honestly, I don't think these arguments would even be necessary if a mystical, incomprehensible, doctrine such as the Trinity had not been introduced and subsequently embraced by the Christian Church many years ago. To me, a simple reading of the text, and the very fact that Paul makes a distinction between the One God and Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ, is undeniable proof that he does not recognize a Trinity. Certainly, he could have worded his letter differently, had he intended to suggest anything other than One, singular Person God, and one Lord who is His Messiah!

_______ 

[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Deut 4:35, 39; 6:4; Is 46:9; Jer 10:6, 7; 1 Cor 8:4

b Mal 2:10; Eph 4:6

c Rom 11:36

d John 13:13; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 4:5; 1 Tim 2:5

e Col 1:16