Page 90 - BV14

about God, of which Jesus and Paul knew noth- not in Jesus of Nazareth...Its roots are in Philo-
ing, is widely announced as a failure worthy of nic, Hellenistic Judaism and in the Christianized
eternal torture in hell! Neo-Platonism of the second to the fifth century"
(pp. 38, 39).
This magazine hope to encourage a growing con-
cern that Christianity's central dogma about God The systematic flaw to which we referred at the
is not in fact the product of good Bible study but beginning of this article can be readily detected
rather a curious novelty developed from the early and abandoned. It is a matter of a devastatingly
second century under the baneful influence of important distinction. The New Testament from
Greek philosophical thinking centered in Alexan- cover to cover insists on belief in Jesus as the
dria, Egypt. In that learned city the Jews had al- Lord Messiah, who is not the Lord God. That
ready compromised their Hebrew-based faith by distinction is plainly stated in a solemn divine ut-
mixing it with Hellenism. The post-biblical church terance about the dignity of the Messiah. Psalm
fell for the same trap and combined Greek cos- 110:1 sets the stage for the whole New Testa-
mological thinking with the theology of the Bible, ment picture of who Jesus is. And that Psalm
producing a hybrid notion of God. Later this was was designed as a safeguard against any confu-
imposed on all believers. Dissidents and non- sion. The one God, the LORD (Yahweh) speaks
(
conformists were banned and banished, and to another individual who is called adoni my
sometimes murdered for their protests. lord). Readers should be alerted to the mislead-
ing capital letter (in some versions -- the error is
Professor J.H. Ellens of the University of Michi- corrected in RV, RSV, NRSV, NAB, NEB,
gan provides the information needed for under- JPS) on that second "lord." The capital letter in-
standing that unfortunate historical development vites the reader to think that this second "lord" is
in his booklet The Ancient Library of Alexan- in fact the Lord God! The original, adoni, how-
dria and Early Christian Theological Devel- ever, is invariably a title which tells us that its re-
opment (The Institute for Antiquity and cipient is not God, but a human superior. It is
Christianity, at the Claremont Graduate School, this non-Deity title for the Messiah which at-
Occasional Papers, No. 27). Ellens summarizes tracted the interest also of Jesus in his discussion
his findings: "It seems patently true that the in Mark 12:35-37. Jesus instructed his Pharisaic
agenda of the ecumenical councils of the Chris- audience to ponder in what sense the Messiah
tian Church, which permanently shaped the dog- can be at the same time the son of David and the
matic tradition of the Christian faith [in terms of lord of David. We today must urge readers to
the doctrine of the Trinity]...was not a biblical consider in what sense the Messiah is the lord
agenda. It was rather a special type of Hellenistic of David. The wrong answer to the question ap-
and Neo-Platonist agenda...It is time, therefore, pears in those translations which write "Lord,"
for the Christian Church to acknowledge that it giving the impression that the original was
has a very special type of material which consti- ADONAI (which it is not) meaning always "the
tutes its creedal tradition. It is not a creedal tradi- Lord God" (all 449 times in the OT).
tion of Biblical Theology. It is not a unique,
inspired, and authoritative word from God. It is, The right answer is found in the 195 occurrences
rather, a special kind of Greek religio- of this Hebrew word "my lord" (ADONI). In no
philosophical mythology...It should be candidly case is it ever a form of address to Deity. There-
admitted by the Church, then, that its roots are fore Jesus is the human lord Messiah, not Deity,
90