Who is Jesus: Do the Creeds Tell Us the Truth About Him?

Anthony Buzzard

What sense is there in clinging to a doctrine of the trinity which offends Jews and Muslims and which Jesus would not have believed? mark 12:28-34 shows Jesus to be in line with the cardinal tenet of Judaism: God is a single person, the Father of Jesus. psa 110:1 says it clearly. The One God speaks in an oracle about Adoni, positively not Adonai! God does not speak to God! He speaks to the Lord Messiah (Adoni, "my Lord, the king, Messiah"). Adoni refers some195 times to superiors other than God. It is a word describing human beings and occasionally angels.

The old arguments about echad being a compound unity ar fallacious. The word means "one and not two or more. "One flesh" is still one flesh. The idea of plurality is derived not from the word echad but from the idea of two persons being on flesh. But there is nothing in the context of the biblical statements about the "One God" that hints at plurality. In fact, Adonai (or the sacred name) is referred to by singular pronouns and accompanied by singular verbs multiple thousands of times. Singular pronouns tell us that God is one person. Rabbi Paul was not a Trinitarian. He believed in "one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Messiah (1Co_1:1-4). The Lord Messiah is not the Lord God. In Gal_3:20, Paul said (according to the Amplified Bible) "God is [only] one person. There is no occurrence of the word "God" in the whole Bible that can be proved to mean "God in three persons." That is because the Bible-writers had never heard of the Trinity and did not believe in it.

The old argument about Elohim having a plural ending and thus pointing to a Trinity. . .was apparently not heard of until the 12th Century. It has been constantly rejected by scholars in both RC and Protestant camps. Yet it continues to be promoted by Dave Hunt whom many trust as an expert. Dave Hunt tells the public that non-trinitarians are "pseudo-Christian cultists." He says that "aberrant  groups reject the Trinity. He also promotes the myth that the Trinity can be traced back through the early church fathers to the NT. This is not possible since, as many Patristic experts know, the earliest Fathers were unitarians in the sense that they believed the Son was begotten in time, not in eternity. The "Son" of these Fathers was definitely subordinated to the Father. He was not co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

A dying God?

God only has immortality (1Ti_6:16). How, If Jesus is God, can he have died? An immortal person cannot die! That is a flat contradiction. Does it honor God to speak in such contradictions? -- that Jesus as God (who is immortal) died? How can Jesus, if he is God, not know the time of his second coming (Mar_13:32)? God is omniscient. Jesus did not know everything. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God, unless language has ceased to have any meaning. God cannot be tempted (Jas_1:13), but Jesus was tempted. If he was not fully human, his temptation was a charade. Did Jesus give up being god when he died? Did he give up being God when he did not know when he would return? How can God give up being God? That would mean that Jesus was not when he was on earth.

Trinitarians [and Binitarians] argue that only God could be the savior. But if Jesus, as God, could not die, how can he have saved us? Cannot God appoint a sinless man to be savior (Act_17:31; Act_2:22) "A man approved of God")?

All of these complex questions are solved if Bible-readers observe some simple facts: Thousands upon thousands of times in the Bible (someone has calculated over 11,000 times), God is described by personal pronouns in the singular (I, me, you, he, him). These pronouns in all languages describe single persons, not [two] or three persons. There are thus thousands of verses that tell us that the "only true God" (Joh_17:3; Joh_5:44, "the one alone is God") is one person, not [two] or three.

There is no place in the OT or NT where the word "God" can be proved to mean "God-in-three-persons." The word God therefore, in the Bible never means the Trinitarian [or Binitarian] God. . ."The word "God" in the NT means the Father, except (for certain) in two passages where 'God' refers to Jesus in a secondary sense (Heb_1:8; Joh_20:28). If Jesus is a much entitled to be called God as his Father, why these extraordinary facts? The word "God" can be used of a man who reflects and represents the true God (Psa_82:6; Exo_7:1).

Why did all translations in English before the King James render Joh_1:1-3 : "All things were made by It (not him)? How do you know that Jesus was the eternal Son of God, when no verse of Scripture calls him that? What if the word or wisdom was with God (Joh_1:1) and was fully expressive of God, and this wisdom became embodied in the real human being Jesus (Joh_1:14)? Jesus would then be a human being who is the perfect embodiment  and expression of the wisdom and creative activity of God ("the word became flesh, "not" the Son became flesh"). If so, Luke's statement would be exactly right. "Because of the supernatural begetting of Jesus in the womb of Mary, Jesus is entitled to be called the Son of God" (Luk_1:35). . .There is not a hint in Matthew, Mark, Luke Acts, or Peter that Jesus pre-existed his birth. There is also no proof in the OT. God did not speak through a so-called pre-existing Son in OT times (Heb_1:1-2).

Eternal Begetting?

Does the term "eternally begotten" make sense? How can someone who has had no beginning be begotten? He can't. The term becomes, therefore, an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms. That which is eternal has no beginning or ending! There are no verses in the OT or NT which speak of Jesus being begotten by the Father in eternity, including Pro_8:22-31, which speaks of wisdom personified, not the Son. All references to the begetting of Jesus are either to his conception and birth (luk 1:35; matt 1:20; Acts 13:33 or to his resurrection (v. 34), his appointment to kingship (Psalm 2). Without an "eternal begetting" of the Son there is no Trinitarian (or binitarian) doctrine.

Adam Clarke says, "The doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, antiscriptural and highly dangerous. I have not been able to find any express declaration of it in the Scriptures.

J. O. Buswell, former dean of the Graduate School, Covenant College, St. Louis, Mo., and writing as a Trinitarian said, "The notion that the Son was begotten by the Father in eternity past, not as an event, but as an inexplicable relationship, has been accepted and carried along in the Christian theology since the fourth century. . .we have examined all the instances in which 'begotten' or 'born' or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the bible has nothing whatsoever to say about 'begetting' as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son."

Church History

Writers of the standard encyclopedias tell us this fact about church history: "Trinitarianism as a theological movement began much earlier in history; indeed, it antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism, and Judaism was strictly unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem to the Council of Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, to the contrary, a deviation from this teaching (EA).

Tertullian. . .was clearly not a Trinitarian. He wrote: "God has not always been the Father. For he could not have been a Father previous to the Son. There was a time when the Son did not exist" (Against Hermogenes).

Michael Schamus in Dogma, vol.3, God and His Christ, p. 216, explains, "The Christian writers of the second and third centuries considered the Logos as the eternal reason of the Father [not the eternal Son], but as having at first no distinct existence from eternity; he [Son of God] received this only when the Father generated him from within His own being and sent him to create the world and rule over the world. The act of generation then was not considered as an eternal and necessary life-act, but as one which had a beginning in time, which mean that the Son was not equal to the Father, but subordinate to Him. Even Origen, who in the third century initiated the concept of "eternal generation" of the Son was not an orthodox Trinitarian. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Origen, p. 1009, declares, "Origen's philosophical suppositions ensure that for him the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is theos (god), but only the Father is autotheos (absolute God, God in Himself).

The Creed of Israel, of Jesus, and of True Christianity

It seems incredible that Jesus, who recited the great creed of Israel (Mar_12:28-34) and was a Jew, could possibly have believed in a Trinity. . .Jesus confirms and perpetuates the creed of Israel which described God as one person, the Father. He then defined himself as the Lord Messiah of psa 110:1 to whom he One Lord god spoke in an oracle about the future. . .This "my Lord" of David is translated from a Hebrew form of the word "lord" (Adoni) which is used 195 times to describe a man as distinct from God. God is Adonai (long vowel) and the Messiah is Adoni short vowel, "my Lord, the Messiah, the King").

No Jew could have expected his Messiah to be God in the Trinitarian sense. Moses predicted the arrival of the Messiah by saying that God would not speak to the people directly, but through a person like him, who would be raised up in Israel (Deu_18:15-18; Acts 13:33). To say that the Messiah is God Himself contradicts this prophecy, which announces that this person is not God but a human prophet! Peter and Stephen teach that it was fulfilled in the human Messiah (Act_3:22; Act_7:37), who perfectly reflects the will and the words of his Father and who is the "visible image" of god, but not God Himself.

Clearly, the One god is the Father and in close association is the one Lord Messiah (Mat_16:16). [see also 1Jn_2:22].

Finally, as to the pre-existence of Christ, Paul Tillich remarks on Joh_8:58 (Before Abraham was I am [he]): "This means that the universal logos, the principle of divine manifestation, is present in Jesus" (A History of Christian Thought, p.409). This does not mean that the Son of god pre-existed but that God's plan did. As Harnack remarked, "The miraculous genesis of Christ (Mat_1:18; Mat_1:20; Luk_1:35) in the virgin of the HS and the real pre-existence and the pre-existence are of course, mutually exclusive (History of Dogma). Luke and Matthew denied the Trinity when they described the coming-into-existence of the Son of God by miracle.

According to Jesus

Anthony Buzzard

God is strictly one person, not two or three. Christians who value Jesus as the Supreme revealer of truth should consider his classic words, uttered in final prayer. "You father, are the only one who is truly God" (Joh_17:3).

It is a serious hijacking of Jesus' words if one adds to Jesus' creed. For Jesus, his Father is "the one alone who is truly God, the only one who is truly God (see also Joh_5:44 and Mar_12:29).

These utterances are clear without a hint of ambiguity. Yet they have been ignored by the church bearing Jesus' name. The church has for centuries, since post-biblical times, defined God as three persons. Jesus defined God as one person, the Father. Jesus believed and taught unitary monotheism. He had never heard of the Trinity -- or if he had, he rejected it.

Centuries later, after church counsels had invested iron-clad creeds and imposed them on the faithful, Augustine came face to face with Jesus' definition of God as the "only one who is truly God." What was he to do? The church by then had lost Jesus' creed. It propagated everywhere belief that God was three persons. The innocent sentence in Joh_17:3 stated that God was a single person, not three persons. Here is Augustine's "solution." He wrote: "The proper order of the words is 'that they may know you and Jesus Christ, the only true God" (Tractates on John, 105:3).

It is hard to see how one can have the words of Jesus and the words of post-biblical creeds at the same time. Following Jesus means believing his teachings. Jesus' teaching about how many persons are the One God is really not difficult: "You , Father,  are the only true God." Jesus is the Lord Messiah (Luk_2:11; Psa_110:1), the Son of God (Mat_16:16), but not the One True God. The word "one" should be clear to all.

If anyone has any question about this, he should consult the thousands of singular personal pronouns used for God in the Bible. "I," "me," "mine," "myself," "thee," "thy." "thine," "thyself," "he," "him," "his," "himself." All these words, as well as God's proper name (Yahweh) followed by singular verbs (6700 times), ought to convince the open-minded that God is one person, not more, And monotheism -- belief that God is one -- is, according to Jesus, of critical importance (Mar_12:29).

Jesus, the Son of God, is the perfect human reflection of the One God, his Father. But he is not God. He is the sinless second Adam and the "prophet to be raised up from the house of Israel" (Deu_18:15-18). Created and begotten in the womb of his mother by the poser of God's Spirit, he is designated "Son of God" (Luk_1:35). The idea that he is "eternally begotten" not only has no recognizable meaning in language, but it is false to Scripture. "Eternal generation" contradicts the important biblical fact that the Son of God was begotten "today," not in eternity (Psa_2:7; cp. Act_13:33, referring in the latter text to the birth of Jesus).

Sit Thou At My Right Hand

Allon Maxwell

This Old Testament verse, from Psalm 11:1, is quoted in the New Testament no less than 22 times![1] The Messianic significance attached to it by the New Testament writers demands our attention.

It is unfortunate that the translators of the KJV clouded the meaning of David's words by assigning an upper case "L" to that second "lord" in the verse. This "lapse" has unfortunate complications for those who are unable to read the Hebrew text themselves. It fails to follow the normally expected "translators' convention" which uses an upper case "L" to distinguish between two quite different Hebrew words, one of which always refers to God, and the other of which never refers to God. The error has been perpetuated by some later versions (KJV, NASB, NIV), but has been recognized and corrected, by several others (RSV, NRSV, NEB). That upper case "L" has led many to misuse the verse as a Trinitarian "proof text." However, as we shall see, that is not the intention of the verse at all.

More About that "Translators' Error

In our English Bibles, the same word "lord" translates several distinct Hebrew words. A long established "translators' convention" uses different combinations of upper and lower case letters ("LORD," "Lord," and "lord") to differentiant between the Hebrew words.

When we see "Lord" written with an upper case "L," those of us who don't read Hebrew rely on the established convention that it is, most often, a translation of "Adonai."[2]

The problem is that in this verse the original Hebrew word is not "adonai"! In this one verse, the KJV has clouded the issue by assigning an upper case "L" to the quite different word "ADONI." In all other places where this word is translated as "lord" in the KJV, it appears with a lower case "l."

The Hebrew Lesson

We need forst to look at the use of all the Hebrew words which are translated "lord." the information for the following short "Hebrew lesson has been gleaned from Young's Concordance and recent E-mail correspondence with my good friend Anthony Buzzard.[3]

YHVH, ADON, ADONI AND ADONI

Young lists eleven Hebrew words which are translated "lord." The four which concern us here are those listed in the heading immediately above.

1. YHVH (Yahweh or Jehovah) This word is the first "LORD" in Psa_110:1. It is the Divine Name considered so sacred by the Jews that it is never pronounced. Instead when reading from Scriptures they substitute the word "Adonai" (see below). The accepted convention is that in English translations it always appears as either LORD or GOD (all upper case) thus  enabling us to recognize that the original word is "Yahweh."

2. ADON This word is formed from the Hebrew consonants Aleph, Dalet, Nun. It appears often in this form (without any suffix). Apart from about 30 occasions where it refers to the Divine Lord, all of the other occurrences refer to human lords. In English, it always has a loser case "l," except on those comparatively few occasions where it refers to God. In those cases it is given an upper case "L."

It is important to distinguish between "Adon" and three other similar, but quite distinct, words which are formed from it by the addition of suffixes.

3. ADONAI "Adonai" accounts for two of the three other words just mentioned above. It is formed from the root wore "adon" with the addition of the suffix "AI." In its main form, it always refers to God, and no one else. The accepted form of "Adonai" has different vower point under the "N" to distinguish it from the second mush less common form of the word. (The second form of "Adonai" is used in the plural, of men, very occasionally.)

4. ADONI This is formed by adding the suffix "i" to "adon." With this suffix it means "my lord. (It is also sometimes translated as "master.") It appears 195 times, and is used almost entirely of human lords (but  occasionally of angels). When translated "lord," it always appears with a lower case "l" (except for that one time in Psa_110:1).

THE VOWEL POINTS IN PSALM 110:1

The Hebrew text identifies vowels by a system of "vowel points" (which, to the untrained eye, look like random "dots" and "squiggles") placed above, below, or alongside the appropriate consonant. This vowel pointing system was developed by the Masoretes.[4]

Now for some more information provided by Anthony Buzzard.

As mentioned above, the two words "ADONAI" and "ADONI" are both formed from the root word "ADON." They share the same consonants -- ADNY, i.e. in Hebrew ALEPH, DALET, NUN, YOD. The difference is in th vowel pointing -- "ADONAI" is formed by placing the point "quamets" under NUN. -- "ADONI" is formed by placing the point "hireq" under NUN. (Just one tiny letter different, but an enormous difference in meaning!).

CONFIRMATION FROM THE SEPTUAGENT

There are some who persist in reading the word ADONAI in this verse, instead of ADONI. This is usually justified by claiming that the Masoretes have assigned the wrong vowel points. However, the "Greek Factor" from the Septuagint version (LXX) supports the Masoretes.

The following information was passed on to me recently by Bill Wachtel.[5]

The Hebrew text in Ps. 110:1 is actually LADONI ("L" + "adoni").

ADONI = my lord.

LADONI = To my lord.

In the greek of the LXX, LADONI becomes: "to kurio mou" (to my lord)

If the text had read: LADONAI (= to the divine Lord) the Greek would have read simply "to kurio."

thus the LXX confirms for us that the original Hebrew is ADONI, and that the Massoretes got it right.

THE MESSIANIC CONNECTION

Many have incorrectly assumed that the original Hebrew word in Ps. 110:1 is ADONAI (which always refers to God). This has led to the further incorrect assumption that the verse is a "proof text" for the doctrine of the Trinity.

However, we have seen that the actual Hebrew word used is ADONI. This word refers to human lords. It speaks of the HUMANITY of Jesus--not Deity.

Psalm 110:1 should be studied in the context of the many NT quotations which use it.

Viewed properly, it is clearly Messianic -- NOT Trinitarian.

In 22 places where it is quoted in the NT, the overwhelming conclusion is that the early Church relied very heavily on Psalm 110:1 to prove that the MAN Jesus, who now sits at the right hand of God, is indeed both Messiah and Son of God.

As David's descendant, Jesus would normally be considered by Jewish tradition to be INFERIOR in rank to David.

But through His miraculous Divine paternity, the impossible has happened!

although Jesus is both totally Human and descended from David, he nevertheless OUTRANKS him by right of birth.

As "Son of David," Jesus has inherited David's throne (Luke 1:32-33). But as "Son of God," Jesus has also been exalted to receive the name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9-11).

In accordance with the Scriptures,

Jesus is forever both man and Messiah.

His throne is for ever.

His name is above David's name forever.

He is David's King forever!

THAT is why David calls Him "lord!"

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

1. Psalm 110:1 is quoted by

Jesus: Mat_22:44; Mat_26:64; Mar_12:36; Mar_14:62; Mar_16:19; Luk_20:42; Luk_22:69; Rev_3:21;

Peter: Act_2:33-34; Act_5:31; 1Pe_3:22;

Stephen: Act_7:55-56,

Paul: Rom_8:34; 1Co_15:25; Eph_2:6; Col_3:1; Heb_1:3; Heb_1:13; Heb_8:1; Heb_10:12-13; Heb_12:2.

2. On about thirty occasions the word "adon" is also translated with an upper case "L." However, it should be noted that "adon" much more often refers to a human lord, and then it is translated with a lower case "l."

3. Sir Anthony F. Buzzard, Bt. M.A., (Oxon.) Th. A.R.M.C, teaches at the Atlanta Bible College of the Church of God General Conference.

4. THE MASSORETIC VOWEL POINTS

The following information on the Massoretes and their work has been condensed from various books, encyclopedias, and internet sources. The ancient Hebrew texts were comprised of consonants only. There were no vowels or punctuation marks. The Massoretes were           Hebrew scholars who, over several centuries, established a system of vowel markings to indicate the traditional pronunciation and intonation. We call these the "vowel points."

 This work was not completed until several centuries after the beginning of the Christian Era.

One sometimes encounters people whose determination to retain Psalm 110:1 as a Trinitarian "proof text" leads them to (selectively) discount the reliability of the Massoretic vowel pointing system, in favor of some other personal preference, especially when it suits their particular theological bias. However, unless there is compelling documented evidence for changes of this kind, they are seldom helpful. We must be very cautious about introducing arbitrary changes of this kind. lest we leave ourselves open to accusations of "intellectual dishonesty."

The following summary will provide a brief introduction to the Massoretes.

·       The work of the Massoretes was done principally in the period AD 500-900.

·       although there were different schools of Massoretes, their differences seem to have left us very few variations in the meaning of the Hebrew consonant list.

·       It was the goal of the Massoretes to preserve the traditional meaning of the Hebrew text. (This was perceived as necessary, because ancient Hebrew is strictly a consonantal language, and therefore prone to error in transmission).

·       One of the ways they did this was to develop a system of vowel pointing which indicates the traditional pronunciation and meaning of the text.

·       Since Hebrew is a consonantal language, there are many places where the dame consonants are used for quite different words. (Note) That is no different from English! Often the same consonants form different words when associated with different vowels. Often the same combination of consonants and vowels has a different pronunciation and a different meaning. When that happens, we use context and tradition to interpret the intended meaning.)

·       the Massoretic vowel pointing indicates the traditional meaning, understanding, and pronunciation which had formerly been passed sown from generation to generation, by oral tradition, through their teachers.

·       In cases where identical groups of consonants were traditionally understood to be different words, with different meanings attached. the pointing system made that clear and preserved it for future generations.

·       Our current English translations all rely heavily on the pointed text.

As a layman, I conclude that what we have now is the work of dedicated Jewish Scholars, which reflects the best consensus about what was ALREADY accepted as the traditional understanding of the text, over many centuries.      

Consequently, when the Massoretes reported "adoni" instead of "adonai" in Psalm 110:1, they were following the oral tradition. As we have already seen above, the LXX, which predates the pointed text by centuries, supports this conclusion.

          The Massoretes knew that in the unpointed text for that verse, the word "ADNY" was properly read and understood as a human lord, "ADONI," and not the divine Lord "ADONAI."

And in the providence of god, they inserted vowel points which preserved it that way for us (and our English translations).

5.  Bill Wachtel ha an M.A. in NT from Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. He was and instructor at the former Oregon Bible College of the Church of God General Conference, from 1962 to 1968, and president from 1963 to 1968. At OBC he taught Greek classes, as well as other subjects.

Plain Talk About Who God Is

Anthony Buzzard

Trying to read the Bible without understanding who the God of the Bible is is likely to be frustrating. Unfortunately so much pressure and dogmatism now surrounds the issue of who God is that Christians are unable to approach the text of Scripture with an open mind.  A great measure of fear attends their studies, because they have been told what kind of a God they are to find in the Bible, or else . . . hellfire! This is a hopeless atmosphere for calm and reasoned investigation.

The matter of deciding who God is in the Bible is relatively simple, if we follow sound procedure.

And sound procedure demands that we start our investigation in the right place, the Hebrew Bible, the Bible which nurtured the Jews and Jesus and which Jesus categorically said he did not come to destroy (Mat_5:17).

What God is presented in Jesus' Bible

The creed of Israel, the cardinal tenet of all sound religion and the great hedge against idolatry and paganism, is of course the Shema -- "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God" (Deu_6:4). This creed declares that the "Lord God is ONE LORD." The oneness of God is here proposed in the simplest and clearest language.

To confirm this central truth the Hebrew Bible describes God with singular pronouns (I, Me, You, Him, My, Your, His) thousands upon thousands of times!

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of language knows, or ought to know, that singular pronouns denote a single Person. God therefore in the Bible is One Person.

Jesus affirmed the unitary, non-trinitarian faith of Israel when he replied to the question put to him by a theologian as to the greatest of all commandments.

Jesus replied that the "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord" is the pinnacle of divine revelation. Only that God is to be loved with all our hearts and minds and strength (Mar_12:28-34).

Paul echoed the teaching of Jesus on this point with complete simplicity and clarity. Discussing the multiple gods of paganism, Paul contrasted the Christian belief:

"To us [Christians] there is ONE God, the Father . . . And no other one besides Him" (1Co_8:4-6). That of course is unitary monotheism, belief that God is a single Person.

The One God is defined, we note, not as three eternal Persons, but as the Father.

At once we are aware of a great difference between what traditionally appears in faith statements and what Paul actually said: There is one God, the Father." That is simply the unitary monotheism of Paul's and Jesus' Jewish heritage. Is by definition also the Christian creed, because it is the biblical creed.

The stark simplicity of this creed may seem threatening to some, but it is the force of prejudice which makes it difficult to accept. There is no complexity about Paul's creed. It is straightforward and beyond argument.

Many, however, find it unsatisfactory, and they rush to point out that Paul in 1Co_8:4-6 went on to say that Jesus was "God."

But did he? In fact, not at all. Paul did indeed go on to say that "there is one Lord Jesus Messiah." But it would be a fatal and confusing move to think that Paul, by calling Jesus Lord was really calling him God! There is a crucial difference.

You see, there is a simple and overpoweringly influential text behind Pul's language. It is Psa_110:1, the very text which Jesus himself had produced when describing the relationship of himself the Messiah to the one God (Mar_12:35-37).

Psa_110:1 is quoted or alluded to no less than 23 times in the New Testament. It appears in every section of the New Testament, and it would be a major mistake to ignore its importance.

Psa_110:1 recognizes in good Jewish fashion that God (Yahweh) is One Individual and that One God speaks in a prophetic oracle to another individual, not Himself, who is "my Lord," the lord of David. "My lord" is told to sit at Yahweh's right hand until he is given future victory over his enemies.

Now the second lord of Psa_110:1 is definitely NOT God, but a superior human being. How do we know this for certain? Because of the careful choice of words in the original. "My lord" in the Hebrew inspired text is ADONI. In every one of the 195 times the wore ADONI appears in the Bible, it never means God, but always a human (occasionally angelic) superior. ADONI is the word which tells us 195 times that the one named is not God, but man.

So when Paul said that next to the One God, the Father, there is "one Lord Jesus Messiah," he meant the one (superior, human) lord as defined by Psa_110:1. Paul has not confused Jesus with God.

Psa_110:1 could well have used another word to describe the Messiah. There was a word ADONAI which meant God (in all of its 449 occurrences). But the spirit never confused God and the Son of God. God was Yahweh or Adonai and the Messiah was the human lord, ADONI.

There are two lords in the Bible, God and Jesus. But only the Father is the One God ("There is One God, the Father"). Jesus is the Lord Messiah, not the Lord God (Luk_2:11, etc.).

The creed of the Bible is the essence of simplicity: "There is One God, the Father, and one Lord Messiah Jesus" (1Co_8:4-6).