Recently, A Catholic friend asked Anthony Buzzard about his appeal to a 1902 article to support his Socinian Christology (which Buzzard dodged):
B.W. Bacon, “Heb. 1:10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps. 102:23,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 3, 1902, 280-285 (cf. Buzzard, Hebrews 1:10, an appendix from his Jesus was not a Trinitarian)
It is true that the use of Psa 102 (LXX: 101) in Heb 1 is, in part, dealing with "Messianic Eschatology." This begs the question as to how. As careful readers will find, it deals with the Messiah bringing about redemption. For instance, Jesus being the agent of the New Creation is affirmed by Bacon:
Note the "people
which shall be created", v, 18, in connection with the Pauline doctrine of
the "new creation" καινη κτισι, 2Cor 5, 17; Gal 6, 15 in the
"second Adam", Rom 5,14· 18; Eph z, IS; and compare Bam 6, II-14.
Also "to hear the sighing of the prisoner, to loose those that are
appointed to death" as the aim of the redemption in v, 20, in connection
with Heb 2, IS "to deliver all them who through fear of death were all their
lifetime subject to bondage". (p. 284 n. 2)
However, at the same time, Bacon also argues that Jesus was the agent of the Genesis, not merely, the New Creation. While one should read the article in full (it is only 6 pages, so not lengthy), note the following:
Ps 102 unquestionably
must have been regarded as dealing with the salvation "of the latter
days" (cf. vv, 13-18. 22. 28). (p. 282)
Note how Bacon concludes his article, which
refutes Buzzard and his Socinian Christology, wherein he argues explicitly
Jesus is presented as (1) having personally pre-existed and (2) was the agent
of the Genesis creation:
Thus instead of the application of these
verses of Ps 102 to Messiah being an audacious innovation on the part of the
author of Hebrews, we find evidence (1) that the psalm itself was a favorite
resort of those who sought in even pre-Christian times for proof-texts of
messianic eschatology. This is a result which might have been anticipated from the
suggestive reference to "the set time" for Jehovah's deliverance and glorification
of Zion, v. 13, and the challenge to cryptographic interpretation of v. '18, "this
shall be written for the generation to come: and a people which shall be
created shall praise the Lord." (2) We have specific evidence of the
application of verses 23-24 to the Messiah by those who employed the Hebrew or
some equivalent text. (3) Finally in the LXX and Vulg. rendering of ענה by απεκριθη,
respondit, we have the explanation of how, in Christian circles at
least, the accepted Messianic passage could be made to prove the doctrine that
the Messiah is none other than the preexistent Wisdom of Prov 8, 22-31,
"through whom" according to our author, v, 2, God "made the
worlds". Indeed we shall not be going too far if with Bruce we say:
"It is possible that the writer (of Hebrews) regarded this text (Ps 102, 25-27)
as messianic because in his view creation was the work of the preexistent Christ.
But it is equally possible that he ascribed creative agency to Christ out of
regard to this and other similar texts believed to be messianic on other
grounds". (pp. 284-85)
Buzzard, for years now, has been guilty of abusing Bacon's 1902 article. For a thorough refutation of Buzzard, see:
David L. Paulsen, Jacob Hawken, and Michael Hansen, “Jesus was not a Unitarian" (a review of Buzzard's 2007 Jesus was not a Trinitarian).
On Heb 1:10-12 from a former Socinian (Christadelphian) who is now a Roman Catholic, see
Thomas Farrar, You, Lord, in the beginning: Hebrews 1:10-12 and Christology
For articles on this blog addressing the biblical evidence for the personal pre-existence of Jesus, see, for e.g.:
John 17:5 and the Personal Pre-Existence of Jesus
