Did God Address his Son as "God"?

[Paidion]

8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
(Heb 1:8,9 NKJV)

The NKJV is a typical translation of this passage. “He says” is in italics since it isn't in the Greek. Yet, it is clear from the previous verses, that the writer understands God as the speaker.

It seems peculiar that God would address his Son as “God”. The verse comes from Psalm 45:6,7 where the writer addresses the king, presumably King David. But the writer to the Hebrews understands it as the Father addressing the Son. Another peculiarity is that in Greek, the word “God” in both Hebrews 1 and in Psalm 45 (Septuagint) is not in the vocative case, but in the nomative case. That is doubtless the justification that the NWT translators rended the phrase not as “Your throne, O God” but as “God is your throne.” The latter is grammatically correct. Let me explain. The nominative case of “God” is “θεος” (thĕos) while the vocative case is “θεε”(thĕ-ĕ). Here is an example of the use of the vocative case of "God":

Exekiel 4:14
και εἰπα-- μηδαμως κυριε θεε του----- ἰσραηλ
and I said not so-- O, lord God of the Israel

In the text above, both "lord" and "God" are in the vocative case. But Heb 1:8 does NOT have “God” in the vocative case, but in the nominative case:

προς--- δε τον υἰων ὁ θρονος σου----- ὁ-- θεος εἰς τον αἰων
toward but the son the throne of you the God into the age.

A very similar grammatical constuction can be found in Psalm 73:26

ἡ-- μερις μου---- ὁ θεος εἰς τον αἰων
the part of me the God into the age

This is translated as “My part is God into the age.”

So, a parallel translation of “ὁ θρονος σου ὁ θεος εἰς τον αἰων” could be
“Your throne is God into the age.”

There are strong objections to this translation. One person wrote, “God is on his throne. He isn't the throne of anybody else!” Some have tried to avoid that problem by rendering it, “Your divine throne is (lasts) into the age.” This may be compared to John 1:1 in which the latter part could be translated as “The Logos was divine." This might be a valid translation of Heb 1:8 if “θεος” were not preceded by the article. In John 1:1, “θεος” is NOT preceded by the article. So for that reason (in my opinion), the translation “your divine throne” must be rejected.

It seems that the nominative IS sometimes used in a vocative sense:
I desired to do your will, O my God, and your law in the middle of my heart. (Psalm 40:8)

The phrase “O my God” is obviously vocative in meaning and yet “God” is “ὁ θεος” which is the nominative. So if I were arguing that because of the nominative case, Heb 1:8 needs to read, “God is your throne,” I would have to reluctantly concede that a possible translation is “Your throne, O God.” However, I am not arguing that. I am
seeking to know which translation is correct, and I have not settled on one or the other. I am more inclined to go with “God is your throne,” because it doesn't seem likely that God the Father would address his Son as “God,” even though He is fully divine. But then the early Christian writers referred to Him as “God”, and Thomas seems to have addressed Him as “God,” (John 20:28) even though some say He was merely exclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” as one might exclaim, “O my God!” today. But that seems to be stretching it. Notwithstanding, the Almighty addressing Him as "God" seems less appropriate than mere human beings addressing him as "God."

So how do I understand, “God is your throne,” without meaning that Jesus sits on the Almighty and rules into the age from that position? I think the text may be simply saying that as Jesus reigns in his Kingdom for ages, before turning the Kingdom over to the Father, He won't be reigning independently of the Father, but is so united with the Father, that one might as well say that the Father Himself is ruling. “God is your throne.”

But let me emphasize, I am not dogmatic about this. From other uses of the nominative as a vocative, the translation, “Your throne, O God” seems to be grammatically correct, but it still seems peculiar to me that God would address his Son as “God,” and then in the very next sentence say, “God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness...”

Note: All of the OT quotes are taken from the Septuagint, a translation, several hundred years B.C. of a particular text type of Hebrew into Greek. This text type differs from that of the Masoretic, and was found in Cave 4 of Qumran, whereas the Masoretic text type was found in the other caves. The NT quotes from the OT, resemble the Septuagint text, and are identical in many places. They differ markedly from the Masoretic text (the text from which your OT was translated). The Septuagint itself was altered over the centuries. However, it seems that the NT quotes of the OT were quotes either of the Septuagint, or else from a Hebrew text type similar to, or identical with, that which was found in Cave 4.

[dizerner]

Good study, Paidion. I guess I'm theologically influenced to read it as addressing the Son as God, however God being the Lamb's throne is equally theologically sound, since Revelation shows them literally sharing the same throne, which clearly indicates deity. I think sometimes there are even dual meanings (like the darkness has not "grasped" it, neither understood nor extinguished it).

[jriccitelli]

Paidion I hope you didn’t think I underlined "Your throne, O God” in the thread as my proof text for the Trinity, this was done to point out the subject of the verse would be King. I pointed out the context of the verse you quoted from Hebrews chap.1 and your misuse of the verses surrounding the appointment of Gods King and His Son on the throne of David. That this King is called God was not the point, that it spoke of a King and His Throne was the point, but a point worth noting nevertheless.

This whole begotten / Jesus being created thing is pointless within the context of The promised King and Messiah. The verse in Psalms and the following scriptural promises throughout scripture in this context speak of the fulfillment and appointment of Gods King and the Messiah, as with David the King, His Lord, and Solomon the promised son:
'But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom' (Hebrews 1:8) (Trinity thread, pg.79)

How about getting a good translation and a good commentary. Note that very few commentaries would make or agree with Paidion’s point here, and only one translation that I know of would render this as ‘God is your throne’, the NWT.

The only wonder commentators note about this verse, is the obvious difficulty the ancient Hebrews would have had in trying to understand how God could be calling Solomon God (or to whom what king could possibly be being spoken of at all in regard to such high regards in these contexts, as few if any earthly kings could fit the bill (Certainly not Solomon). There is no difficulty with the verse for a Christian, note the book was written 'to the' Hebrews.

The difficulty of the verse in the context of the Psalm had to be clear to the writer of Hebrews, because the writer of Hebrews is purposefully stringing together these verses to show the superiority of Gods anointed over all other Kings and rulers. The difficulty of the ancient Psalm could not have been missed by the writer, and the writer certainly seems to be using these in the context of having these ancient mysteries revealed.

An address here to Yahweh would be wholly irrelevant. Why, in an argument designed to prove that the Son of God was superior to the angels, should the writer break out in an address to Yahweh in view of the fact that he had laid the foundations of the world, and that he himself would continue to live when the heavens should be rolled up and pass away? Such is not the manner of Paul or of any other good writer, and it is clear that the writer here designed to adduce this as applicable to the Messiah. Whatever difficulties there may be about the principles on which it is done, and the reason why This passage was selected for the purpose, there can be no doubt about the design of the writer. He meant to be understood as applying it to the Messiah beyond all question, or the quotation is wholly irrelevant, and it is inconceivable why it should have been made. (a common commentary)

[TheEditor]

but to the son he saith, "God is thy throne for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of equity. Mace

But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever! And a righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom! Goodspeed

he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: Moffatt

while of the Son he said-- 'God is thy throne for ever and ever; The scepter of his Kingdom is the scepter of Justice; Twentieth Century NT (1904)


Instead of "a common commentary" why not Just say "Barnes" JR?

Keil and Delitzsch on Psalm 45:

In order to avoid the addressing of the king with the word Elohim, Psa_45:6 has been interpreted, (1) “Thy throne of God is for ever and ever,”, - a rendering which is grammatically possible, and, if it were intended to be expressed, must have been expressed thus (Nagelsbach, §64, g); (2) “Thy throne is God (= divine) for ever and ever;” but it cannot possibly be so expressed after the analogy of “the altar of wood = wooden” (cf. Psa_45:9), or “the time is showers of rain = rainy” (Ezr_10:13), since God is neither the substance of the throne, nor can the throne itself be regarded as a representation or figure of God: in this case the predicative Elohim would require to be taken as a genitive for אלהים כִּסֵּא, which, however, cannot possibly be supported in Hebrew by any syntax, not even by 2Ki_23:17, cf. Ges. §110, 2, b.

Accordingly one might adopt the first mode of interpretation, which is also commended by the fact that the earthly throne of the theocratic king is actually called יהוה כסא in 1Ch_29:23. But the sentence “thy throne of God is an everlasting one” sounds tautological, inasmuch as that which the predicate asserts is already implied in the subject; and we have still first of all to try whether אלהים cannot, with the lxx ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ Θεὸς, εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος, be taken as a vocative. Now, since before everything else God's throne is eternal (Psa_10:16; Lam_5:19), and a love of righteousness and a hatred of evil is also found elsewhere as a description of divine holiness (Psa_5:5; Psa_61:8), אלהים would be obliged to be regarded as addressed to God, if language addressed to the king did not follow with עַל־כֵּן.

But might אלהים by any possibility be even addressed to the king who is here celebrated? It is certainly true that the custom with the Elohim-Psalms of using Elohim as of equal dignity with Jahve is not favourable to this supposition; but the following surpassing of the אלהים by אלהים אלהיך renders it possible. And since elsewhere earthly authorities are also called אלהים, Exo_21:6; Exo_22:7., Psa_82:1-8, cf. Psa_138:1, because they are God's representatives and the bearers of His image upon earth, so the king who is celebrated in this Psalm may be all the more readily styled Elohim, when in his heavenly beauty, his irresistible doxa or glory, and his divine holiness, he seems to the psalmist to be the perfected realization of the close relationship in which God has set David and his seed to Himself. He calls him אֱלֹהִים, just as Isaiah calls the exalted royal child whom he exultingly salutes in Psa_9:1-6, אֵל־גִּבֹּור. He gives him this name, because in the transparent exterior of his fair humanity he sees the glory and holiness of God as having attained a salutary of merciful conspicuousness among men. At the same time, however, he guards this calling of the king by the name Elohim against being misapprehended by immediately distinguishing the God, who stands above him, from the divine king by the words “Elohim, thy God,” which, in the Korahitic Psalms, and in the Elohimic Psalms in general, is equivalent to Jahve, thy God” (Psa_43:4; 48:15; Psa_50:7); and the two words are accordingly united by Munach.

(Note: The view that the Munach is here vicarius Tiphchae anterioris (Dachselt in his Biblia Accentuata) is erroneous, vid., Accentuationssystem, xviii. §4. It is the conjunctive to אֱלֹהֶיךָ, which, in Heidenheim and Baer, on the authority of the Codices, has Tiphcha anterior, not Athnach as in the editions heretofore published. The proper place for the Athnach would at first be by שָׁשׁון; but according to Accentuationssystem, xix. §6, it cannot stand there.)

Because the king's sceptre is a “sceptre of uprightness” (cf. Isa_11:4), because he loves righteousness and consequently (fut. consec.) hates iniquity, therefore God, his God, has anointed him with the oil of joy (Isa_61:3; cf. on the construction Amo_6:6) above his fellows. What is intended is not the anointing to his office (cf. Psa_89:21 with Act_10:38) as a dedication to a happy and prosperous reign, but that God has poured forth upon him, more especially on this his nuptial day, a superabundant joy, both outwardly and in his spirit, such as He has bestowed upon no other king upon the face of the earth. That he rises high above all those round about him is self-evident; but even among his fellows of royal station, kings like himself, he has no equal. It is a matter of question whether the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb_1:8) has taken the first ὁ Θεὸς of the expression ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Θεὸς σου as a vocative. Apollinaris does not seem so to have understood him; for he renders it τοὔνεκά σοι Θεὸς αὐτὸς ἑὴν περίχηευεν ἀλοιφήν χηρίσας τερπωλῆς μετόχηοις παρὰ πάντας ἐλαίῳ, and the Greek expositors also take ὁ Θεὸς here as a nominative.

[Paidion]

In order to avoid the addressing of the king with the word Elohim, Psa_45:6 has been interpreted, (1) “Thy throne of God is for ever and ever,”, - a rendering which is grammatically possible, and, if it were intended to be expressed, must have been expressed thus (Nagelsbach, §64, g); (2) “Thy throne is God (= divine) for ever and ever;”

I would like to think that "God" in Psalm 45:6 and also in Heb 1:8, could be translated as "divine", as it could be in John 1:1 "... and the Logos was divine."
But what prevents me is that the word "God" in Psalm 45:6 and Heb 1:8 has the article, indicating that He is THE GOD, the only true God—the Father, whereas the second occurence of "God" in John 1:1 does not have the article.