Heb 1:8 - Why did you make it so difficult?

[Our Lord's God]

ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς Matthew 5:29
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός Hebrews 1:8

So why is "ὁ δεξιὸς" here?
ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς Matthew 5:29

To tell us which hand maybe?

So then why is "ὁ θεός" here?
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός Hebrews 1:8

To tell us which throne maybe?

ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ' ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. Revelation 3:21

Why did you make this so difficult? For the sake of a creedal idol?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς Matthew 5:29
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός Hebrews 1:8

So why is "ὁ δεξιὸς" here?
ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ὁ δεξιὸς Matthew 5:29

To tell us which hand maybe?

So then why is "ὁ θεός" here?
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός Hebrews 1:8

To tell us which throne maybe?

ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ' ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ. Revelation 3:21

Why did you make this so difficult? For the sake of a creedal idol?

The Matthew 5:29 citation is a good example of what we call the attributive use of the adjective. It could also have been expressed ὁ δεξιὸς ὀφθαλμός.

Heb 1:8 is not truly parallel to this despite the similarity in word order. θεός is a noun, not an adjective. For your claim to be valid, the noun has to be understood as predicate referring to ὁ θρόνος. Now, it is a citation of Ps 44:7 LXX, itself a translation of Ps 45:7 (MT, 45:6 EV's). In the Hebrew:

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ

it is clear that אלהימ is understood as a vocative, addressing God in the context and specifying to whom both the throne and scepter belong. In Greek, although ὁ θεός is nominative in form, the nominative used as a vocative is relatively common, particularly during the time frame of the NT, and this is quite likely what the LXX translators intended, and how the writer to the Hebrews understood it.

To be fair, the text has in the history of interpretation been read as you would like it. It is less than likely, however:

There is no doubt that ὁ θεός, like κύριε, is vocative (MHT 3.34f.; BD §147[3]; Westcott disagreed; the punctuation of NA26 = UBS4, unlike that of UBS3, allows both vocative and nominative). Nowhere else in the Bible is God called a throne; indeed, the LXX tends to soften even less harsh ways of speaking about God (Vanhoye 1969.179–181). If θεός is taken as vocative, θρόνος has the extended meaning “dominion,” as in 1 Clem. 65:2; Mart. Pol. 21, and is synonymous with βασιλεία in the next line.

Ellingworth, P. (1993). The Epistle to the Hebrews: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 122). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The Matthew 5:29 citation is a good example of what we call the attributive use of the adjective. It could also have been expressed ὁ δεξιὸς ὀφθαλμός.

Heb 1:8 is not truly parallel to this despite the similarity in word order. θεός is a noun, not an adjective. For your claim to be valid, the noun has to be understood as predicate referring to ὁ θρόνος. Now, it is a citation of Ps 44:7 LXX, itself a translation of Ps 45:7 (MT, 45:6 EV's). In the Hebrew:

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ

it is clear that אלהימ is understood as a vocative, addressing God in the context and specifying to whom both the throne and scepter belong. In Greek, although ὁ θεός is nominative in form, the nominative used as a vocative is relatively common, particularly during the time frame of the NT, and this is quite likely what the LXX translators intended, and how the writer to the Hebrews understood it.

To be fair, the text has in the history of interpretation been read as you would like it. It is less than likely, however:





Ellingworth, P. (1993). The Epistle to the Hebrews: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 122). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

We shouldn’t forget the grammar of the whole phrase— πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,


The problem with taking ὁ θεός as vocative is that you will then have εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος as a predicate phrase standing alone with the implied verb “to be” ( as in “Oh God your throne is forever …). But in the GNT “forever” always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb or a predicate noun or pronoun.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Here is the Hebrew perspective from an on-line poster —

Psalm 45, which the author of Hebrews quotes, is about the nation of Israel personified. Israel’s king had God alone as his true throne. When it was written, this was not about Jesus. It was about people whom we would recognize as ordinary human beings. Therefore, the passage clearly does not intend to say that Israel or its human king was God, or was a god, or was anything other than human.

Since the Messiah was a human representative of Israel — like the king in Psalm 45, it was appropriate to apply the passage to him.

But to the son: "Your throne is God forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of his kingdom. You loved right and hated lawlessness. On account of this, God, your God, anointed you with oil of exaltation beyond your companions."

The rabbis likewise understood the passage to refer to Israel and to its human king. While it is possible that the psalmist uses “god” to indicate a judge in the same sense as, “I said, ‘You are gods’” uses the word, more likely the passage should be understood differently.

Saadya Gaon interprets it as “God will establish your throne.” [That is, God is the king’s ultimate throne.]

Ibn Ezra interprets it as possessive: “Your throne is God’s throne.”

Rashi takes the words as an interjection to address the reader, a scholar and judge. He interprets it allegorically and uses “judge.”

 

[The Real John Milton]

NT

 

[Gryllus Maior]

We shouldn’t forget the grammar of the whole phrase— πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,


The problem with taking ὁ θεός as vocative is that you will then have εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος as a predicate phrase standing alone with the implied verb “to be” ( as in “Oh God your throne is forever …). But in the GNT “forever” always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb or a predicate noun or pronoun.

Are you sure?


Μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα... Mat 21:19

γένηται is not an action verb. Or...

ἵνα μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾖ Joh 14:16

ᾖ is certainly no action verb.

The truth of the matter is that in these examples the phrase is adverbial and could modify any verb, including intransitives.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Here is the Hebrew perspective from an on-line poster —

Psalm 45, which the author of Hebrews quotes, is about the nation of Israel personified. Israel’s king had God alone as his true throne. When it was written, this was not about Jesus. It was about people whom we would recognize as ordinary human beings. Therefore, the passage clearly does not intend to say that Israel or its human king was God, or was a god, or was anything other than human.

Since the Messiah was a human representative of Israel — like the king in Psalm 45, it was appropriate to apply the passage to him.

But to the son: "Your throne is God forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of his kingdom. You loved right and hated lawlessness. On account of this, God, your God, anointed you with oil of exaltation beyond your companions."

The rabbis likewise understood the passage to refer to Israel and to its human king. While it is possible that the psalmist uses “god” to indicate a judge in the same sense as, “I said, ‘You are gods’” uses the word, more likely the passage should be understood differently.

Saadya Gaon interprets it as “God will establish your throne.” [That is, God is the king’s ultimate throne.]

Ibn Ezra interprets it as possessive: “Your throne is God’s throne.”

Rashi takes the words as an interjection to address the reader, a scholar and judge. He interprets it allegorically and uses “judge.”

Yes, a Christo-centric interpretation of the verse is difficult for Jews. The NET note is informative:

O God

. The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2–5 and 7–9. Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God’s throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there). Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Ps 45:6). Biblical Studies Press.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Are you sure?


Μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα... Mat 21:19

γένηται is not an action verb. Or...

ἵνα μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾖ Joh 14:16

ᾖ is certainly no action verb.

The truth of the matter is that in these examples the phrase is adverbial and could modify any verb, including intransitives.

Yes, I am quite sure . Regarding your examples —

(1) Matt. 21:19..Οὐ μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα


You could re-arrange the sentence this way to see it more clearly:

Οὐ Μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ γένηται καρπὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

Here εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing a noun, namely καρπὸς.

(2) Same with John 14:16. Here we don’t even have to re-arrange the sentence

κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον Παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

You can see that the predicate is μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and not εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the pronoun ὑμῶν. ᾖ is the subject of the clause!

 

[The Real John Milton]

Yes, a Christo-centric interpretation of the verse is difficult for Jews. The NET note is informative:





Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Ps 45:6). Biblical Studies Press.

Not sure why you would say that. The Jews have always interpreted this as pertaining to Israel’s king, and some Midrasim have done so Messianic. They just don’t see a God-man Messiah here.The apostle applies it to the ultimate king of Israel, Messiah Jesus.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Yes, I am quite sure . Regarding your examples —

(1) Matt. 21:19..Οὐ μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ καρπὸς γένηται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα


You could re-arrange the sentence this way to see it more clearly:

Οὐ Μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ γένηται καρπὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

Here εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing a noun, namely καρπὸς.

(2) Same with John 14:16. Here we don’t even have to re-arrange the sentence

κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον Παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

You can see that the predicate is μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and not εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the pronoun ὑμῶν. ᾖ is the subject of the clause!

Simply wrong. The word order does not need to be rearranged, and the prepositional phrase is clearly adverbial modifying the verbs. You can't just make something up and hope to be taken seriously, but here it is again. And ᾖ the subject of the clause? Since when is the main verb of the clause the subject of the clause?

 

[The Real John Milton]

Simply wrong. The word order does not need to be rearranged, and the prepositional phrase is clearly adverbial modifying the verbs. You can't just make something up and hope to be taken seriously, but here it is again. And ᾖ the subject of the clause? Since when is the main verb of the clause the subject of the clause?

Meaning the implied pronoun which comes with this verb..Look at the following parallel example:

καὶ μεμέρισται. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ πνεύματι· ἡ δὲ γαμήσασα μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσῃ τῷ ἀνδρί.

1 Cor. 7:34

..so that she may be holy both in …

And I am not wrong about the first one either.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Meaning the implied pronoun which comes with this verb..Look at the following parallel example:


1 Cor. 7:34

..so that she may be holy both in …

And I am not wrong about the first one either.

But you didn't say that, and you are clearly backtracking. Just more evidence that no one should take your language claims seriously.

 

[The Real John Milton]

But you didn't say that, and you are clearly backtracking. Just more evidence that no one should take your language claims seriously.

I assumed that that should have been obvious to any competent reader of my post who claimed to know Biblical Koine.

Anyhow, back on point. Do you now see why that example you gave is NOT an instance of the predicate phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα standing alone with the “to be” verb ? I can color code for your easy viewing:

ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

Red above is the to be verb with implied pronoun subject. Blue above is the predicate. You can see that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the predicate pronoun ὑμῶν and certainly not standing alone.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

I assumed that that should have been obvious to any competent reader of my post who claimed to know Biblical Koine.

Anyhow, back on point. Do you now see why that example you gave is NOT an instance of the predicate phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα standing alone with the “to be” verb ? I can color code for your easy viewing:

ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

Red above is the to be verb with implied pronoun subject. Blue above is the predicate. You can see that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the predicate pronoun ὑμῶν and certainly not standing alone.

That's right. Double down on your error, throw in some gaslighting, and pretend you've got it right. Not impressed. As for me, back to what I need to do the real world.

 

[The Real John Milton]

That's right. Double down on your error, throw in some gaslighting, and pretend you've got it right. Not impressed. As for me, back to what I need to do the real world.

Take a look at the Greek. You should be able to see that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the predicate pronoun ὑμῶν in the example you gave.

By the way, Professor BeDuhn made the argument in his book Truth in Translation. I dare say it is quite compelling. Here is a partial quote from his book:

First, on the basis of linguistics, ho theos is more likely to mean "God," as it does hundreds of times throughout the New Testament, than "O God," a meaning it has in only three other places in the New Testament. Furthermore, there is no other example in the Bible where the expression "forever" stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb "to be," as it would if the sentence were read "Your throne is forever." "Forever" always functions as a phrase complementing either an action verb, or a predicate noun or pronoun...
Second, on the basis of literary context, we can say that Jesus, who is the subject being discussed in Hebrews 1:8, is not called "God" anywhere else in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the immediate context of Hebrews 1:7-9, the author is making a contrast between angels and Jesus. Quotes from the Old Testament are used to make this contrast. Verse 7, quoting Psalm 104:4, shows that God talks about the angels as "servants." The contrast is made in verse 8, which says, "But (God says) about the Son..." and then quotes the words we are trying to figure out from Psalm 45:6-7. In contrast to the angels who serve, the Son is enthroned....

 

[Our Lord's God]

The Matthew 5:29 citation is a good example of what we call the attributive use of the adjective. It could also have been expressed ὁ δεξιὸς ὀφθαλμός.

Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε

καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ

Noun or adjective?

Heb 1:8 is not truly parallel to this despite the similarity in word order. θεός is a noun, not an adjective. For your claim to be valid, the noun has to be understood as predicate

NO. This isn't about a Watchtower translation of the text.

referring to ὁ θρόνος. Now, it is a citation of Ps 44:7 LXX, itself a translation of Ps 45:7 (MT, 45:6 EV's). In the Hebrew:

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ

it is clear that אלהימ is understood as a vocative,

Because you want it to be.

addressing God in the context and specifying to whom both the throne and scepter belong.

But concerning the son.....

In Greek, although ὁ θεός is nominative in form, the nominative used as a vocative is relatively common, particularly during the time frame of the NT, and this is quite likely what the LXX translators intended, and how the writer to the Hebrews understood it.

Because you want it to be.

To be fair, the text has in the history of interpretation been read as you would like it. It is less than likely, however:

It is demanded by the context which is about the exaltation of Jesus over the angels.

Ellingworth, P. (1993). The Epistle to the Hebrews: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 122). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

So you are good with a translation which says God's God elevated God above God's peers as a reward from God's God for God's good behavior?

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε

καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς θεοῦ

Noun or adjective?



NO. This isn't about a Watchtower translation of the text.



Because you want it to be.



But concerning the son.....



Because you want it to be.



It is demanded by the context which is about the exaltation of Jesus over the angels.



So you are good with a translation which says God's God elevated God above God's peers as a reward from God's God for God's good behavior?

Just quickly, ἅγιος is always an adjective, and θεός always a noun. As for the rest, "because you want it to be" is not an argument.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

Take a look at the Greek. You should be able to see that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the predicate pronoun ὑμῶν in the example you gave.

By the way, Professor BeDuhn made the argument in his book Truth in Translation. I dare say it is quite compelling. Here is a partial quote from his book:

I've already proved Beduhn wrong, but thanks for showing us where you got the idea.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I've already proved Beduhn wrong, but thanks for showing us where you got the idea.

No, the example you gave was not an instance of the predicate phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα standing alone with the “to be” verb.That is why you refuse to even address it . Here it is again:

ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

Red above is the to be verb with implied pronoun subject. Blue above is the predicate. You can see that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the predicate pronoun ὑμῶν and certainly not standing alone. Address this.

 

[Gryllus Maior]

No, the example you gave was not an instance of the predicate phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα standing alone with the “to be” verb.That is why you refuse to even address it . Here it is again:

ᾖ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

Red above is the to be verb with implied pronoun subject. Blue above is the predicate. You can see that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is complementing the predicate pronoun ὑμῶν and certainly not standing alone. Address this.

I shouldn't have to, if you are as competent with your Greek as you think you are. Both prepositional phrases are used adverbially, and modify the verb.