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

cjab

Well-known member
Who says God is “figurative” ?

It’s the “throne” that is figurative. “God is your seat of authority/power/foundation/strength.” Nothing different than “God is your /my rock.”

Unless I see substance next post, this will be my final comment.
I have already stated that in the passages Wescott cites, the predicate is figurative, not the subject. As God is the predicate, God would have to be non-nominative & non-vocative and with a preposition to convey the meaning you contend for, just as in Ps 7:10 βοήθειά μου παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ

Neither is the throne of a human king "figurative" in any sense; and not in this context. A "seat of authority/power/foundation/strength" is the exact meaning of the word "throne." You can't assert the actual meaning of a word to be a figurative sense.

"Throne" can only have figurative meaning when applied to God's throne, or even to Satan's throne, where it is applied to some place on earth.

This implies that it is "God" himself which must be figurative in some sense, to convey "originates from God" which is not even figurative but mere ellipsis of non-superfluous words, which is untenable grammatically (except in the case of the article which is present anyway).
 

Rivers

Member
Neither is the throne of a human king "figurative" in any sense; and not in this context. A "seat of authority/power/foundation/strength" is the exact meaning of the word "throne." You can't assert the actual meaning of a word to be a figurative sense.
I agree. It makes perfectly good sense that a person would literally sit upon a throne. There's no need to make it figurative.
 

Rivers

Member
See the word "metonymy" and Luke 1:32.

Metonymy is not necessary in Luke 1:32 because David literally sat upon a literal throne. Solomon literally sat upon the same throne. Jesus Christ is a person who can also sit upon a literal throne.

Even if Luke 1:32 is taken figuratively, it wouldn't be "metonymy."
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Metonymy is not necessary in Luke 1:32 because David literally sat upon a literal throne. Solomon literally sat upon the same throne. Jesus Christ is a person who can also sit upon a literal throne.

Even if Luke 1:32 is taken figuratively, it wouldn't be "metonymy."

So Gabriel was really saying baby Jesus would at some time receive a 1000 year old king chair that David had sat upon.
 

Rivers

Member
So Gabriel was really saying baby Jesus would at some time receive a 1000 year old king chair that David had sat upon.
No. Throughout the OT, the throne upon which Israelite kings were sitting was also referred to as the throne of the Lord.

Your wooden literal interpretation of the throne itself is the problem.
 

cjab

Well-known member
No. Throughout the OT, the throne upon which Israelite kings were sitting was also referred to as the throne of the Lord.
In practice "throne of the Lord" is something of a rarity in the OT and an example of synecdoche wherever used in relation to humans.

As used of a king or place, it always refers to a locale of God's power:
(a) the seat of power for a king that obeyed YHWH (particulaly of David and Solomon (1Ch 29:23))
(b) Jerusalem the city (Jer 3:17), itself metonymy for God's kingdom both on earth and in heaven.
(c) "And I will set my throne in Elam" (Jer 49:38)
(d) The temple (Eze 43:7)
(e) prophetically, of the messiah (Psa 45:6)

Contrast with literal renditions relating to the LORD directly:
(a) Lam 5:19 "Thou, O LORD, remainest for ever; thy throne from generation to generation."
(b) Psa 89:14 "Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face."
(c) Isa 66:1 "Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne."
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
No. Throughout the OT, the throne upon which Israelite kings were sitting was also referred to as the throne of the Lord.

Your wooden literal interpretation of the throne itself is the problem.

Your comment bears no resemblance to the reality.
 
Top