The word God in Greek is Θεὸς ("theos") – no differentiation ‘g’ or ‘G’ & god is a righteous servant of God, a king, a prophet, or a Messiah etc…

Hebrews 1:8

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

taking into account the following;

theos / god being satan

2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


Hebrews 1:9

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, EVEN THY GOD, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

H 1:9 implies that Jesus has a God unless God is anointing God & does God have fellows.


Hebrews 1 verses 1-2 which read: 1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Point: if Jesus created the the universe how can God speak to Jesus in the last days clearly Jesus is only the mouth piece of God. appointed heir cannot be appointed heir if you already are God and own everything.

Should Hebrews 1:8-9 read as follows

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.


  1. v9 can God anoint God
  2. v9 Can God have Fellows
  3. v6 - should it be Homage Not Worship - does not equate to God
  4. should it be ages Not universe
  5. v2 - spoke in the 'last days' not from the beginning
  6. v2 - 'appointed heir'
  • 1
    Why have you quoted KJV then NIV then KJV? Such behaviour smacks of copy and pasting what others have written. The 'man' Jesus was made of atoms, as are all men. The spirit that moved the 'man' Jesus, however, was exclusively the Spirit of God himself. The anointing of the 'man' Jesus was for mankind's benefit, not Jesus' or God's. When you finally recognise Jesus, you will esteem him above your fellows as well.
    – enegue
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 14:49
  • 6
    @enegue Technically that's the heresy of Apollinarianism. Jesus has a human soul - He is not a shell for the Spirit of God. "Nevertheless not my will, but your will be done." Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 17:21
  • 1) What is your source for stating that Θεος is 'a righteous servant of God, a king, a prophet, or a Messiah etc…' ? 2) The 'god of this age' is in contrast to the 'eternal God'. One is created in association with the age, the other is uncreated and ever in existence. 3) 'God was the word' (John 1:2) reveals that Deity which existed in the beginning (and therefore is eternal) is the one who was manifested in flesh.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 18:45
  • @SolaGratia A 'soul' is something one 'IS', not something one 'HAS' -- "... and man BECAME a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). The spirit that moved that soul (the 'man' Jesus) was exclusively the Spirit of God himself.
    – enegue
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 20:55
  • 1
    @enegue Depends if you have a bipartite or tripartite view of man. If man has a spirit that is distinct from the mind, then Chalcedonians would say that Jesus had a distinct human spirit. If man just has body and mind, the bipartite view, then Jesus wouldn't have a human spirit.
    – curiousdannii
    Commented Apr 22, 2021 at 22:59

8 Answers 8


Greek is NOT like Hebrew - the word god/theos is never applied to anything or anyone but the true God of heaven with the following exceptions -

  • In a derogatory sense when discussing a false god such as Phil 3:19, "Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things."
  • Quoting the Hebrew to confound the Jews such as in John 10:34 (plural)
  • A reference to (false) pagan deities, Acts 28:6, 7:40, 43, 12:22, 14:11, 19:26, 37, 1 Cor 8:5, etc
  • A reference to Satan being falsely attributed the attributes of God, 2 Thess 2:4, 2 Cor 4:4, Gal 4:8b.

That is, unlike the Hebrew, the NT never attributes true deity (as distinct from false deity) to a person. Thus, passages like John 1:18, Matt 1:23, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 1:20 (acc to BDAG), Heb 1:8, 9, John 20:28, Titus 2;13, etc, attribute full deity to Christ and so must be translated with a "G", ie, God in fullest sense.

This is confirmed in Heb 1 where Jesus is given the following attributions:

  • He made the universe (v2)
  • He upholds the universe by His powerful word (V3)
  • He sits on the right hand of the majesty in heaven (V3)
  • He is worshiped by angels (V6)
  • He has an eternal throne (V8)
  • He is addresses as "God" by God (V8, 9)
  • The quote to "the Lord" in V10-12 is from the Psalm 102:25-27 which refers to the LORD, Jehovah. That is, Heb 1:10-12 indirectly refers to Jesus as the Jehovah of the OT.

Let there be no doubt that Heb 1 unambiguously refers to Jesus as God in the fullest and complete sense.

  • Very insightful use of Psalm 102, upvoted +1 Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 0:19
  • 2
    "the NT never attributes true deity (as distinct from false deity) to a person." How can this be reconciled with "attribute full deity to Christ"? Commented Apr 26, 2021 at 14:06
  • 1
    @OneGodtheFather - that is the point - the above texts I quoted absolutely affirm that Jesus was God in the fullest sense!
    – Dottard
    Commented Apr 26, 2021 at 20:27
  • 2
    Heb 1 'unambiguously' refers to Jesus as not God, says my unitarian eye. It states there is God, there is the Son, and God appoints the Son (Heb 1:1-2). Can you say how trinitarianism paraphrases the use of 'God' here? Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 16:31
  • 2
    @Dottard How can part of the chapter deny it, but the chapter 'unambiguously' state it? That is my question - I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but asking you for clarification of the point, which seems very important to me! Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 20:26

Hebrews 1:8-should it be "god" or "God" ?

Simply put, it should be "God".

Not sure why I, an unabashed non-trinitarian, am even bothering to get in again on this heavily biased towards the Trinitarian belief, site. I only do so because I have answered this Q. before (although posed somewhat differently, with the emphasis being on "case"), but it hasn't come up as a previous reference. This could have been because of it not being well received, although I prefer to think that it was hard to understand my reasoning. So, for what it's worth, here again is my answer, reproduced from last May, which also incorporates verse 9. Maybe we have some more discerning people now towards my way of thinking, or maybe not. Depending on how this is received, will be the deciding factor on whether I truly get back into the fray or not.......

Nominative, or, vocative? The answer may well be in the beholding. Names, or even titles (but not limited to these), that are being addressed directly, are said to be in the vocative case. "The Son" here is being merely referenced and is in the accusative case and is therefore the direct object and not the subject of the sentence. "God", even though the subject of the sentence, is not being addressed directly here, so does not need to be in the vocative case. Also, the definite article "the", precedes "God", in all three instances in the Greek, and in Greek, the definite article does not have a vocative case. So, as God is not being addressed directly and is preceded by the definite article, the Greek utilizes the nominative case, as is permitted.

As is often the case in the NASB, as is the case in many a modern day translation, we suffer from "Trinitarian" bias, in the translating of verse 8. The Greek for..."Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"...(the translation being an unabashed attempt to conflate Jesus with God), is better represented in English as follows..."God is your throne for ever and ever"...and some translations even, as already pointed out in an earlier answer, lean in this direction. When then considering (in Verse 9) the other two instances, already in question, it becomes blatantly clear that God is a separate spiritual entity, and Father to (the only begotten), Jesus.... his God, who anointed him with the oil of exultation, thus singling him(not himself) out, rather than any of the other angels.

  • 6
    +1 Don't give up! Yes, this site has a trinitarian bias, but it only takes a few active non-trinitarians to turn the tide. And after 1600+ years, it's time for the turning of the tide, IMO. Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 23:01
  • 2
    @One God the Father- Well, hello there! Glad to make your acquaintance. Your user handle needs no explanation. Apart from the trinitarian bias being so exasperating, I was also turned off by the anonymous and therefore cowardly down voting. Although comments here are not for discussion, I did notice your user name a few times when breezing through recent questions, so will be taking a closer look at you, particularly as I received another four, actually five now, upvotes for previous posts. I will be checking those posts now for any possible comments.... Commented Apr 28, 2021 at 0:53
  • 2
    @OldeEnglish welcome back, and upvoted +1--not because I fully agree with your conclusion, but because your answer is useful (which is what the votes are supposed to be about). I've certainly noticed various leanings on the site as well, and believe this site best achieves its intended purpose with a chorus of voices. Thanks for this contribution. Commented Apr 28, 2021 at 4:29
  • @HoldToTheRod-Appreciated! Commented Apr 28, 2021 at 10:11
  • Heb 1:8 BIB Πρὸς (Unto) δὲ (however) τὸν (the) Υἱόν (Son): “Ὁ (The) θρόνος (throne) σου (of You), ὁ (O) Θεὸς (God), εἰς (is to) τὸν (the) αἰῶνα (age) τοῦ (of the) αἰῶνος (age), καὶ (and) ἡ (the) ῥάβδος (scepter) τῆς (of) εὐθύτητος (righteousness is) ῥάβδος (the scepter) τῆς (of the) βασιλείας (kingdom) σου* (of You). Where are you translating from? Commented Dec 5, 2022 at 15:05

Since the same subject, the υἱός and θεός is said to have created the world (Hebrews 1:2; 1:10), then it is clear that this Son and God is not part of the world, and thus, uncreated, just like the Father is uncreated. And just like the Father is Uncreated-Creator, so also the Son is Uncreated-Creator of the created order of things - the universe. You can write therefore both 'god' and 'God' but with a meaning that He, the Son, has the same dignity as He, the Father, and if you hold this truthful theology, then flaws in English grammar conventions will be forgiven to you :)

  • 1
    I upvoted your answer - The One who creates all things cannot Himself be created - good point! +1
    – Dottard
    Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 5:45
  • 2
    @Dottard Thanks, dear Dottard. The Trinity is a logical necessity that follows from a correct and conscientious reading of the New Testament. Your answer is just fine! Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 5:54

Hebrews 8ff is a citation from the Psalms

Ps 45 7-8

Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows;


Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou art the same, and thy years have no end. The children of thy servants shall dwell secure; their posterity shall be established before thee.

Ps 110:1

The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool."

These words in the Psalms are directed to God. That is why they sound like directed to God, also when cited.

The message is not that Jesus is God, but that God has installed him as the King of His Kingdom, sitting at His right.


What does Jesus’ standing or sitting at the “right hand of the majesty” imply? Is it really saying that he, Jesus, is the center of heavenly power and authority, or is it saying that he is submissive to Someone higher? How are we to reconcile Heb 1:3 with Acts 5:31; 7:55 & 56; Eph 1:20 and 1Pet 3:22? Reading Matt 20:20-23 might help us form a clearer mental picture of the Father and Son and their seating arrangement.

  • Welcome to Bible Hermeneutics SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others.
    – agarza
    Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 3:47
  • thank you for your comments, the problem in my opinion is H 1:9 can a God have a God & can God anoint God. Also can God have other fellows ? Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 8:59
  • 1
    I have edited the question and added Hebrews 1 verses 1-2 - which sheds further light. God spoke to Jesus in the last days and God appointed Jesus as heir of everything. You cannot be appointed heir if you own it already. Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 9:37
  • This answer neglects the mystery of the trinity. There are plenty of Scriptures that make it clear, when taken in context and as a whole that Jesus is God, specifically God the Son. The mystery of the Son being subject to the Father, both being God, is--well a mystery. But our not understanding it does not negate the truth of the Scripture.
    – bob
    Commented Apr 23, 2021 at 13:35
  • 4
    @bob there was no mystery until they invented the trinity
    – Steve
    Commented Apr 26, 2021 at 9:37

Again and again we encounter analysis of a text never intended to stand alone in understanding a matter. God has provided a multi-faceted approach to revelation that is seen from Gen to Rev through authors millennia apart who corroborate one another.

Jesus is presented as a man only - never God. Certainly there are some texts that may be read into to form a view that Jesus is more than a man, or even an equal to the Highest God. But these are based on pre-conceived notions surfacing centuries after the apostles.

Even in the answers here, God's word is used to elevate Jesus to a place not his.

  • He (Jesus) made the universe. The word is aiōnas (ages) and has nothing to do with universe or world, yet it gets quoted all the time anyway. Heb 1:2
  • He sits on the right hand of the majesty in heaven (V3) He sits on the right of GOD ~12 verses, the Father ~2 verses. What can be deduced from this is; Jesus is not God, the Father and God are the same one, God IS the Father as the entire NT points out repeatedly.

Thus Jesus, not being God,

  • is rightly raised from the dead by God,
  • appointed heir of all things by God,
  • exalted by God
  • anointed by God

Because it is only His to give to His son. The NT, when read with humility and free from abstracts of tradition, reveal a Jesus who could never be God, a God who could never 'empty' Himself to be not God and still be a man who could do all the things Jesus did.

did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped Phil 2:5

God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name v9

glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh John 17:1

So to Heb 1:8 We know there are many called god through the ages. But there is only one God. Even if we momentarily suppose a 3in1 God, they are allegedly all equal, all God.

Here Jesus is decidedly NOT equal in anything! He is granted a station he has never had before - heir, exalted above all other names and above his companions. The Father is greater in every way at every moment forever.

You have loved righteousness and have hated wickedness; because of this, God, Your God, has anointed You

Why is this such a big deal? When would God ever find Himself in a place where, 'because', and then He is made more than He presently is? Never!

Jesus as the man of flesh alone, did have to choose between righteousness and wickedness - his whole mortal life. There was NO backstop, no second chance. IF he sinned he would die and never be raised again. That isn't the Eternal God we're talking about, but His son.

Sit at My right hand, until I may place Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet

If Jesus is also God, he should, now ascended, exalted, made heir of all, be able to subdue his own enemies. But no. Again, he is but a man, now immortal, but still a man and not God - waiting on his God to follow through on His promises at the appointed time.

That's why Stephen was stoned - he saw the ascended Jesus - his Lord and Master in the place where he said he would go. Not by going there of himself, but be taken there by his God. Mark 16:19

Indeed, as v5 points out in perfect harmony -

You are my Son; today I have begotten You

God made His own son, made him Lord, made him the Christ Acts 2:36 Made him everything he needed to be Saviour and to accomplish what he was sent to do as the logos of God become flesh.


An honest and exegetical study of true worship will show that it may be given to anyone we choose to serve, honour and even obey. The insistence that to worship Jesus means he must be God is folly. God says to worship no other god, to worship Him only - as God! Jesus, having accomplished his mission to save all creation from doom is worthy of great praise - not because he is God - but because he is NOT!

Made like us in every respect Heb 2:17, this mortal man won against the prince of evil, how? With his God by his side. Now, rightly, he is at God's side as His amazing son - the second and last Adam.

Let all God’s angels worship him. Heb 1:6


  • 1
    i have amended to list the issues that Hebrews causes - a standpoint needs evidence not a lack of understanding of the mystery of trinity. Other passages may be arguable but from what I have read from both sides of the opinion - Hebrews does not provide evidence that Jesus is God - this appear to be very weak. Commented Apr 26, 2021 at 9:10
  • 1
    @Adam - there was nothing constructive in your last comment. Please ensure you focus feedback to specific points, and ensure you're following the Code of Conduct in how you speak to all users, regardless of whether you agree with their viewpoints. Everybody disagrees with somebody here - let's do it in as friendly and helpful a manner as possible.
    – Steve can help
    Commented Apr 26, 2021 at 12:39
  • @steve Taylor...I don't recall what it was...so if its deleted where is the evidence? No one reads fine print btw!
    – Adam
    Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 20:47
  • 1
    @Adam - that's why I'm reminding you now - do read it again if you're at all unsure, it's only a two minute read. To date, ten of your comments have been flagged as hostile or unfriendly. If you're unsure how to interact with others in a friendly and kind manner, consider how more experienced users give the same critiques. There are lots of good examples on this site.
    – Steve can help
    Commented Apr 27, 2021 at 21:24



Image: If God (the Father) was "the sun", would not Jesus (the Son) be the sun's rays and and the Holy Spirit be the "warmth" ? (A way to consider the "Trinity / Tri-Unity ?)

The Bible explains the Bible

“Sitting at the right hand of God (the Father)” Mk 16,19; Ps 15.11: Does it not mean “Entering into the Righteousness of God (the Father)”? And in fact “Being one with God (the Father)”.

“Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?”° Malachi 2:10

"I and the Father are one" John 10:30

“He who has seen me has seen (God) the Father” John 14:8-9

“The Father is one with me as I am one with the Father” John 14:11

"God said to Moses, I am he who am. And he added: Thus shall you answer the children of Israel: He who is called "I AM" has sent me to you." Exodus 3:14

“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:58.

“Great is the mystery of godliness:—God was manifested in the flesh… was taken up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16).

Quotes (bibliquest.net):

“...for THE name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Let us notice the NAME and not the NAMES.

"What was veiled in the Old Testament is fully revealed in the New. Faith accepts this revelation as the Word gives it to us, without our being able to fully fathom this mystery (See: 1 Corinthians 13:12)".

"Let us go no further in the revelation of this “mystery”; Jesus himself emphasized it: “No one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone knows the Father, except the Son, and him to whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27).

There remains in the man Christ Jesus an unrevealed "mystery."

Through the ministry of Spirit of truth, we know the Son as God willed (See John 15:26).

But let us maintain all reverence without seeking to scrutinize what God has not seen fit to tell us.

No one, under penalty of dead, was not to look into the ark (type of Christ), nor touch it".

God bless you.

  • 1
    As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Commented Mar 30 at 2:38

Simple Answers. How should Hebrews 1:8-9 be translated as

Answer: Heb 1:8 BIB+ Πρὸς Pros about δὲ de But τὸν ton the Υἱόν Huion Son [He says] : Ὁ Ho - θρόνος thronos throne , σου sou “ Your ὁ ho O Θεὸς Theos God , εἰς eis [endures] forever τὸν ton . . . αἰῶνα aiōna . . . τοῦ tou vvv αἰῶνος aiōnos and ever , καὶ kai and ἡ hē - ῥάβδος rhabdos - τῆς tēs - εὐθύτητος euthytētos justice [is] ῥάβδος rhabdos the scepter τῆς tēs of βασιλείας basileias kingdom . σου* sou Your

Heb 1:9 BIB+ ἠγάπησας ēgapēsas You have loved δικαιοσύνην dikaiosynēn righteousness καὶ kai and ἐμίσησας emisēsas hated ἀνομίαν anomian wickedness ; διὰ dia therefore τοῦτο touto . . . ἔχρισέν echrisen has anointed σε se You ὁ ho - Θεός Theos God , ὁ ho - Θεός Theos God , σου sou Your ἔλαιον elaion with [the] oil ἀγαλλιάσεως agalliaseōs of joy .” παρὰ para above τοὺς tous - μετόχους metochous companions σου sou Your

The "form" here - ὁ Θεὸς ho Theos - is in the vocative case and not the nominative. It is the usual form of the vocative in the Septuagint, and nearly the only form of it - Stuart. This then is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God; and I see not why it is not to be used in the usual and proper sense of the word. Unitarians proposed to translate this, "God is thy throne;" but how can God be "a throne" of a creature?

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱός …, the quotation being from Psalms 45 in which the King in God’s kingdom is described ideally. The points in the quotation which make it relevant to the writer’s purpose are the ascription of dominion and perpetuity to the Son.

The emphatic words, therefore, are θρόνος, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ῥάβδος, and παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου. It does not matter, therefore, whether we translate “Thy throne is God” or “Thy throne, O God,” for the major point here to be affirmed is not that the Messiah is Divine, but that He has a throne and everlasting dominion.

Dealing with the Issues Raised.

  1. V9 can God anoint God. Yes he can. Thats what the bible Says. However we should distinguish the Persons Speaking here. God- Father and God- Son- (in time took the name Jesus) God the Father anointed Jesus who The Father calls "God"(Qualitative use).

  2. v9 can God have fellows.
    Since we have understood how the word God is used above. Then Yes. Jesus who is the world became flesh and Identified with the Humans whom he came to save. Its on this point he has Fellows. The Father still choosing to call him God(qualitative use) while speaking about his(logos) Human Adventure says alot here.

Thy fellows," in its original reference, seems most naturally to mean "thy associates in royalty," "other kings;" cf. Psalm 79:27, "I will make him my Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth." Or it might mean the companions of the bridegroom, the παρανύμφιοι. The latter reference lends itself readily to the fulfillment in Christ, the Bridegroom of the Church, whose παρανύμφιοι the redeemed are; themselves also being, after their measure, χριστοί (cf. 1 John 2:20, 27

  1. V6. Should it be Homage not worship Yes it should be Homage. But the sense is retained , Whom would God require the angels to adore? A creature? A man? A fellow-angel? To ask these questions is to answer them. He could require them to worship none but God, Moreover Two Jewish Rabbis of distinction - Rashi and Kimchi - affirm that all the Psalms Psa. 93–101 (which are the parallels of this scripture) are to be regarded as referring to the Messiah. Such was, and is, the opinion of the Jews.

  2. Should it be Ages and not Universe Barnes sums this up perfectly. "The word properly means “age” - an indefinitely long period of time; then perpetuity, ever, eternity - “always” being. For an extended investigation of the meaning of the word, the reader may consult an essay by Prof. Stuart, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, for 1829, pp. 406-452. From the sense of “age,” or “duration,” the word comes to denote the present and future age; the present world and the world to come; the present world, with all its cares, anxieties, and evils; the people of this world - a wicked generation, etc. Then it means the world - the material universe creation as it is. The only perfectly clear use of the word in this sense in the New Testament is in Heb 11:3, and there there can be no doubt. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were made by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The passage before us will bear the same interpretation, and this is the most obvious and intelligible. What would be the meaning of saying that the “ages” or “dispensations” were made by the Son of God? The Hebrews used the word - צולם ‛owlaam - in the same sense. It properly means “age, duration;” and thence it came to be used by them to denote the world - made up of “ages” or generations; and then the world itself."

v2 - spoke in the 'last days' not from the beginning Yes. This is simply referring to Jesus Earthly Ministry. Being Gods Final Spokesman. Compare with the Holy Spirit also to speak the things of Jesus to the disciples..

v2 - 'appointed heir' The language is used to denote his rank and dignity as the Son of God. As such all things are his, as the property of a father descends to his son at his death. The word rendered “heir” - κληρονόμος klēronomos - means properly:

(1) One who acquires anything by lot; and,

(2) An “heir” in the sense in which we usually understand the word. It may also denote a “possessor” of anything received as a portion, or of property of any kind; see Rom 4:13-14. It is in every instance rendered “heir” in the New Testament. Applied to Christ, it means that as the Son of God he is possessor or lord of all things, or that all things are his; compare Act 2:36; Act 10:36; Joh 17:10; Joh 16:15 (refs4). 

  • Excuse me!! You haven't answered the Q., which is wholly in regard to Heb 1:8. You also go on to talk about 1:2; 6 & 9. Then when you do include 1:8, you go into this whole, totally unnecessary, spiel about the meaning of "age", again not with regard to the Q. One can be forgiven to talk about 1:9, because of its close association with 8, but the Father did not here call Jesus God. Also, when God anointed Jesus with the oil of joy, more than his fellows, He meant Jesus' fellow messengers/angels, which was to encompass also, those of the 144,000, fellow heirs to the promise - Gal 3:29. - 1. Commented Dec 9, 2022 at 0:38
  • Your -1 is Appreciated. I will edit to add verse 8 to as regards the question. As for your Speculation and unwarranted 144,000. You are excused. Commented Dec 9, 2022 at 9:50
  • See that you directly quoted from Barnes' commentary regarding the ho Theos of Heb 1:8, who reminds us that the "(definite) article" here is in the vocative case, even though Theos is in the nominative case, which would seem contrary to Greek declension rules. Indeed, on reading other commentaries the nominative case should probably have been used for both the article and the subsequent noun. Barnes goes on to say that being in the vocative, this means we most probably have a direct address to the Messiah. Nevertheless, the jury is still out on that. "Totally unnecessary"- unedited?? Commented Dec 10, 2022 at 1:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.