Equality between the Father and Son

[placebofactor]

Did the Father have the power to raise or elevate his Son Jesus to the same rank as himself? Let us call the highest rank in heaven "the rank of God."

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

[Bible_Student]

The context shows that in Psalm 45:6 "God" and the person to whom the phrase is addressed (the king) are two distinct persons:

Psal. 45:1 My heart is stirred by something good.
I say: “My song is about a king.”
May my tongue be the stylus of a skilled copyist.
2 You are the most handsome of the sons of men.
Gracious speech flows from your lips.
That is why God has blessed you forever.
 3 Strap your sword on your side, O mighty one,
In your dignity and your splendor.
 4 And in your splendor go on to victory;
Ride in the cause of truth and humility and righteousness,
And your right hand will accomplish awe-inspiring things.
 5 Your arrows are sharp, making peoples fall before you;
They pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies.
 6 God is your throne forever and ever;
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.
 7 You loved righteousness, and you hated wickedness.
That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.
 8 All your garments are scented with myrrh and aloeswood and cassia;
From the grand ivory palace, stringed instruments make you rejoice.
 9 The daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor.
The royal consort has taken her stand at your right hand, adorned in gold of Oʹphir.
10 Listen, O daughter, pay attention and incline your ear;
Forget your people and your father’s house.
11 And the king will long for your beauty,
For he is your lord,
So bow down to him.
12 The daughter of Tyre will come with a gift;
The wealthiest of men will seek your favor.
13 Inside the palace the king’s daughter is absolutely magnificent;
Her clothing is adorned with gold.
14 She will be brought to the king in richly woven garments.
The virgin companions following her are brought in before you.
15 They will be brought with rejoicing and joy;
They will enter into the king’s palace.
16 Your sons will take the place of your forefathers.
You will appoint them as princes in all the earth.
17 I will make your name known throughout all generations to come.
That is why peoples will praise you forever and ever.

The singer sings an ode to the king or to his God?
What would be the reason for a translator to ignore the context of what they intend to translate?

[placebofactor]

Dear A Freeman,

Please note that I never said Christ was equal with God the Father.

You should observe that In Daniel 7 that "the son of man" (Christ) was brought before "The ancient of days" who then gave him an everlasting kingdom.

My question to you is who is "the ancient of Days" who had the power to give Christ this everlasting kingdom?

It is obvious that Christ received "all that the Father hath", is given an everlasting kingdom.

Is given all power in heaven and earth.

Is given the power to judge all mankind.

Is Emanuel or "God with us".

Has power to give commandments.

Is the "word".

Will sit in the throne of The Most High.

Was worshiped by the Angels of God.

And yet you deny his position in the Godhead.

It appears that you deny the three separate and distinct members of the Godhead i.e. (God the Father , Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost).

It appeares that you are declaring all the above to be the eternal destiny of all mankind. Is this your clear doctrine?

The title "ancient of days in Daniel 7:13 belongs to the Father, but in verse 22, "the "ancient of days comes," belongs to Jesus Christ, who is called the "Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6. How do we know Jesus is the ancient of days in verse 22? the Father is never said to come. It is the Son who comes. Jesus will return in the same manner and place from where he left, Zechariah 14$, "His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives." We see Jesus coming out of Edom with blood on his garments in Isaiah 63:1. John sees him in Revelation 19:13 with blood on his garments. Jesus' last words in Revelation 22 are, "Surely I come quickly."

Conclusion: Both the Father and Son hold the same title of "Ancient of days."

[historia]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #39]
[Replying to Bible_Student in post #41]

Neither of you answered my question. Here it is again:

Psalm 45:6, in the MT and the LXX, looks just like all these other myriad examples we find elsewhere in the Psalms:

כסאך אלהים עולם ועד שבט מישר שבט מלכותך
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ράβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

So, on what grammatical grounds, then, should we treat it differently?

I take it, then, you have no grammatical reasons to object to rendering the text as "O God," as it is elsewhere in the Psalms.

Indeed, I think it's safe to say that, had this verse appeared in another context, there would be no question that is should be rendered as "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." This is, as Cohen noted, the "obvious translation."

The context shows that in Psalm 45:6 "God" and the person to whom the phrase is addressed (the king) are two distinct persons

Well, yeah, there is no question here that the king of Israel and God are two different persons. The real question is: can the Psalmist poetically refer to the king as elohim?

Consider, by way of comparison, that Isaiah refers to the future, idealized king of Israel as "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6. Those are the same two terms that the Psalmist uses to address the king here in Psalm 45: in v.4 ('O Mighty one') and v.6 ('O God').

So what's the problem?

That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.
 

Notice, too, the somewhat awkward phrasing here. While the Hebrew scriptures often speak of "Yahweh your God," the expression "God your God" is unusual, and seems altogether redundant in this verse. Why not just say "God has anointed you"?

It seems to me the Psalmist does this precisely because he has already referred to the king as elohim. Now, when he wants to say that elohim has anointed the king, he has to clarify which elohim he is referring to.

What would be the reason for a translator to ignore the context of what they intend to translate?

I don't think they are. Let me just point out, too, that this is nearly the opposite argument from the one you made in your previous reply. There you argued that translators should render v. 6 in grammatically incorrect English, since anything beyond that was an intolerable "interpretation" rather than translation. Here, now, you're arguing that translators have to first interpret the surrounding context correctly in order to properly translate this verse. It seems your position, then, is not really based on any consistent philosophy or principle of translation.

"Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

Let's be clear, though, this "meaning" is pure speculation on your part. As far I am aware, nowhere in the Bible (or elsewhere in Near Eastern literature) is the king's throne ever described as being a deity, so we have no basis on which to say what this awkward expression might even mean.

If what the Psalmist wanted to say here was that the king's throne, or power, comes from God, surely he would have just said that instead.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #39]
[Replying to Bible_Student in post #41]

Neither of you answered my question. Here it is again:

Psalm 45:6, in the MT and the LXX, looks just like all these other myriad examples we find elsewhere in the Psalms:

כסאך אלהים עולם ועד שבט מישר שבט מלכותך
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ράβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

So, on what grammatical grounds, then, should we treat it differently?

I take it, then, you have no grammatical reasons to object to rendering the text as "O God," as it is elsewhere in the Psalms.

Indeed, I think it's safe to say that, had this verse appeared in another context, there would be no question that is should be rendered as "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." This is, as Cohen noted, the "obvious translation."

The context shows that in Psalm 45:6 "God" and the person to whom the phrase is addressed (the king) are two distinct persons

Well, yeah, there is no question here that the king of Israel and God are two different persons. The real question is: can the Psalmist poetically refer to the king as elohim?

Consider, by way of comparison, that Isaiah refers to the future, idealized king of Israel as "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6. Those are the same two terms that the Psalmist uses to address the king here in Psalm 45: in v.4 ('O Mighty one') and v.6 ('O God').

So what's the problem?

That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.
 

Notice, too, the somewhat awkward phrasing here. While the Hebrew scriptures often speak of "Yahweh your God," the expression "God your God" is unusual, and seems altogether redundant in this verse. Why not just say "God has anointed you"?

It seems to me the Psalmist does this precisely because he has already referred to the king as elohim. Now, when he wants to say that elohim has anointed the king, he has to clarify which elohim he is referring to.

What would be the reason for a translator to ignore the context of what they intend to translate?

I don't think they are. Let me just point out, too, that this is nearly the opposite argument from the one you made in your previous reply. There you argued that translators should render v. 6 in grammatically incorrect English, since anything beyond that was an intolerable "interpretation" rather than translation. Here, now, you're arguing that translators have to first interpret the surrounding context correctly in order to properly translate this verse. It seems your position, then, is not really based on any consistent philosophy or principle of translation.

"Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

Let's be clear, though, this "meaning" is pure speculation on your part. As far I am aware, nowhere in the Bible (or elsewhere in Near Eastern literature) is the king's throne ever described as being a deity, so we have no basis on which to say what this awkward expression might even mean.

If what the Psalmist wanted to say here was that the king's throne, or power, comes from God, surely he would have just said that instead.

The "throne" means the power that influences the person on the throne. It is well understood in the Scriptures. For example: "And the dragon gave to [the beast] its power and its throne and great authority." (Revelation 13:2b, NASB) It's quite obvious what "throne" means, and where that power comes from, whether it's God or the Devil.

[Capbook]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #39]
[Replying to Bible_Student in post #41]

Neither of you answered my question. Here it is again:

Psalm 45:6, in the MT and the LXX, looks just like all these other myriad examples we find elsewhere in the Psalms:

כסאך אלהים עולם ועד שבט מישר שבט מלכותך
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ράβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου

So, on what grammatical grounds, then, should we treat it differently?

I take it, then, you have no grammatical reasons to object to rendering the text as "O God," as it is elsewhere in the Psalms.

Indeed, I think it's safe to say that, had this verse appeared in another context, there would be no question that is should be rendered as "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." This is, as Cohen noted, the "obvious translation."

The context shows that in Psalm 45:6 "God" and the person to whom the phrase is addressed (the king) are two distinct persons

Well, yeah, there is no question here that the king of Israel and God are two different persons. The real question is: can the Psalmist poetically refer to the king as elohim?

Consider, by way of comparison, that Isaiah refers to the future, idealized king of Israel as "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6. Those are the same two terms that the Psalmist uses to address the king here in Psalm 45: in v.4 ('O Mighty one') and v.6 ('O God').

So what's the problem?

That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.
 

Notice, too, the somewhat awkward phrasing here. While the Hebrew scriptures often speak of "Yahweh your God," the expression "God your God" is unusual, and seems altogether redundant in this verse. Why not just say "God has anointed you"?

It seems to me the Psalmist does this precisely because he has already referred to the king as elohim. Now, when he wants to say that elohim has anointed the king, he has to clarify which elohim he is referring to.

What would be the reason for a translator to ignore the context of what they intend to translate?

I don't think they are. Let me just point out, too, that this is nearly the opposite argument from the one you made in your previous reply. There you argued that translators should render v. 6 in grammatically incorrect English, since anything beyond that was an intolerable "interpretation" rather than translation. Here, now, you're arguing that translators have to first interpret the surrounding context correctly in order to properly translate this verse. It seems your position, then, is not really based on any consistent philosophy or principle of translation.

"Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

Let's be clear, though, this "meaning" is pure speculation on your part. As far I am aware, nowhere in the Bible (or elsewhere in Near Eastern literature) is the king's throne ever described as being a deity, so we have no basis on which to say what this awkward expression might even mean.

If what the Psalmist wanted to say here was that the king's throne, or power, comes from God, surely he would have just said that instead.

The "throne" means the power that influences the person on the throne. It is well understood in the Scriptures. For example: "And the dragon gave to [the beast] its power and its throne and great authority." (Revelation 13:2b, NASB) It's quite obvious what "throne" means, and where that power comes from, whether it's God or the Devil.

Strong and Brown-Driver-Briggs Old Testament lexicons defined "throne", in Hebrew "כִּסֵּה כִּסֵּא kissê' kissêh" as seat, throne stool.
That differs to your interpretation and understanding what "throne" is.
Therefore "Your throne is God forever" is not the correct rendering of the verse. Because a "throne" is not a God.

H3678 (Strong)
כִּסֵּה כִּסֵּא kissê' kissêh
kis-say', kis-say'
From H3680; properly covered, that is, a throne (as canopied): - seat, stool, throne.


H3678 (Brown-Driver-Briggs)
כּסּה / כּסּאkissê' / kissêh
BDB Definition:
seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool

[historia]

"Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

Let's be clear, though, this "meaning" is pure speculation on your part. As far I am aware, nowhere in the Bible (or elsewhere in Near Eastern literature) is the king's throne ever described as being a deity, so we have no basis on which to say what this awkward expression might even mean.

If what the Psalmist wanted to say here was that the king's throne, or power, comes from God, surely he would have just said that instead.

The "throne" means the power that influences the person on the throne.

Your ability to make up your own definitions is not in doubt.

If you want to convince other people that you aren't just blowing hot air, however, you're going to need to cite some kind of scholarship.

For example: "And the dragon gave to [the beast] its power and its throne and great authority." (Revelation 13:2b, NASB) It's quite obvious what "throne" means, and where that power comes from, whether it's God or the Devil.

(emphasis mine.)

Indeed, it's obvious that the Greek word thronos here in Revelation 13:2 is being used in the figurative sense of power or authority, as noted in BDAG 460:

θρόνος (2) supreme power over a political entity, dominion, sovereignty, fig. extension of meaning 1 (a semantic component prob. present in some of the aforementioned passages, for the idea of authority is intimately associated with the chair that is reserved for an authority figure).

But all of us would say -- as you yourself just said! -- that the Beast's throne (his power and authority) comes from the Devil, just as we would say the king of Israel's throne (his power and authority) comes from God. We wouldn't say that the king's throne is God -- that is an awkward and unusual expression for which there is apparently no parallel.

[tygger2]

[Replying to historia in post #46]

The noted trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:

“The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (‘thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...’) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (‘God is Thy throne,’ or ‘Thy throne is God...’), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (‘Therefore God, even Thy God...’) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: ‘God is thy throne’ (or, ‘Thy throne is God’), that is, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’” - The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”? Every Bible student of any experience knows that He is, repeatedly!
Many times he is called someone’s “Rock” (e.g., Ps. 78:35).
He is called a “fortress” (e.g., Ps. 91:2).
He is called a “lamp” in 2 Samuel 22:29.
He is called a “crown” (“in that day will Jehovah of hosts become a crown of glory, unto the
residue of his people” - Is. 28:5, ASV).
Jehovah is called “our dwelling place” - Ps. 90:1, KJV.
And “Jehovah is my ... song” - Ps. 118:14.

Also notice Ps. 60:7, 8 “Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my scepter, Moab is my washbasin”, NIV. And in Is. 22:23 we find Eliakim, whom Jehovah said he would call and commit authority to (Is. 22:20, 21), called a “throne” (“and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house,” RSV).

[onewithhim]

"Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

Let's be clear, though, this "meaning" is pure speculation on your part. As far I am aware, nowhere in the Bible (or elsewhere in Near Eastern literature) is the king's throne ever described as being a deity, so we have no basis on which to say what this awkward expression might even mean.

If what the Psalmist wanted to say here was that the king's throne, or power, comes from God, surely he would have just said that instead.

The "throne" means the power that influences the person on the throne.

Your ability to make up your own definitions is not in doubt.

If you want to convince other people that you aren't just blowing hot air, however, you're going to need to cite some kind of scholarship.

For example: "And the dragon gave to [the beast] its power and its throne and great authority." (Revelation 13:2b, NASB) It's quite obvious what "throne" means, and where that power comes from, whether it's God or the Devil.

(emphasis mine.)

Indeed, it's obvious that the Greek word thronos here in Revelation 13:2 is being used in the figurative sense of power or authority, as noted in BDAG 460:

θρόνος (2) supreme power over a political entity, dominion, sovereignty, fig. extension of meaning 1 (a semantic component prob. present in some of the aforementioned passages, for the idea of authority is intimately associated with the chair that is reserved for an authority figure).

But all of us would say -- as you yourself just said! -- that the Beast's throne (his power and authority) comes from the Devil, just as we would say the king of Israel's throne (his power and authority) comes from God. We wouldn't say that the king's throne is God -- that is an awkward and unusual expression for which there is apparently no parallel.

Um, did I say the king's throne IS God? I don't think I said that.

[historia]

Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”?

That is not the rendering we were considering, though.

Um, did I say the king's throne IS God? I don't think I said that.

Sure did:

It makes the most sense (as we see also the sentiment in verse 9) and should really read, "Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

That assertion was quoted in my last two replies as well, for context.

[onewithhim]

Is God ever called “unlikely” things in a figurative sense that are as equally “ridiculous” as calling him “a throne”?

That is not the rendering we were considering, though.

Um, did I say the king's throne IS God? I don't think I said that.

Sure did:

It makes the most sense (as we see also the sentiment in verse 9) and should really read, "Your throne is God forever." Meaning Jesus' throne is in direct correlation with the idea that he gets all of his power and authority from God, the Father.

That assertion was quoted in my last two replies as well, for context.

Of course the throne itself isn't God! The throne means that all of the Messiah's power comes from God, just like the power that the Beast has in Revelation comes from the Devil. Did you read the account? "And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority." (Rev.13:2b)