Hebrews 1:10 - Why did Jehovah address His Son as Lord?

[MissKate13]

Why did Jehovah address His Son as Lord?

The Greek term for Lord is kyrie. It is defined as master. Why would YHWH refer to His Son, Jesus, as master?

10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. (Hebrews 1:10 NWT)


And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (Hebrews 1:10 KJV)

[Wootah]

Why did Jehovah address His Son as Lord?

The Greek term for Lord is kyrie. It is defined as master. Why would YHWH refer to His Son, Jesus, as master?

10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. (Hebrews 1:10 NWT)


And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (Hebrews 1:10 KJV)

Actually you bring that out very clearly. God is speaking and calls Jesus Lord. God is speaking and saying that Jesus was at the beginning and built everything.

I'm really at the point of thinking that only congnitive dissonance explains thinking that Jesus is part of creation when the text explains Jesus is before creation.

And you have made what was clear, clearer.

[historia]

One must ask why the author of Hebrews feels the need to address the Son’s superiority over angels.

This is, indeed, an important question to consider when interpreting Hebrews. Here's some historical information that can help shed some light here:

If we look at late Second Temple Jewish texts, as well as the Mishnah and Talmud -- which were written later by the Rabbis, but often preserve ideas from the 1st Century or earlier -- we can see that there was this idea among some Jews that there is a heavenly Temple that corresponds to the earthly Temple in Jerusalem, and that archangels make sacrificial offerings there.

From the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, T. Levi 3:4-6:

And in the highest [heaven] of all dwelleth the Great Glory, far above all holiness. In [the heaven next to] it are the archangels, who minister and make propitiation to the Lord for all the sins of ignorance of the righteous; Offering to the Lord a sweet-smelling savour, a reasonable and a bloodless offering.

And, interestingly enough, given the above exchange with one of our resident Jehovah's Witnesses, the Rabbis taught it was specifically Michael the archangel who offered these heavenly sacrifices.

From Zevachim 62a:5:

The Gemara discusses the construction of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the location of the House, its shape was discernable from the vestiges of its foundations; but how did they know the proper location of the altar?

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar says: They saw a vision of the altar already built and Michael the archangel standing and sacrificing offerings upon it.

And Menachot 110a:9:

Since the Temple was eventually destroyed, what did Solomon mean when he said that it is "an ordinance forever" (2 Chron. 2:4)? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: This is referring to the altar that remains built in Heaven even after the earthly Temple was destroyed, and the angel Michael, the great minister, stands and sacrifices an offering upon it.

And Chagigah 12b:6:

Zevul, abode, is the location of the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly Temple, and there the heavenly altar is built, and the angel Michael, the great minister, stands and sacrifices an offering upon it, as it is stated: "I have surely built a house of Zevul for You, a place for You to dwell forever" (1 Kings 8:13).

I think it's likely the author of Hebrews was looking to combat this idea, arguing that it is the Son -- rather than the archangel Michael or any other angel -- who is the one who has offered sacrifice in the heavenly Temple.

[MissKate13]

Why did Jehovah address His Son as Lord?

The Greek term for Lord is kyrie. It is defined as master. Why would YHWH refer to His Son, Jesus, as master?

10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. (Hebrews 1:10 NWT)


And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (Hebrews 1:10 KJV)

Actually you bring that out very clearly. God is speaking and calls Jesus Lord. God is speaking and saying that Jesus was at the beginning and built everything.

I'm really at the point of thinking that only congnitive dissonance explains thinking that Jesus is part of creation when the text explains Jesus is before creation.

And you have made what was clear, clearer.

Thank you so much for your kind words, Wootah! I share your thoughts about cognitive dissonance on the part of those who refuse to accept that Jesus is God. It seems that so much effort is put into disproving who Jesus truly is. Some read the Scriptures with the intention of disproving them rather than simply allowing them to flow naturally and speak for themselves. The proof that Jesus is God is overwhelming when one looks at His word as a whole.

I pray daily that our Heavenly Father keeps me from falling into this same trap. I constantly ask Him to show me HIS truth and not my own or anyone else’s.

I pray your day is blessed. Thank you again!!

Kate

[MissKate13]

One must ask why the author of Hebrews feels the need to address the Son’s superiority over angels.

This is, indeed, an important question to consider when interpreting Hebrews. Here's some historical information that can help shed some light here:

If we look at late Second Temple Jewish texts, as well as the Mishnah and Talmud -- which were written later by the Rabbis, but often preserve ideas from the 1st Century or earlier -- we can see that there was this idea among some Jews that there is a heavenly Temple that corresponds to the earthly Temple in Jerusalem, and that archangels make sacrificial offerings there.

From the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, T. Levi 3:4-6:

And in the highest [heaven] of all dwelleth the Great Glory, far above all holiness. In [the heaven next to] it are the archangels, who minister and make propitiation to the Lord for all the sins of ignorance of the righteous; Offering to the Lord a sweet-smelling savour, a reasonable and a bloodless offering.

And, interestingly enough, given the above exchange with one of our resident Jehovah's Witnesses, the Rabbis taught it was specifically Michael the archangel who offered these heavenly sacrifices.

From Zevachim 62a:5:

The Gemara discusses the construction of the altar in the Second Temple. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the location of the House, its shape was discernable from the vestiges of its foundations; but how did they know the proper location of the altar?

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Elazar says: They saw a vision of the altar already built and Michael the archangel standing and sacrificing offerings upon it.

And Menachot 110a:9:

Since the Temple was eventually destroyed, what did Solomon mean when he said that it is "an ordinance forever" (2 Chron. 2:4)? Rav Giddel says that Rav says: This is referring to the altar that remains built in Heaven even after the earthly Temple was destroyed, and the angel Michael, the great minister, stands and sacrifices an offering upon it.

And Chagigah 12b:6:

Zevul, abode, is the location of the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly Temple, and there the heavenly altar is built, and the angel Michael, the great minister, stands and sacrifices an offering upon it, as it is stated: "I have surely built a house of Zevul for You, a place for You to dwell forever" (1 Kings 8:13).

I think it's likely the author of Hebrews was looking to combat this idea, arguing that it is the Son -- rather than the archangel Michael or any other angel -- who is the one who has offered sacrifice in the heavenly Temple.

Thank you for posting such excellent information. I appreciate your sharing. It sheds so much light on why the author of Hebrews wrote what he did, showing Jesus to be far superior to angels.

God bless you!

Kate

[tam]

Peace to you,

The Greek term for Lord is kyrie. It is defined as master.

Christ IS Lord and Master. He is my Lord and my Master.

Surely, you do not think that the Son is Lord or Master over His own God and Father (YHWH)... do you?

While it's true that the Greek term kyrios generally means 'lord' or 'master', in the context in which it is used here in Hebrews it has a more specific meaning.

Hebrews 1:10 is a verbatim quote of Psalm 102:25 as it appears in the LXX (101:26), the Greek translation of the Old Testament: "κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς σύ κύριε τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί." "In the beginning you, Lord, laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands."

'Lord' here is standing in for the Divine Name.

It should be understood, then, as Yahweh, not just 'master' or 'lord' in the general sense.

Yes, I understand this is in the original quote. But this is one reason I am not sure we are reading it as it was intended. Because Christ is not [YHWH]. That is not the name of the Son. Not only that, but the original verse is not the Father (YHWH) speaking at all. Those words are being said to the Father.

The author of Hebrews is taking a psalm addressed to Yahweh and indicates that God has said this about the Son.

Or... the author is quoting the passage to describe God - such that God is eternal and unchanging... but that God never said to any of the angels, 'sit at my right hand until..."

Note: There is no 'he said' at verse 10, as some translations add.

The assumption is that God is speaking in each of those verses, but the text does not state this.


This is a chapter that is describing Christ as being superior to the angels. This is not a chapter describing Christ as being [YHWH]. No one EVER makes that statement, not even Christ - the Word of God, Himself.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[historia]

I am not sure we are reading it as it was intended. Because Christ is not [YHWH].

This just tells me that the author of Hebrews didn't share your theology, not what he may or may not have intended.

Not only that, but the original verse is not the Father (YHWH) speaking at all.

That's true of the three quotations that directly precede this one, too. Note that, in those quotations, God is referred to in the third person.

And yet, regardless of who was speaking or who they were speaking about in the original context of these Old Testament passages, the author of Hebrews is also attributing their words to God, so that God now says these things about either the Son or the angels.

Note: There is no 'he said' at verse 10, as some translations add.

The assumption is that God is speaking in each of those verses, but the text does not state this.

This is not an "assumption," the whole structure of vs. 5-13 clearly shows the author is attributing each of these quotations to God:

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

• Ps. 2:7

And again,

• 2 Sam. 7:14

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

• Deut. 32:43 LXX & DSS

Of the angels he says,

• Ps. 104:4 LXX

But of the Son,

• Ps. 45:6-7

And,

• Ps. 102:25-27 LXX

And to which of the angels has he ever said,

• Ps. 110:1

The author doesn't prefix every quotation with "he says" because that's redundant. He can just connect multiple quotations with kai ("and"), switching back to "he says" when its useful to indicate a change in who God is talking about (the Son or the angels) or, as in vs. 6, to indicate when God said this.

Vss. 8-12 says, "Of the angels he says X, but of the Son Y and Z." To argue, as you have above, that somehow Z (vs. 10-12) isn't about the Son, then, is syntactically quite dubious.

The author of Hebrews is taking a psalm addressed to Yahweh and indicates that God has said this about the Son.

Or... the author is quoting the passage to describe God - such that God is eternal and unchanging... but that God never said to any of the angels, 'sit at my right hand until..."

I think that's highly unlikely. As I just noted in the previous point, the comparison here is between what God has said about the angels in vs. 8 in contrast to what he says about the Son in vss. 9-12. The reintroduction of "And to which of the angels" before the quote in vs. 13 ("sit at my right hand") shows that that is a different point.

The author of Hebrews appears to understand Ps. 104:4 (quoted from the LXX in vs. 8, "He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire") as indicating that God changes the angels into wind and fire. 4 Ezra 8:21-22 understands it the same way, proclaiming, "O Lord who inhabitest eternity . . . before whom the hosts of angels stand trembling and at whose command they are changed to wind and fire." In contrast, the author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 45:6-7 and Psalm 102:25-27 to show the Son's permanence.

This is a chapter that is describing Christ as being superior to the angels. This is not a chapter describing Christ as being [YHWH].

That's a non sequitur. Just because this is not the primary purpose of the chapter doesn't mean the author didn't believe it. He is clearly attributing to the Son texts that are originally about Yahweh, thereby showing the Son is superior to the angels.

Consider the third quote from Deut. 32:43 as it appears in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls: "Let all God's angels worship him." The "him" in that verse in Deuteronomy is Yahweh, but for the author of Hebrews it's applied to the Son.

No one EVER makes that statement, not even Christ - the Word of God, Himself.

I disagree, but a different topic for a different time.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to tam in post #25]

It is difficult to wrap our heads around the idea that the Son of God is YHWH. One thing in particular that has helped me to understand is that what is said about YHWH, Jesus claims the same about Himself: I Am The Shepherd, The Light, The Rock, The Ruler of all, The Judge of all nations, The Bridegroom, The First and Last, The Savior.

Isaiah 43:11
“I, yes I, am the LORD,
and there is no Savior but Me.

Titus 2:13
“…looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,…”

Someday, we will all understand!

Be blessed,
Kate

[Capbook]

That doesn't make Jesus lord over Jehovah.

Remember in that same chapter you're quoting it ends with, "But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet?" Who is sitting on who's right hand?
Hebrews 1:4,6 says, "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs...And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” These are the ones Jesus is name Lord over. There is no mention that Jesus became Lord over Jehovah.

If Jesus was God why would Jesus ever need to 'become better than the angels'? As God, wouldn't he already be better?

Jesus doesn't lord over the Father as they are equal.

This sentence makes no sense when compared to Hebrews 1:4, "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

He can't be greater, equal to and lower than an angel.

I believe JFB means Jesus in human nature is lower than the angel.Heb 2:9.
To the Father they are equal. Word "Lord" in Heb 1:10.
Lexicon definition of Lord below;

Heb 1:10 - NT:2962 Kurios (a title for God and for Christ) one who exercises supernatural authority over mankind.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.(NIV)

So God can die and Jesus before his death wasn't even equal to an angel? There was a time when he wasn't lord? How can that be possible and still jive with a doctrine that claims that Jesus is equal to his father?

Then why is the Father addressed Jesus as Lord in Heb 1:10?

[2timothy316]

That doesn't make Jesus lord over Jehovah.

Remember in that same chapter you're quoting it ends with, "But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet?" Who is sitting on who's right hand?
Hebrews 1:4,6 says, "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs...And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” These are the ones Jesus is name Lord over. There is no mention that Jesus became Lord over Jehovah.

If Jesus was God why would Jesus ever need to 'become better than the angels'? As God, wouldn't he already be better?

Jesus doesn't lord over the Father as they are equal.

This sentence makes no sense when compared to Hebrews 1:4, "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

He can't be greater, equal to and lower than an angel.

I believe JFB means Jesus in human nature is lower than the angel.Heb 2:9.
To the Father they are equal. Word "Lord" in Heb 1:10.
Lexicon definition of Lord below;

Heb 1:10 - NT:2962 Kurios (a title for God and for Christ) one who exercises supernatural authority over mankind.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.(NIV)

So God can die and Jesus before his death wasn't even equal to an angel? There was a time when he wasn't lord? How can that be possible and still jive with a doctrine that claims that Jesus is equal to his father?

Then why is the Father addressed Jesus as Lord in Heb 1:10?

In my very first post on this thread explains why.

[Capbook]

That doesn't make Jesus lord over Jehovah.

Remember in that same chapter you're quoting it ends with, "But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet?" Who is sitting on who's right hand?
Hebrews 1:4,6 says, "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs...And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” These are the ones Jesus is name Lord over. There is no mention that Jesus became Lord over Jehovah.

If Jesus was God why would Jesus ever need to 'become better than the angels'? As God, wouldn't he already be better?

Jesus doesn't lord over the Father as they are equal.

This sentence makes no sense when compared to Hebrews 1:4, "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

He can't be greater, equal to and lower than an angel.

I believe JFB means Jesus in human nature is lower than the angel.Heb 2:9.
To the Father they are equal. Word "Lord" in Heb 1:10.
Lexicon definition of Lord below;

Heb 1:10 - NT:2962 Kurios (a title for God and for Christ) one who exercises supernatural authority over mankind.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.(NIV)

So God can die and Jesus before his death wasn't even equal to an angel? There was a time when he wasn't lord? How can that be possible and still jive with a doctrine that claims that Jesus is equal to his father?

We believe in the dual nature of Jesus. What died was His human nature (flesh). 1 Peter 3:18
Jesus take back His life (resurrected) His divine nature, equal with the Father. John 10:17-18.

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,(NKJV)
John 10:17-18
"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."(NKJV)

I reviewed the exchanges, I believe you haven't replied with this post.