“ 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. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:”
Admittedly, this is the most difficult passages for the Oneness doctrine to explain. We must remember that there are no Oneness verses, and there are no trinitarian verses; there is simply the Bible, and because the Bible is the infallible and inherent Word of God, there can be no contradiction. Now, it’s important to see how Hebrews 1 defines the term Son as relating to Christ. The Christology of Hebrews is evident in Hebrews 1:3–6:
“3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
From this passage, we see that Hebrews, when speaking of the Son of God, could not possibly have in mind the second divine person in the Trinity because: (1) the Son is described as being the image of God rather than an invisible divine person; (2) He was begotten, which infers beginning—in fact, this is explicitly described as happening within time rather than in eternity: “this day have I begotten you.”
Given the Christology of the author of Hebrews, we would not expect this same theology to be contradicted just two verses later. Interpreting Hebrews 1:8–10 in this light can help us determine what the author actually had in mind. Now, what does Hebrews 1:8 mean when it says, “but unto the Son He saith”? Is this the Father speaking to the Son as a distinct divine person? We should find it peculiar that, if this was the case, then this would be the only instance in scripture where we see the Father speaking directly to Jesus as a distinct center of consciousness. However, the literal translation of the Greek differs from that of the KJV. The KJV makes it seem as if the Father is addressing the Son, “unto the Son He saith”; however, the NASB more accurately translates the verse from the Greek as “of the Son He says.” The author of Hebrews then goes on to reference two Old Testament passages of Scripture, namely Psalm 45:6–7 and Psalm 102:25–27, meaning that God was speaking “of” the Son before He was born in Bethlehem, therefore could not have been speaking directly to Him. God was speaking through the writings of the Psalms (read Hebrews 1:1), about the coming of His Son, to the people of the day. God spoke of the Son through the Psalmist before He arrived, and in doing so communicated the Son’s identity:
“In time of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 [a]Even they will perish, but You endure; All of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will pass away. 27 But You are [b]the same, And Your years will not come to an end.” – Psalm 102:25-27
God was simply revealing that He—the Creator of the universe and the Eternal One—was the one that would be robed in flesh as the Son of God. This is why Jesus could say:
“Before Abraham was I AM” – John 8:58
And:
“Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?” – John 14:10
Now the most tension is in the reference to Psalm 45:6-7:
“Your throne, God, is forever and ever; The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice.7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your companions.”
Trinitarians will often use this to show that Jesus in His divinity submits to the Father as His God. The implications of this interpretation, however, would infer not only two gods, but that the one is superior to the other—both claims that Trinitarian adherents outright reject. Jesus is God and He does have a God (John 20:17), but not according to His divinity, but to His humanity (Jeremiah 32:27). If, then, this is clearly not speaking of two Gods, what does it mean?
Some scholars have suggested that rather than the translation “Your throne, God,” the Hebrew grammar allows for “God is your throne.” Hebrew does allow both readings because Biblical Hebrew does not explicitly mark vocatives (no comma or “O” in the text itself), and word order can be flexible. This would fit theologically with what we know about Jesus Christ. Mark 16:19 says:
“19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.”
In a symbolic sense, Christ’s throne is the power and authority of God. Another possible way to read this is that the Psalmist is first addressing God in verse six and referring to His throne, the Davidic throne, through which God would bring salvation, and in verse seven He directly references how God occupies that throne through the Messiah. Some see the phrase “God, your God” as two distinct subjects; however, this is likely just a descriptive emphasis: “God, that is, your God.” We see this same kind of language in Isaiah 51:12, which says:
“I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you that you fear mere mortals, human beings who are but grass,”
There are obviously not two subjects, “I” and “even I”; it is simply worded this way to convey emphasis and clarity. Psalm 45 goes on to describe the Son as being “anointed with the oil of gladness.” The Messiah literally means “the Anointed One.” God cannot be anointed because He is the One who anoints; a man, however, can be anointed, and a perfect man must be anointed. Therefore, this verse is better understood as the Messiah submitting to the Father in His humanity, not His divinity.
Conclusion
The Christology presented in Hebrews and Psalm 45 can be understood coherently without requiring a distinction of divine persons within the Godhead. The Son is portrayed in a way consistent with messianic identity while also being divine. There is nothing explicit in the text that demands a distinction of divine persons. God did not communicate directly with the Son before the incarnation but rather foretold that Davidic kingship which was to be fulfilled in the appearance of Christ, in whom God Himself would dwell to reconcile the world to Himself.
Apostolic Antiquity 
Leave a comment