Trinity Debate – Hebrews 1:10

Subject:  Hebrews 1:10 proves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 24 2007
Debaters:  Is 1: 18 & t8

Is 1:18

Hi t8, 

Here is my first proof text. I selected Hebrews 1:10 as I think it establishes Yeshua as THE Creator, as well as this it’s also got a fishhook in it for those of a henotheistic persuasion (more on that later). Here is the verse in the context of the entire Chapter:

Hebrews 1
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, ” I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” 7And of the angels He says,” WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” 8But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9″ YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HASANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.” 13But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”? 14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

This verse comes from a chapter in Hebrews where the writer’s obvious premise was to demonstrate the absolute supremacy of the Son to his Jewish readers. It’s an apologetic work where the Hebrew OT texts are heavily drawn upon. This NT writer, like others, appeared to have no hesitancy at all applying to Yeshua OT quotations that exclusively reference YHWH. The OT quotations undoubtedly would have shocked the monotheistic Jews to the core, verses 10-12 especially so. It really is a christological tour de force, which reaches its climax in verses 8-12. It’s interesting to annotate the writer’s conveyances leading up to and immediately following verse 10. Here is a quick summary:

• The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
• He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3)
• He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3)
• He “upholds [sustains] all things by the word of His power” (v 3)
• The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6)
• He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8)
• He is contrasted from false gods (v 11)
• Is said to be immutable [an sole attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12)

….and in amongst all these, what must have been startling affirmations (to the intended readers), we read this:

And,”YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

The writer of Hebrews was quoting Psalms 102:25 which was, of course, written about the Most High God, YHWH, as the context of the Psalm unmistakably bears out:

Psalm 102:19-27
19For He looked down from His holy height; From heaven the LORD gazed upon the earth, 20To hear the groaning of the prisoner, To set free those who were doomed to death, 21That men may tell of the name ofthe LORD in Zion And His praise in Jerusalem, 22When the peoples are gathered together, And the kingdoms, to serve the LORD. 23He has weakened my strength in the way; He has shortened my days. 24I say, “O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout all generations. 25″Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26″Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27″But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end. 28″The children of Your servants will continue, And their descendants will be established before You.”

Psalm 102:25 is a verse quite obviously written about YHWH, but according to the Hebrews’ writer it was, in reality, an utterance spoken by the Father to the Son. The Hebrew’s writer affirms that it was the Father Himself Who personally addresses His Son as THE Creator of the Universe! So here we have a clear elucidation of the Son’s exact role in the creation. To me this shows that the descriptive language in the OT dealing with YHWH’s act of Creation is, in the mind of the author, perfectly APPLICABLE TO the Logos.

Q) In what sense was Yeshua the Creator of the Heavens and Earth?

A) In the sense that was attributed to YHWH in Psalms 102:25!

Hebrews 1:10 shows that the pre-incarnate Jesus was the actual executor of all creation.

In anticipation of this objection (which I’ll paraphrase):

‘he was ascribed an attribute of YHWH, and therefore a passage outlining that attribute, on account of his role as agent’

…I answer:-

Would this not be a grossly misleading and irresponsible thing for the writer to do? He was no doubt schooled up on the laws governing blasphemy, and applying a verse that spoke of YHWH to a lesser being would certainly cross that line. Lesser beings are to be strongly segregated from the One true God, and no sound-thinking and scripturally-literate NT writer would, in writing an apologetic work about a lesser being, submit an OT verse that (even) ostensibly supports Him being YHWH. Unless of course He was YHWH, then it would be quite understandable. I would also say that IF the law of agency was being invoked here, and the verse simply shows that the Son is credited for having acted in the role of YHWH, then we should have other examples of this occurring with characters other than Yeshua. But can we find one t8? Who else in the Bible is ascribed an OT “YHWH” verse as a function of their agency? Maybe you can show me one…..

So, to legitimately extend this objection you will need to explain the writer’s rationale in applying this verse to Yeshua, even though He would have known He would be overtly misleading His Jewish readers about the identity of Yeshua and YHWH, and why he would risk contravening the laws governing blasphemy. You will also need to produce evidence showing that personages other than Yeshua, who likewise acted in the role of ‘agent’, have also ascribed to them passages from the OT that exclusively reference YHWH. Otherwise you are using a ‘law by exception’ as the very foundation of your refutation.

Just to briefly background the scriptural association between Yeshua and Creation, the fact that the pre-incarnate Logos was involved, in some capacity, in the creation of “all things” is a well established biblical precept. John 1:3, 10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2 clearly bear this out. For example, in John 1:3 we read:

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The statement “All things were made by him” is an astonishingly high statement to make of the Logos. And just to underscore this sentiment there is a exclusionist reiteration in the second part of the verse. There was nothing in the created order that was not made through Him. John could not have made a stronger distinction between the Creator and the “things” that He “made”

Paul concurs, writing an even more emphatic statement:

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him

The language here is unambiguous, according to Paul the Logos created all things, this is an unqualifiedstatement that details precisely what the things were:- “things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities”. Moreover, they were made For Him (Yeshua). Here’s something interesting though, Proverbs 16:4 says that YHWH did it for Himself:

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

If the NT reveals that Christ did it for Himself and the OT reveals that YHWH did it for Himself then, so that basis alone, the logical conclusion is that Yeshua IS Creator YHWH, or else we have a blatant contradiction. And here’s another to consider, in Isaiah 44:24 YHWH declares that He did it “alone”. Job reiterated this in Job 9:8. Does the language in these passages leave any room for the possibility of two independent beings creating “all things”? I don’t think it does. It’s yet another logical dilemma for those that propose that Yeshua is not YHWH, but a lesser being.

At this point I anticipate you will likely be making this objection, which I’ll also paraphrase:

‘The word “dia” is rightly rendered ‘through’, and this word infers that the Logos was not the first cause of Creation but an agent that His father used to bring it into existence (but the Father is the ultimate power behind it).’

This rationale, of course, relegates the Logos to the status of a puppet, used in an instrumental way to achieve the creation. If this were true, and “dia” does connote that, then Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 challenge this dogma. The same language used in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 is also used of “God” in Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10.

Romans 11:32-35
32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. 33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through (Gr. dia) Himand to Him are all things To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

cf.

Hebrews 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through (Gr. dia) whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

So to be consistent, you must also accept that “God” in the above two scriptures is not credited for doing the aforementioned things in the active and primary senses (i.e. He was not the ‘efficient cause’), but was rather an intermediary between the real first cause and the recipient, which is clearly ludicrous. So, given this, if this language in Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 is applicable to “God”, and still denotes that He is the ‘primary cause’ then on what grounds can you apply a different rule to Yeshua when “dia” is used in reference to Him? You can’t have it both ways.

Anyway, moving on. So we have clear scriptural witness attesting, at the very least, to Yeshua’s involvement in bringing about creation, but Hebrews 1:10 elucidates the capacity to which He was involved – according to this verse, and in the opinion of the Father, He was the executor of Creation in the exact sense that YHWH was described as being in Psalms 102:25, “His hands” laid the foundation of the Earth……what would His Jewish readers have made of this? Certainly the writer’s conclusion that Yeshua was YHWH is difficult to escape, especially so when all the data in Hebrews Chapter 1 is considered. Verses 10-12 would have left them with no doubt at all.

Okay now for the “fish hook” I alluded to in the beginning of this post.

Hebrews 1:10
And,”YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

Please note the highlighted word. Remembering that the texts from vs 5-12 are, according to the writer of Hebrews, attestations made by the Father to the Son (“But of the Son He says” –  vs 8), it’s evident that the Father actually addressed the Son as “Lord.” The Greek word “kurios” is used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. That’s well known. But also, when used in the NT as an honorific (“lord”) it signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or station to the addresser. The slave addresses his mater as “lord”, not the other way around. This is principal is exceptionless.

So there are two possible scenarios here:

1) The Father was addressing the Son in a way that denoted His subservience, or inferiority in rank, to Yeshua. Or,

2) He was addressing the Son as YHWH.

I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son. So that leave only one possibility – The Father addresses the Son as YHWH. This would align perfectly with the context of Hebrews Ch 1 as a whole, which is about the absolute supremacy of the Son. It also fits precisely within the context of verses 10-12, which are OT quotations that manifestly reference YHWH…..

In summary, Hebrews 1:10 is a verse that cannot be overlooked by you t8. According to the writer of Hebrews this quotation from Psalms 102:25, was uttered by the Father to the Son. Yet when we examine the Psalm carefully it’s evident that it speaks exclusively of YHWH. Would a NT writer apply a verse that manifestly references YHWH to the Son if He were not YHWH? I say no. It’s inconceivable that he would do this, as it would grossly mislead the recipients of his letter about the identity of the Son, if He were not YHWH. Nor would he risk the consequence of overt blasphemy by audaciously elevating a lesser being to the status of Most High God, if He were not that God. And let’s bear in mind the context that this verse was placed into:

• The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
• He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3)
• He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3)
• He “upholds [sustains] all things by the word of His power” (v 3)
• The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6)
• He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8)
• He is contrasted from false gods (v 11)

• Is said to be immutable [an attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12)

The writer in writing Hebrews Chapter 1 had a single overarching motive, to apologetically convey the absolute supremacy of the Son, Yeshua, to his Jewish readers. The chapter is a tour de force that climaxes in the declarations in vss 10-12 that establish Yeshua as THE immutable Creator of the Universe. So this verse has not been ripped out of context, it perfectly fits within the context of the Chapter in perfect harmony.

Okay, now for my questions relating to Hebrews 1:10.

Q1) Does Psalms 102:25 speak of the Father or Son?

Q2) Did the Father address the Son in Psalms 102:25 as the Creator of Earth and the Heavens? And if not please explain how and why your opinion differs from that of the writer of Hebrews.

Q3) Does the Father address the Son with the appellative “kurios” because He was speaking as the subservient, or because He (the Son) is YHWH, or is it because of another reason? [note: if you have a third scenario please produce evidence that the word “kurios” can legitimately be used that way in the NT]

I look forward to reading your answers…..

Blessings t8

t8

Hebrews 1:1-13

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,

2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
And again,
“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?

6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
“AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

7 And of the angels He says,
“WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS,
AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.”

8 But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”

10 And,
“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

The first thing that has to be said about this verse is that it doesn’t teach a Trinity just as you will find that no scripture does. Yet if there was even one scripture that taught the Trinity doctrine, I would assume that you would have quoted that one as your first one. Yet you choose this one which doesn’t teach the Trinity. If there was a biblical text that specifically taught the Trinity, then you could have blown me out of the water in your first post had you quoted it. I take it that you didn’t quote such a verse because it doesn’t exist.

In any case you use Hebrews to try and prove that Jesus is Yahweh and you say that Jesus is the actual creator. So lets think about that for a moment. If he is the actual creator, then one would have to assume that the Father wasn’t. But then you also say that all things were created through him. So even at this early stage in my rebuttal I provide proof that shows you are double minded on this issue. Which is it? Did he create everything, or was he the one whom God created through? I can’t see both as working, i.e., that Jesus who is God made everything through himself. It stands to reason that the Father made all things through the son does it not?

Now your choice of scripture is an interesting one because verse one starts off with “God” and talks about the son from God’s perspective.

So it is primarily focussed on two identities.

1. God
2. the son.

And it is focussed on what God says and thinks about the son.

Verse 8 & 9 appear to me that God is talking about the son, or what Paul is saying about what David is saying about what God is saying about the son.

8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 

He in the above verse must be God, or possibly the author. (I don’t have time to check this as my reply is delayed enough as it is.)

First thing to note though, is the son has a God and yet the Trinity doctrine tries to teach us that they both and another make up one God.

Anyway, verse 10 seems to be talking about the LORD and how he (&/or the author) sees the son. Not only is this evident from the fact that verse one starts off with the word “God” and then speaks about the son as another, followed by what He or the author says about the son in verses 8, but it is then obvious that it is God who is the HE in verse 13 because it says:

“But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?”

So He is obviously the one spoken of in the immediate preceeding verses, ie., verse 10 – “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; which then means it is a verse about the LORD, not the son.

Think about it, the LORD/God says of his son, “sit at his right hand”. So He in verse 10 cannot be the son because if it was, then He in verse 13 would also be the son and that would then break verse 13 completely and render it as a verse that makes no sense.

So not only is it actually logical that the LORD who said to his son “sit at my right hand”, is the same LORD who laid the foundations for the earth and the heavens, but there are other witness scriptures to prove that the LORD and his son are 2 beings or identities.

Hebrews 1:3 (already quoted)
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Hebrews 8:1
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 

Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 

Let’s face it, Jesus isn’t standing at the right hand of himself, rather the Majesty in Heaven who is God. Stephen saw Jesus at HIS (the Majesty) right hand. He didn’t see a Trinity did he? I wonder if you were there Isaiah if you would have believed Stephen’s witness as to seeing Jesus at HIS right hand, and not a Trinity being that I think you yourself would expect to see.

Anyway, to say that Jesus is actually the LORD, you would then be forced into rendering verse 13 as saying “JESUS says sit at my right hand”. Or if you say that LORD is the Trinity, then it says ‘The Father, Son, Spirit’ said to Jesus “Sit at my right hand”. Neither works does it? The only 2 possibilities that I can see are that the author (Paul) said that (David) said that God said “Sit at my right hand” or that he is just simply saying that God said it to the son”. Either way, it cannot be the son who says “Sits at my right hand”, therefore it cannot be the son who laid the foundations, for the LORD is the one who laid the foundations and He is the one who says “Sit at my right hand”.

I base this rebuttal on the translations as they were presented to me. I didn’t have the time to look deeply into the Greek and so there is also a possibility that a translation issue could add, edit, or correct what I have said above.

So to make this clearer, if my point hasn’t been made obvious thus far:
Try reading verse 10 to 13. It talks about the LORD and how he laid the foundations of creation, and then it talks about the LORD who says of his son, “Sit at my right hand”. Therefore this LORD cannot be Jesus because he is told to sit at the right hand of the LORD. It is verse 8 that seems to throw some off this, yet even before verse 8 it speaks of God and then his son followed by a description of the son, followed again by focusing back on what God said or thinks of his son. In other words you need to look carefully at when it is talking of God or the son. If there is an overlap, you then could confuse Jesus for God couldn’t you?

So to conclude, the person whom this whole perspective is being viewed through is God/LORD/YHWH (or possibly the original one who penned the scripture), and it is about how He (God) sees the/his son and what the LORD says about him. Hebrews even starts with the word God and then moves on to say how he has sent many (prophets) to speak on his behalf and yet who in their right mind would say that any of these prophets are God? Then it is written that he finally sent his son, and who in their right mind would say that the son is God? Well it appears that a certain doctrine that was devised centuries after the Book of Revelation was written causes some (including yourself) to believe this very thing.

From there it is all about what the LORD says and thinks of his son. At times the LORD is spoken of directly and other times he is quoted such as “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”, when he is speaking of the son.

I leave you with the following verses and wonder how it is possible that you could believe them as they seem to contradict you view:

John 1:10
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 

So now to your three questions:

Q1) Does Psalms 102:25 speak of the Father or Son?

I would say that it is the Father. In Hebrews it actually says “I will be a Father to him”. Who will be a Father to him? Well it is God/LORD who will be a Father to him.

Q2) Did the Father address the Son in Psalms 102:25 as the Creator of Earth and the Heavens? And if not please explain how and why your opinion differs from that of the writer of Hebrews.

It appears to me that it is David (the writer of that Psalm) who is addressing God.

Q3) Does the Father address the Son with the appellative “kurios” because He was speaking as the subservient, or because He (the Son) is YHWH, or is it because of another reason? [note: if you have a third scenario please produce evidence that the word “kurios” can legitimately be used that way in the NT]

I don’t think it is the Father addressing the son at all, if you are talking of Hebrews 1:10 “YOU, LORD..,”.

OK I have given my rebuttal. Now even though I took my time in replying I would have liked more time to check out the original language to see if what I am saying is so. I do not claim that all I say is true, but that I am a human who struggles with his sinful nature who desires to be perfect and so to that end, I am open to learning what others have to say and of course I am open to changing my mind. My only interest here is that the truth wins. I care less that I win and I am more than willing to change when truth is presented to me. So far your argument that Jesus is the LORD/YHWH/GOD hasn’t even got close to convincing me, but has only made me look deeper into that which I do believe.