Hi Dr Smith I'm the pastor of an unitarian congregation in El Salvador Central America. Thanks for your podcast. Your inputs in biblical unitarian interpretation are so enriching! I bless the Lord for your life and ministry. It has been a blessing to find people like you, Dale Tuggy, Sean Finnegan, etc. Your take on the plural of majesty is i think the best i've heard! In regards to this topic i think your interpretation is viable and possible and now it's in the list of possible interpretation of Hebrews 1:10-12. However i would like to know your thoughts about a re-consideration of new factors in favor of position 1 It seems to me that your objection to the position that verses 10 to 11 in Hebrews chapter 1 refer to the Father is totally logical. You ask: "In which way quoting a passage and applying it to the Father helps the argument that Jesus is superior to the angels?" This you find "nonsensical" because only to cite a verse that refers to the Father doesn't advance the case for the superiority of Jesus over the angels. I agree that if that's the sense of the verses, the point of the writer of Hebrews would be illogical and nonsensical. But what if the point is not that? What if the point is that something in Psalm 102 that the Father does INDEED HELPS TO BUILD his case? At first glance, that's difficult to see, but maybe considering the verses of Psalm 102 AND his relationship with Psalm 45 can help us to see his train of thought. Up to that point, the writer of hebrews has built a positive case for the superiority of Jesus by citing some verses: 1) In verse 5 his point is: "The Messiah is called begotten by God" and no angel has received that honor". 2) In verse 6 his point is "The Messiah is even revered/worship by angels!" Clearly that means He is superior to them. Then he starts his third point: The Messiah has received a kingdom and a throne from God. No angel has received this To make this point he quotes Psalm 45: "But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore Elohim, your Elohim, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” (Heb 1:8-9) So far his point is that this King of Israel (called Elohim) has received from God an eternal throne. Psalm 45 begins with an "Elohim", that is the Messiah and then has a transition to "Elohim your Elohim", namely the Father. The father (Elohim your Elohim) has given an eternal throne to the Messiah (the first Elohim mentioned in the verses) and anointed him with oil of gladness. But one option is that this throne is only a Kingdom over Israel right? Maybe Psalm 45 only refers to a kingdom over Israel. To show that the kingdom of the Messiah is even superior, the writer of Hebrews would proceed to tell us more about this Throne that the Father Elohim has given to the Messiah. He says: "And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed.[a] But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (Hebrews 1:10-12) Notice that the "And" of verse 10 doesn't say "And it is also said of the Son". It's only an "and" connecting the final of the Psalm 45 and Psalm 102. His point would be something like: "And [of this eternal throne of the Messiah is also said]: [and then proceeds to cite Psalm 102 that says that the Father will change the heavens and the earth in the world to come]" So on this view, the point of quoting Psalm 102 is to add an important factor to the Throne of Messiah mentioned just previously: This Throne is not only a throne over Israel like Salomon but a Kingdom that will encompass the world to Come [mentioned also in Hebrews 2:5], hence reigning over all Creation [visible and invisible]. Thereforce, the Messiah is superior to angels. If this view is correct, the following follows: 1) Verses 1:10-12 refer to original creation 2) Verses 1:10-12 refer to the Father not to the Son 3) Verse 1:10-12 are quoted as a complement to the idea developed quoting the throne of Psalm 45. Therefore, these verses DO HELP TO BUILD THE CASE for the superiority of the son, even though they refer to the Father. If this view is correct, the argument is an elegant exposition that combines two psalms that put together demonstrate the superiority of the Son due to the fact that he has received a throne over Israel (per Psalm 45) but this eternal throne also implies his kingdom in the world to come (per Psalm 102) God bless you!
Thanks for your lengthy response. I have had several conversations with people regarding the difficulties of Hebrews 1:10-12 and have concluded that a podcast episode is not the best way to discuss all the intricate issues surrounding the passage. I still think that the phrase, "But of the Son, he says, 'Your throne, O God...'" is using the pronoun to refer to the Son, just as the original psalm addressed the Davidic king (who was also known as Son of God). Both Psalm 45 and Psalm 102 help contrast the limited nature of the angels (Heb. 1:7) with the enduring reign of the resurrected Son. This, in my opinion, is the most consistent reading of the first chapter of Hebrews in its attempt to contrast the angels from the Son. Thanks again for listening! Send my greetings to the brethren in your congregation.
Hello, I like your response which makes good sense and does not attribute the present creation to Jesus but gives Jesus a greater position of power and authority. Some say that Jesus is involved in the New creation, I am not sure this is correct necessarily. Certainly since now the Father and Jesus are united, Jesus is present in whatever the Father will do, just as the Father worked miracles through Jesus at his first coming. I agree with you that the “And you Lord”, does not have to refer to Jesus, even the “Lord” there is added since in Psalm 102:25 it does not say”Lord” but it says “ Of old, you laid the foundations of the earth”.
Thanks for your podcasts. To say that Hebrews 1:10-12 is speaking of a new creation does not satisfy, it is most likely that there is missing punctuation which actually separates Jesus from YHWH and not confuses them.
I'm only about a quarter way through the lesson so far but I needed to pause so I could comment before my thoughts drifted, first of all the way you break these verses down and track the thought process of the author is impressive brother, we are all lucky to have you in our corner for sure...around 14:12 of the lesson you gave a very good argument in and of itself as to why it would be illogical for the author to be trying to portray Jesus as being God in these verses, the push is for the hearer or reader to understand and believe that Jesus is greater than the Angels, and that would not need be explained if He were God, or if the author thought He was God, I don't imagine.
I was encouraged to hear that the New Creation was eliminated as an option for Hebrews 1:10-12 as it is clear that the “Old Creation” is being referenced. Trinitarian apologists are rightfully quick to pounce on BU’s for attempting to make that case. However, I’m equally convinced we have an English translation bias in play where we are to presume the Father is speaking in 1:10-12 when I believe He is not. There is a clear distinction between the passages which have been imported where God the Father IS speaking in the FIRST Person (1:5 & 13) vs. those where the Psalmist is doing the speaking (1:6-12). It is true that Hebrews 1:5 was originally referring to Solomon & then Jesus as a dual prophecy (2 Samuel 7:14) This fits when we consider the title of Son of God (King of Israel) was made official at his resurrection (Psalm 2:7). But we as Biblical Unitarians know that there was only ONE Creator of the heavens & the earth, who created all alone, with no assistance (Isaiah 44:24) by His spoken word (Psalm 33:6). So although both Solomon & later Jesus can both be identified as occupying God’s throne, God the Father as the one LORD stands alone as sole Creator. Also, the Father would not be addressing the Son by His Divine name. I believe we should read & interpret Hebrews 1:10-12 in the same way we are to read it is applied in Psalm 102, in THIS particular case, while disregarding the “He says”, as the Greek is not definitive.
I take the position that v 10 is the beginning of a new argument and v 13 is the contrast. With the pronoun He in v 13 referring back to v 10 being the Father.
Interesting and well-presented take on this passage in context. Most was possible. Some probable. His take on the angels passing away needs to be explained. I do not understamd angels to die like humans, though their need of ministering to humans may indeed cease.
I don’t think that assuming that angels are immortal is a reasonable assumption. No one is immortal other than the Creator God and whomever God grants immortality. Thus far, Jesus is the only recipient.
Personally I feel that from verse 9-12 the author is speaking of the Father, since verse 9 speaks of "the God" of the subject who is greater than the angels, then picks back up with the exaltation of Jesus being greater than the angels in verse 13.....I feel like verses 9-12 give the argument that Jesus is greater than the angels because God Himself, the creator of Heaven and earth has made Him greater than the angels
Hebrews 1:5 in itself tears down the doctrine of Jesus being "God the Son" from eternity past as the militant trinitarians like to claim....For right there in that verse it shows there was a time when Jesus was NOT the son and that God was NOT His Father...presumably because Jesus had not been conceived in the womb of Mary yet I would imagine
I actually have to disagree with your interpretation on this one. Hebrews 1:10-12 is not referring to Jesus in any way regarding creation. The Hebrews writer is using scripture, Old Testament scripture, the scripture of the Jews, to show Jews why the law and covenant through Jesus is superior to the law and covenant given through angels. 1:10-12 is of course one of these passages. The creator is God the Father and the context does not change. The emphasis is not on the creation, rather, it is on the end. Just as this world, this heavens and earth will have an end, so too does the old law and covenant given through angels. That age ends and a new one begins. This is also what the writer was referring to in Hebrews 1:2. Through Jesus God created the ages. This is a reference to time or times. The age we live in is one age and there are two more ages to come. The millennial kingdom is an age and then the eternal age of the kingdom of God. These ages are all made through Jesus. The author in 1:10-12 is showing the Jewish listeners that this age will end. He verifies what he is talking about by saying directly that he is speaking of the world to come. We can know that these verses do in fact refer to the Father in a few different ways. The first is just basic Greek grammar. Hebrews “1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?KJV Who is the he in this verse? Hebrews “1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:”KJV This is the he. Another verse that clearly shows that 1:10-12 is referring to the father is this verse. Hebrews “2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:KJV Who’s hands? It cannot possibly be the work of Jesus hands as this verse is stating that God set Jesus over the work of HIS hands. Hebrews 1:10-12 makes perfect sense in the context of the writers argument when you understand that the writer is showing through these Old Testament verses that everything of this age or world will end including the law of Moses that was administered through angels. This verse shows why the new law and covenant through Jesus, an eternal covenant is greater. The Old Testament tells us why.
@@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast Doesn’t this contradict? “But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; ***nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels*** and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” Luke 20:35-36 NKJV
Your channel should be changed to the “Un-Biblical Unitarian” completely twisting Scriptures, and taking verses out of context. The Bible is so very clear. Jesus is Divine, the 2nd person in the Triune Godhead. Repent from this Grave mistake! Lest you be judged!
@@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast That is not correct. The angels do not perish. They are divine entities. However, no angel has ever been given authority to rule man from the throne of God. Angels were not given dominion over the heavens or the earth. Only man has ever been exalted to this status. Everything that is not God is created including messiah. The son is the only human that has been given immortality. Scripture says nothing about angels being mortal or that God is going to eliminate the angels from existence. In fact, Jesus said we will be like the angels in certain aspects. Understand, I love your podcasts and I think you give wonderful insight on many things. On this subject however, I think you missed it.
Why quote the part about creation if that wasn't part of what he wanted us to know? Also, what do you mean by “The angels are temporary” when they cannot die? Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. - Luke 20:34-36
The author is simply quoting the Psalm in its whole context. He is only saying this "in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" ... so he can then say this ""They shall perish; but thou remainest"" , and thus make his point that the Son is eternal and forever .. the author is not making the point that the Son is the creator, he's just quoting psalm in context to show that the creation will pass away but the Son will not
Dear sir I believe your misunderstanding comes in when the interpreters of the Bible first and foremost are trinitarians, also the second biggest confusion are the 2 words or titles LORD and Lord, they the translators seem to put them where they want and to whom they want The LORD only belongs to the creator which the Catholic church and the Jews took out the Creator’s name and replaced it with LORD which is 100% wrong Lord = Master belongs to the Messiah the only begotten So when Paul is reciting the Old Testament he is talking about the Creator God and not the Messiah A further study of the Old Testament and the name of the Most High is a must to understand the scriptures as they were written by the original writers
why can’t God have a only begotten Son of God before that Son empty that Sonship to become a son of man being made lower than the angels? And why can’t He That Son of God Give his Devine inheritance , to redeem you so you could now have his Devine presence in your temple through the Holy Spirit? , He gave us His Life and took our death , He becoming born again a son of man with the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit ; and us becoming born again, the children of God ,which is that Son of God life we inherit because of his emptying of himself, and gave us that Holy Spirit,,,,,,,,, don’t the Holy Spirit speak to you ?
God could literally make stones get up and start speaking to us, but what God can or cant do isnt the issue, the issue is the truth of these matters as outlined in the Bible.
Hi Dr Smith
I'm the pastor of an unitarian congregation in El Salvador Central America. Thanks for your podcast. Your inputs in biblical unitarian interpretation are so enriching! I bless the Lord for your life and ministry. It has been a blessing to find people like you, Dale Tuggy, Sean Finnegan, etc. Your take on the plural of majesty is i think the best i've heard!
In regards to this topic i think your interpretation is viable and possible and now it's in the list of possible interpretation of Hebrews 1:10-12. However i would like to know your thoughts about a re-consideration of new factors in favor of position 1
It seems to me that your objection to the position that verses 10 to 11 in Hebrews chapter 1 refer to the Father is totally logical. You ask: "In which way quoting a passage and applying it to the Father helps the argument that Jesus is superior to the angels?" This you find "nonsensical" because only to cite a verse that refers to the Father doesn't advance the case for the superiority of Jesus over the angels. I agree that if that's the sense of the verses, the point of the writer of Hebrews would be illogical and nonsensical.
But what if the point is not that? What if the point is that something in Psalm 102 that the Father does INDEED HELPS TO BUILD his case? At first glance, that's difficult to see, but maybe considering the verses of Psalm 102 AND his relationship with Psalm 45 can help us to see his train of thought.
Up to that point, the writer of hebrews has built a positive case for the superiority of Jesus by citing some verses:
1) In verse 5 his point is: "The Messiah is called begotten by God" and no angel has received that honor".
2) In verse 6 his point is "The Messiah is even revered/worship by angels!" Clearly that means He is superior to them.
Then he starts his third point: The Messiah has received a kingdom and a throne from God. No angel has received this
To make this point he quotes Psalm 45:
"But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore Elohim, your Elohim, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” (Heb 1:8-9)
So far his point is that this King of Israel (called Elohim) has received from God an eternal throne. Psalm 45 begins with an "Elohim", that is the Messiah and then has a transition to "Elohim your Elohim", namely the Father. The father (Elohim your Elohim) has given an eternal throne to the Messiah (the first Elohim mentioned in the verses) and anointed him with oil of gladness.
But one option is that this throne is only a Kingdom over Israel right? Maybe Psalm 45 only refers to a kingdom over Israel. To show that the kingdom of the Messiah is even superior, the writer of Hebrews would proceed to tell us more about this Throne that the Father Elohim has given to the Messiah. He says:
"And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.[a]
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.” (Hebrews 1:10-12)
Notice that the "And" of verse 10 doesn't say "And it is also said of the Son". It's only an "and" connecting the final of the Psalm 45 and Psalm 102. His point would be something like:
"And [of this eternal throne of the Messiah is also said]: [and then proceeds to cite Psalm 102 that says that the Father will change the heavens and the earth in the world to come]"
So on this view, the point of quoting Psalm 102 is to add an important factor to the Throne of Messiah mentioned just previously: This Throne is not only a throne over Israel like Salomon but a Kingdom that will encompass the world to Come [mentioned also in Hebrews 2:5], hence reigning over all Creation [visible and invisible]. Thereforce, the Messiah is superior to angels.
If this view is correct, the following follows:
1) Verses 1:10-12 refer to original creation
2) Verses 1:10-12 refer to the Father not to the Son
3) Verse 1:10-12 are quoted as a complement to the idea developed quoting the throne of Psalm 45. Therefore, these verses DO HELP TO BUILD THE CASE for the superiority of the son, even though they refer to the Father.
If this view is correct, the argument is an elegant exposition that combines two psalms that put together demonstrate the superiority of the Son due to the fact that he has received a throne over Israel (per Psalm 45) but this eternal throne also implies his kingdom in the world to come (per Psalm 102)
God bless you!
Thanks for your lengthy response.
I have had several conversations with people regarding the difficulties of Hebrews 1:10-12 and have concluded that a podcast episode is not the best way to discuss all the intricate issues surrounding the passage. I still think that the phrase, "But of the Son, he says, 'Your throne, O God...'" is using the pronoun to refer to the Son, just as the original psalm addressed the Davidic king (who was also known as Son of God). Both Psalm 45 and Psalm 102 help contrast the limited nature of the angels (Heb. 1:7) with the enduring reign of the resurrected Son. This, in my opinion, is the most consistent reading of the first chapter of Hebrews in its attempt to contrast the angels from the Son.
Thanks again for listening! Send my greetings to the brethren in your congregation.
Hello, I like your response which makes good sense and does not attribute the present creation to Jesus but gives Jesus a greater position of power and authority. Some say that Jesus is involved in the New creation, I am not sure this is correct necessarily. Certainly since now the Father and Jesus are united, Jesus is present in whatever the Father will do, just as the Father worked miracles through Jesus at his first coming. I agree with you that the “And you Lord”, does not have to refer to Jesus, even the “Lord” there is added since in Psalm 102:25 it does not say”Lord” but it says “ Of old, you laid the foundations of the earth”.
Thanks for your podcasts. To say that Hebrews 1:10-12 is speaking of a new creation does not satisfy, it is most likely that there is missing punctuation which actually separates Jesus from YHWH and not confuses them.
Thanks for listening
I'm only about a quarter way through the lesson so far but I needed to pause so I could comment before my thoughts drifted, first of all the way you break these verses down and track the thought process of the author is impressive brother, we are all lucky to have you in our corner for sure...around 14:12 of the lesson you gave a very good argument in and of itself as to why it would be illogical for the author to be trying to portray Jesus as being God in these verses, the push is for the hearer or reader to understand and believe that Jesus is greater than the Angels, and that would not need be explained if He were God, or if the author thought He was God, I don't imagine.
Thanks for your kind words.
I was encouraged to hear that the New Creation was eliminated as an option for Hebrews 1:10-12 as it is clear that the “Old Creation” is being referenced. Trinitarian apologists are rightfully quick to pounce on BU’s for attempting to make that case. However, I’m equally convinced we have an English translation bias in play where we are to presume the Father is speaking in 1:10-12 when I believe He is not. There is a clear distinction between the passages which have been imported where God the Father IS speaking in the FIRST Person (1:5 & 13) vs. those where the Psalmist is doing the speaking (1:6-12). It is true that Hebrews 1:5 was originally referring to Solomon & then Jesus as a dual prophecy (2 Samuel 7:14) This fits when we consider the title of Son of God (King of Israel) was made official at his resurrection (Psalm 2:7). But we as Biblical Unitarians know that there was only ONE Creator of the heavens & the earth, who created all alone, with no assistance (Isaiah 44:24) by His spoken word (Psalm 33:6). So although both Solomon & later Jesus can both be identified as occupying God’s throne, God the Father as the one LORD stands alone as sole Creator. Also, the Father would not be addressing the Son by His Divine name. I believe we should read & interpret Hebrews 1:10-12 in the same way we are to read it is applied in Psalm 102, in THIS particular case, while disregarding the “He says”, as the Greek is not definitive.
Thanks for listening and for you comments
I take the position that v 10 is the beginning of a new argument and v 13 is the contrast. With the pronoun He in v 13 referring back to v 10 being the Father.
Interesting and well-presented take on this passage in context. Most was possible. Some probable. His take on the angels passing away needs to be explained. I do not understamd angels to die like humans, though their need of ministering to humans may indeed cease.
I don’t think that assuming that angels are immortal is a reasonable assumption. No one is immortal other than the Creator God and whomever God grants immortality. Thus far, Jesus is the only recipient.
Thank you. Something else, that I've always been taught, that I'd need to look into.
Personally I feel that from verse 9-12 the author is speaking of the Father, since verse 9 speaks of "the God" of the subject who is greater than the angels, then picks back up with the exaltation of Jesus being greater than the angels in verse 13.....I feel like verses 9-12 give the argument that Jesus is greater than the angels because God Himself, the creator of Heaven and earth has made Him greater than the angels
Hebrews 1:5 in itself tears down the doctrine of Jesus being "God the Son" from eternity past as the militant trinitarians like to claim....For right there in that verse it shows there was a time when Jesus was NOT the son and that God was NOT His Father...presumably because Jesus had not been conceived in the womb of Mary yet I would imagine
Excellent insights.
I actually have to disagree with your interpretation on this one. Hebrews 1:10-12 is not referring to Jesus in any way regarding creation. The Hebrews writer is using scripture, Old Testament scripture, the scripture of the Jews, to show Jews why the law and covenant through Jesus is superior to the law and covenant given through angels. 1:10-12 is of course one of these passages.
The creator is God the Father and the context does not change. The emphasis is not on the creation, rather, it is on the end. Just as this world, this heavens and earth will have an end, so too does the old law and covenant given through angels. That age ends and a new one begins. This is also what the writer was referring to in Hebrews 1:2. Through Jesus God created the ages. This is a reference to time or times.
The age we live in is one age and there are two more ages to come. The millennial kingdom is an age and then the eternal age of the kingdom of God. These ages are all made through Jesus.
The author in 1:10-12 is showing the Jewish listeners that this age will end.
He verifies what he is talking about by saying directly that he is speaking of the world to come.
We can know that these verses do in fact refer to the Father in a few different ways. The first is just basic Greek grammar.
Hebrews “1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?KJV
Who is the he in this verse?
Hebrews “1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:”KJV
This is the he.
Another verse that clearly shows that 1:10-12 is referring to the father is this verse.
Hebrews “2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:KJV
Who’s hands? It cannot possibly be the work of Jesus hands as this verse is stating that God set Jesus over the work of HIS hands.
Hebrews 1:10-12 makes perfect sense in the context of the writers argument when you understand that the writer is showing through these Old Testament verses that everything of this age or world will end including the law of Moses that was administered through angels. This verse shows why the new law and covenant through Jesus, an eternal covenant is greater. The Old Testament tells us why.
33:50 and onward… Are you suggesting that angels are mortal whereas the son has become immortal?
Angels are created beings, and God has only given immortality to the son.
@@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast Doesn’t this contradict?
“But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; ***nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels*** and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
Luke 20:35-36 NKJV
Your channel should be changed to the “Un-Biblical Unitarian” completely twisting Scriptures, and taking verses out of context. The Bible is so very clear. Jesus is Divine, the 2nd person in the Triune Godhead. Repent from this Grave mistake! Lest you be judged!
@@alantate25 Is there a verse that says “Jesus is the 2nd person of the triune Godhead”? Just as you said it?
@@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast
That is not correct. The angels do not perish. They are divine entities. However, no angel has ever been given authority to rule man from the throne of God. Angels were not given dominion over the heavens or the earth. Only man has ever been exalted to this status.
Everything that is not God is created including messiah. The son is the only human that has been given immortality. Scripture says nothing about angels being mortal or that God is going to eliminate the angels from existence.
In fact, Jesus said we will be like the angels in certain aspects.
Understand, I love your podcasts and I think you give wonderful insight on many things. On this subject however, I think you missed it.
Why quote the part about creation if that wasn't part of what he wanted us to know?
Also, what do you mean by “The angels are temporary” when they cannot die?
Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
- Luke 20:34-36
The author is simply quoting the Psalm in its whole context. He is only saying this "in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" ... so he can then say this ""They shall perish; but thou remainest"" , and thus make his point that the Son is eternal and forever .. the author is not making the point that the Son is the creator, he's just quoting psalm in context to show that the creation will pass away but the Son will not
Dear sir
I believe your misunderstanding comes in when the interpreters of the Bible first and foremost are trinitarians, also the second biggest confusion are the 2 words or titles LORD and Lord, they the translators seem to put them where they want and to whom they want
The LORD only belongs to the creator which the Catholic church and the Jews took out the Creator’s name and replaced it with LORD which is 100% wrong
Lord = Master belongs to the Messiah the only begotten
So when Paul is reciting the Old Testament he is talking about the Creator God and not the Messiah
A further study of the Old Testament and the name of the Most High is a must to understand the scriptures as they were written by the original writers
Your suggestion seems a stretch
why can’t God have a only begotten Son of God before that Son empty that Sonship to become a son of man being made lower than the angels? And why can’t He That Son of God Give his Devine inheritance , to redeem you so you could now have his Devine presence in your temple through the Holy Spirit? , He gave us His Life and took our death , He becoming born again a son of man with the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit ; and us becoming born again, the children of God ,which is that Son of God life we inherit because of his emptying of himself, and gave us that Holy Spirit,,,,,,,,, don’t the Holy Spirit speak to you ?
God could literally make stones get up and start speaking to us, but what God can or cant do isnt the issue, the issue is the truth of these matters as outlined in the Bible.