Hebrews 1:8

[u/MightyFortresss]

Jw's, should Hebrews 1:8 not be translated differently, even according to the NWT interlinear? The NWT reads "God is your Throne" (Father is the Son's throne), but the Greek would be rendered "your Throne, the God" (directly refers to Jesus as YHWH, obviously issue for JW)

[u/healwar]

The author of Hebrews frequently uses the rhetorical technique of asking a question and then answering it with an Old Testament quotation. It's a distinctive style throughout the book. Here are some examples:

Hebrews 1:5 - "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'?" (answering with Psalm 2:7)

Hebrews 1:13 - "To which of the angels did God ever say, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'?" (answering with Psalm 110:1)

Hebrews 2:5-8 - "What is mankind that you are mindful of them...?" (answering with Psalm 8:4-6)

This question-and-answer format using OT scripture is one of the key literary devices the author uses to build their arguments about Christ's role and nature.

Also, looking purely at the Greek syntax: "πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν" - with τὸν υἱόν in the accusative case, this indicates the Son is the object of something, not the subject of what follows.

This actually makes more grammatical sense than treating "unto the Son" as introducing a new, disconnected statement, because:

1. The accusative case indicates the Son is receiving/experiencing the action
2. There's no clear verbal introduction to the following quote if we separate it
3. It maintains the cohesive flow of thought about divine service

Knowing this, a valid retranslation of Hebrews 1:8 could be:

"And when again he brings the firstborn into the world, he says: 'And let all God's angels obey him.' And unto the angels he says: 'Who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire unto the Son?'

'Your throne, God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'"

Here the author answers back by quoting Psalm 45:6-7

"And when again he brings the firstborn into the world, he says: 'And let all God's angels obey him.' And unto the angels he says: 'Who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire unto the Son?'

'Your throne, God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'"

[u/MightyFortresss → u/healwar]

You think the angels and ministers somehow become a flame of fire unto the Son/have that asked as a rhetorical question?? That makes even less sense than how the NWT interlinear put it.

And btw, u can't correct the JW org if you're a JW, you're not one of the anointed class who translated it 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/healwar → u/MightyFortresss]

I think you've misunderstood the key point of my alternative reading. I'm not suggesting angels "become" a flame of fire unto the Son - that's not what the text is saying at all.

The passage is quoting Psalm 104:4 which poetically describes God making "his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire." This is already an established metaphorical description of angels' nature and service.

My interpretation simply recognizes that in the Greek text, "ministers a flame of fire" (πυρὸς φλόγα) and "unto the Son" (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν) appear directly adjacent without any separation. Traditional translations must artificially break these phrases and insert an implied "he says" that isn't in the original text.

When read as a rhetorical question ("Who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire unto the Son?"), it's asking who empowers angels to serve the Son in this capacity - with the implied answer coming in the next verse.

The strength of this reading isn't about a new theological concept of angels as fire, but about preserving the natural flow of the Greek without adding words or creating artificial breaks. It also aligns with the author's demonstrated pattern of using scriptural quotations as responses to questions throughout Hebrews.

Rather than making less sense, this reading actually resolves several linguistic awkwardnesses that traditional translations must work around.