mutability, the materiality, and transitoriness of angelic service (comp. Weber,
Altsynag. Theologie
, § 34), which is placed in contrast with the personal and eternal sovereignty of the Son communicated to Him by the Father.
oJ poiw'n
] The Greek Fathers lay stress on the word as marking the angels as created beings in contrast with the Son:
ijdou; hJ megivsth diaforav, o{ti oiJ me;n ktistoi; oJ de; a[ktisto"
(Chrys.).
pneuvmata
]
winds
, not
spirits.
The context imperatively requires this rendering. And the word
pneu'ma
is appropriate here; for as distinguished from the commoner term
a[nemo"
it expresses a special exertion of the elemental force: Gen. 8:1; Ex. 15:10; 1 Kings 18:45; 19:11; 2 Kings 3:17; Job 1:19; Ps. 11:6 (10:6), & c.
leitourgouv"
] The word seems always to retain something of its original force as expressing a public, social service. Comp. Rom. 13:6; 15:16; Heb. 8:2; and even Phil. 2:25 (v. 30). See also 2 Cor. 9:12.
The reference to the winds and the flame of fire could not fail to suggest to the Hebrew reader the accompaniments of the giving of the Law (Heb. 12:18 ff.). That awful scene was a revelation of the ministry of angels.
The variableness of the angelic nature was dwelt upon by Jewish theologians. Angels were supposed to live only as they ministered. In a remarkable passage of Shemoth R. (§ 15, p. 107 Wunsche ) the angels are represented as new every morning. The angels are renewed every morning and after they have praised God they return to the stream of fire out of which they came (Lam. 3:23). The same idea is repeated in many places, as, for example, at length in Bereshith R. § 78, pp. 378 f. ( Wunsche ).
Heb. 1:8.
pro;" dev
...]
in reference to
... The words in the Psalm are not addressed directly to the Son, though they point to Him.
oJ qrovno" sou oJ qeov"
...
dia; tou'to
...
oJ qeov", oJ qeov" sou
...] It is not necessary to discuss here in detail the construction of the original words of the Psalm. The LXX. admits of two renderings:
oJ qeov"
can be taken as a vocative in both cases (
Thy throne, O God,... therefore, O God, Thy God
...) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (
God is Thy throne
, or
Thy throne is God
...), and in apposition to
oJ qeov" sou
in the second case (
Therefore God, even Thy God
...). The only important variation noted in the other Greek versions is that of Aquila, who gave the vocative
qeev
in the first clause (Hieron.
Ep.
lxv.
ad Princ.
§ 13) and, as it appears, also in the
second (Field, Hexapla ad loc. ). It is scarcely possible that : yhiløa , H466 in
the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that oJ qeov" is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God ), that is Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock; and to take oJ qeov" as in apposition in the second clause.
The phrase God is Thy throne is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is in no way more strange than Ps. 71:3 [ Lord ] be Thou to me a rock of habitation...Thou art my rock and my fortress. Is. 26:4 (R. V.) In the LORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock. Ps. 90:1 Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling- place. Ps. 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High... v. 2 I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress, v. 9; Deut. 33:27 The eternal God is thy dwelling-place. Comp. Is. 22:23.
For the general thought compare Zech. 12:8. This interpretation is