But He says to the Son, “Your throne, God, is eternal, and the staff of uprightness is the staff of Your kingdom! You loved justice and hated lawlessness: it is for this reason that God, Your God, anointed You with the oil of gladness over and above Your fellows.”
πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, Ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου. ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν· διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου, ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου·
Hebrews 1:8-91
The above verse is taken from the first major section of the book of Hebrews, where the author prooftexts from the Old Testament that the Messiah is greater than angels. As the argument of the book progresses, the establishment of this seemingly meager point will take an important role for the author’s rhetoric, as the Son’s superiority to angels will be used to argue that the covenant which He mediates, the New Covenant, is greater than the covenant which was mediated by angels, the Old Covenant: hence, Jesus the Messiah’s role as the Mediator of a better covenant makes the first obsolete.
However, a full introduction to the book of Hebrews is best left for another discussion. Today, I want to take a look at this particular citation found in verse 8-9. This is a citation of Psalm 45:6-7. The rhetorical goals of the author in citing Psalm 45 are clear: by taking this clause as spoken by God to the Son, the direct address, “God,” at the beginning of verse 6 proves that the Messiah is obviously far above any angelic entity. Such an interpretation is bold: to take the Psalm as identifying the Messiah as God Himself.
However, if you read Hebrews 1, your first impulse may be as mine was: “Ok, but does the Psalm actually mean that?” Imagine for a second that this psalm is being sung before the throne of an ancient Israelite or Judahite king. The psalmist is extolling the praises of the king until he gets to this verse, at which his eyes shift upwards: “Your throne, God, is eternal!” After extolling God in a few phrases, his eyes shift back from the Heavenly King to the king seated before him: “It is for this reason that God, your God, anointed you.” Maybe something akin to that is happening in Psalm 45, such that the direct address is really to God, and not the king? Would the psalmist really identify the king as God?
The honest reader may, as many have, ask similar questions in other places in the New Testament, like in Matthew 2:15. Such a question might sound impious, but I don’t think we need to pretend fideistically that everything we read in Scripture makes perfect sense without further investigation. Now, obviously, the Christian reader is never going to come to the conclusion that the New Testament author was wrong in his use of the Old Testament — such a conclusion would be illogical, since the fact that the Messiah rose from the dead validates both the Old and New Testaments — but that does not change the fact that the question comes up. Some might be of a disposition that questions such as these are really not to be asked, because of a high view of Scripture. However, I think a better view of such things is that because Scripture has its source from God as its authors were moved along by the Spirit, a good, thoughtful, and rigorous answer to such questions exists. Since I think that such an answer exists, I think in many cases to ask such honest questions can be good, since they can deepen understanding. To balance that out a bit, however, of course it’s the reality that difficulties in the Bible can cause serious doubt, so I think the way difficulties are discussed should be with tact and care, with a view to not offending the “weaker brother.”
That all out of the way, to be more concrete, I think there is a good explanation for the author’s use of Psalm 45 to prove the divinity of the Son, one that remains after examination.
Ancient Versions of the Bible
When thinking of “versions” of the Bible, in my context, certainly the primary referent are English versions, that is, English translations. You might have some who prefer the ESV for its “literality” (whatever that means), or the NIV for its readability, or the KJV for its divine inspiration. It should come as a shock to none that “versions” of the Bible, that is, translations of the Bible into other languages, is nothing new: certainly not every ancient spoke Hebrew. Probably most congregants in Protestant churches have a vague knowledge at least of the Vulgate, an ancient Latin translation which the Roman Catholic Church used until Martin Luther nailed it to a door and produced our first English Bible, or something like that. The Vulgate was produced in the fourth century CE, which is very old. However, there were Latin translations before the Vulgate, and we can even get much older than that. The practice of Bible translation goes back at least to the third century BCE, when, according to legend, seventy(-two) Jews came together to produce a translation of the Pentateuch (with the rest of the Old Testament being added later) into Greek for use in Alexandria, a translation known as the Septuagint or the LXX (from Latin Septuaginta, meaning “seventy” — forget about the two).
That’s a fun history, but what does it matter? There are really two reasons why we ought to care about these old translations. First, sometimes these old translations do not seem to be translating the same Hebrew text as that which our “traditional” Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic Text or MT (from Hebrew Masorah, meaning “tradition”), prints. Second, oftentimes the versions clue us in to very ancient interpretations of the text they are translating, since all translations are interpretations. These can be very helpful as a critical data point for establishing the meaning of a given text.
Of all of these ancient translations, the Septuagint is by far the most important due to its antiquity. That is not to say that other translations, like the Vulgate, are unimportant as far as the interpretations they offer, but the LXX is kind of the “king” of the versions.
If you do not know Greek, but would like to engage with the Septuagint in some level, then it may be worth your time checking out translations of the Septuagint: I would recommend the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). There are also translations of other ancient versions out there, like the Douay–Rheims for the Vulgate. A translation doesn’t replace learning Greek to read the Septuagint, but if that’s out of the question for you, then this is a second-best. Also, good commentaries should highlight the contents of the versions when they are relevant.
All of this talk of versions will pay off in time as we look at Psalm 45. First, however, it would be good to get an overview of the contents of Psalm 45 prior to closer analysis.
Psalm 45 at a glance
In the first verse in the MT,2 we are told that this Psalm is “to the choirmaster, according to Shoshanim (“lilies,” likely a musical term), by the sons of Korah, a Maskil (perhaps “a meditative song”), a love-song.” This places this Psalm into a larger collection of Korahite psalms, which extend from Psalm 42 to Psalm 49. The header identifies the content of the Psalm as a “love-song,” and certainly that is understandable given the contents, but don’t hold this too tightly, as we will compare with the versions shortly.
This is a regal psalm, largely split into two halves. The first half extols the king of Israel (1-9), and the second seems to depict the king taking a foreign wife (10-17). This second half is the sense in which the heading “love-song” makes sense.
That is a very brief overview, perhaps only helpful enough to preface a more intimate look at the text. Specifically, we want to be looking for textual features which help flesh out the identity of this king, and thus help us to interpret verses 6-7, and we will see that the conclusion made in Hebrews is a logical one. As you may have guessed from the fronting of a significant discussion about the Versions, they will play a key roll in elucidating some of the features of the text which we may have not otherwise caught onto.
“Love-song”?
As I briefly hinted at above, MT’s “love-song” is a bit contentious. Actually, there are some Hebrew manuscripts in the Masoretic tradition (since the MT does not refer to a single document, but a tradition of manuscripts) which do not read “love-song.” These manuscripts agree with the LXX, the Psalm header of which reads:
Right up until the end: for those who will be changed; by the sons of Korah, for understanding; a song for the beloved
Εἰς τὸ τέλος, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλλοιωθησομένων· τοῖς υἱοῖς Κορὲ εἰς σύνεσιν· ᾠδὴ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ.
LXX Psalm 44:1 (MT 45:1)
Obviously LXX’s Psalm header is quite different, and much of that comes down to the way Psalm headers are done in the LXX. But the part on which we should focus is the last portion: “a song for the beloved,” not a “love-song.”
The LXX is not actually here translating a different Hebrew text than MT. Hebrew is a language which originally left many vowels unwritten, and the difference between “love-song” and “song for the beloved” is only a difference of vowels. This rather reflects a different “reading tradition,” or a different interpretation of the same consonants.
Who is “the beloved” in LXX? Really, there are two options: either the king, or the wife whom the king takes. Who is to be preferred changes the meaning of “beloved,” namely, who is doing the “loving”? If the beloved is the wife, then obviously the “lover” is the king who desires her (45:11). If the “beloved” is the king, then the lover could perhaps be his subjects, or the psalmist, or perhaps God.
I think the LXX’s “beloved” ought to be taken as more original. The difficulty of MT is twofold: (1) the interpretation of the consonants here for “love” is made difficult by the fact that the original word in Hebrew would then be in the plural. Hebrew does have abstract plurals, but this would be the only case in extant Hebrew literature where this precise word was used as an abstract plural for “love”; (2) only the second half of the psalm seems to fit as a “love-song;” the love “plot” only emerges at verse 10.
Assuming then that “beloved” is the correct reading of the Hebrew consonants, the “beloved” ought to be understood then as the king, for the simple reason that the psalm immediately tells us in the first verse of content that he is the subject of the psalm, not the wife per se:
My heart stirs with a good word; I am the one who says, “my poem is for the king!”
My tongue is like a prepared scribe’s stylus!רָחַשׁ לִבִּי, דָּבָר טוֹב– אֹמֵר אָנִי, מַעֲשַׂי לְמֶלֶךְ;
Psalm 45:1 (MT 45:2)
לְשׁוֹנִי, עֵט סוֹפֵר מָהִיר.
So then this psalm is really about the beloved king. Beloved of whom? Likely, given the repeated reference to God’s blessing upon the king (45:3, 6), the “lover” here is God.
If this is correct, then this of course poises us right at the beginning to read about the king, and specifically the Messianic King, who is the primary king the Psalms care about (Psalm 2): given that the Psalter was composed well after the fall of David’s dynasty, being post-exilic, the Messianic king is the only remaining possible “davidic king” for the person who composed the book of Psalms. This is no earth-shattering insight for this Psalm, since the content already clued us into the fact that this is a regal psalm. However, the title “beloved” for the Messiah is provocative if that is the correct referent, as this could form some of the background for the New Testament’s calling Jesus “the beloved Son.”
The King’s Palace (“Temple?”)
The LXX renders one verse in the second half of the Psalm quite provocatively, which in part motivated this post. That is, verse 15. I’ll render this in a way which is more traditional for English versions just to have as reference:
They are lead in rejoicing and gladness,
They are brought into the palace of the king.תּוּבַלְנָה, בִּשְׂמָחֹת וָגִיל; תְּבֹאֶינָה, בְּהֵיכַל מֶלֶךְ.
MT Psalm 45:15 (MT 45:16)
The provocative bit will probably jump off the screen as you read LXX:
They will be be brought in joy and rejoicing,
They will be brought into the Temple of the king.ἀπενεχθήσονται ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ καὶ ἀγαλλιάσει, ἀχθήσονται εἰς ναὸν βασιλέως.
LXX Psalm 45:15 (LXX 44:16)
The rendering of Hebrew הֵיכַל as “Temple” (ναὸν), that is, the Jerusalem Temple, implies that the LXX translator likely considered the king to be God. The Hebrew word הֵיכַל is the word for “Temple,” but it can refer to places other than a temple (as it does in verse 8). In such cases the Septuagint will usually render it with a term indicative of that (such as ἅλως in 1 Kings 21:1 (3 Reigns 20:1), or βαρύς, above in verse 8). But ναός means Temple, and it is unlikely he would have rendered this word as such in his translation if he did not believe that the “king” in this passage was God.
This is especially significant as we consider that the Septuagint’s translation is pre-Christian. Some manuscripts of the Vulgate, for example, read at verse 12, “et concupiscet rex decorem tuum quia ipse est Dominus Deus tuus et adora eum,” “And the King desires your beauty, because He is the Lord your God, adore Him!” The addition of “Deus,” “God,” here is is likely influenced by Christian interpretation of the text. However, the LXX does not have the hindsight of Jesus to influence it.
Psalm 45’s Placement in the Psalter
In looking at the Septuagint’s rendering of הֵיכַל, I think we’ve established that the king of Psalm 45, in the eyes of the LXX translator, is God. However, the next logical question is, “is the LXX translator correct?” And I think we can demonstrate the correctitude of the LXX translator’s interpretive choice by looking to the surrounding Psalms. The Psalms are more than just a hymnal, they really are a book that’s intended to be read cover-to-cover. And the Psalms are arranged in such a way by the composer to create an over-arching message. And I think by looking at the surrounding Psalms, we can show that the composer of the book of Psalms thought that the king of Psalm 45 was God.
If you were to ask the Korahite psalms who the king in Israel is, the answer would unambiguously, barring Psalm 45, be “God.” This creates a strong thematic pattern which links the entire collection together.
In Psalm 44, leading in to Psalm 45, God is the “king” of the psalmist who will ordain salvation for His people:
You are the one who is my King, God,
command deliverance for Jacob!אַתָּה-הוּא מַלְכִּי אֱלֹהִים; צַוֵּה, יְשׁוּעוֹת יַעֲקֹב.
Psalm 44:4 (MT 44:5)
In Psalm 46, God is the king who reigns over God’s holy city, Jerusalem:
There is a river: its streams gladden the city of the Holy God, the dwelling-place of the Most High. God is in her midst; it will not totter: God will help her in the presence of the morning.
נָהָר–פְּלָגָיו, יְשַׂמְּחוּ עִיר-אֱלֹהִים; קְדֹשׁ, מִשְׁכְּנֵי עֶלְיוֹן. אֱלֹהִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ, בַּל-תִּמּוֹט; יַעְזְרֶהָ אֱלֹהִים, לִפְנוֹת בֹּקֶר
Psalm 46:4-5 (MT 46:5-6)
God is king over Israel in Psalm 47 as well, as He subdues the nations under the feet of His people. But His reign expands to fill the whole earth, just like how the reign of the King expands to fill the whole earth in Psalm 45:
For יהוה, the Most High, awesome, He is a great king over the whole earth!
כִּי-יְהוָה עֶלְיוֹן נוֹרָא; מֶלֶךְ גָּדוֹל, עַל-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ.
Psalm 47:2 (MT 47:3)
In Psalm 48, the “city of the great King,” that is, Jerusalem, is where God rules:
יהוה is great, and is one Who is praised greatly in the city of our God, the Mountain of His Holiness.
גָּדוֹל יְהוָה וּמְהֻלָּל מְאֹד– בְּעִיר אֱלֹהֵינוּ, הַר-קָדְשׁוֹ.
Psalm 48:1 (MT 48:2)
And ultimately, in Psalm 49, those who trust in God will be ransomed from the power of Sheol in eschatological salvation, such that they do not die like the other nations:
But it is God who will redeem my life from the authority of Sheol, for He will take me. Selah.
אַךְ-אֱלֹהִים–יִפְדֶּה נַפְשִׁי, מִיַּד-שְׁאוֹל: כִּי יִקָּחֵנִי סֶלָה.
Psalm 49:15 (MT 49:14)
One would need to ask, “if God is not the king in Psalm 45, what is this Psalm doing here?” It seems to be at odds with the rest of the collection if the main subject were not Himself God. Within these Korahite Psalms, God really is the only king to be spoken of.
Notice also the theme which develops across the collection of God’s reign expanding to fill the earth: in Psalm 45, through the union of the king and his wife. This compositional feature seems to require that the King of Psalm 45 whose rule fills the entire earth earth be God, otherwise it doesn’t fit with the other examples.
All that put forward, I think we can say that yes, the king of Psalm 45 is God, as the LXX correctly interprets. This is because the composition of the Psalter seems to impose such an interpretation. And the interpretation of the author of Psalms is really the interpretation we care about, though some would like to interpret Psalms on an individual basis, following source-critical theories.
Implications
Now we can come back to Psalm 45 itself to discuss, if the King be God, what exactly that means for this Psalm. Obviously, one interesting thing you have to deal with is the fact that God is anointing God, which is exactly what the author of Hebrews was pointing out to us as a proof for the Son’s divinity. In fact, that God is depicted as anointing the King is an important detail, since it solidifies this psalm as solidly Messianic. If this detail were not here, you could see how the entire Psalm may be taken as an extended metaphor for God’s kingship over his people divorced from any Messianic implications. But, since God anoints the King, this would not make sense outside of a Messianic framework.
It should be kept in mind that this is not the only place in the OT where the Messiah is identified as God, which helps bolster such an interpretation as viable. The best alternate example is Zechariah 9:9, where the Messiah rides into Jerusalem on a donkey. But in Zechariah 8:3 it is prophesied that God would be the one to return to Jerusalem. The Messiah riding into Jerusalem, then, is God returning to Jerusalem.
Interestingly, if the King is God, this becomes a strong prooftext for Trinitarianism from the Old Testament. There are other places in the OT where God seems to interact with God (Genesis 19:24), which theologically may serve a similar role. This appears to be another example of texts which hint at Trinitarian-like ideas prior to the full revelation of Trinitarian sublimities with the NT.
One interesting question that should be asked in light of all of this: who is the wife? Obviously Jesus never married, and neither do His biological children fill the earth. It’s interesting that the wife is not of Israelite heritage; she is a foreigner, and is called to forget her previous house. I think that ultimately, as the biblical narrative unfolds, the Messiah’s “wife” is revealed to be His covenant people, made up of those from every tribe, nation, and tongue. Thus, He is the “bridegroom” of John’s Gospel. The Church, the New Jerusalem, she is His bride. And her “children” are Christians, who are made priests and kings to join in the Messiah’s reign, and hence fill the whole earth with God’s kingdom (Ps. 45:16, Rev. 5:9-10).
Conclusions
In conclusion, while in isolation my imagined scenario in front of the king’s throne could work, but the entire compositional structure of Psalms as well as ancient interpretation militates against such a reading. Everything seems to point with the NT author at the fact that the psalmist identifies the Messiah as “God.”
I hope you enjoyed this deep-dive, and that it was helpful to you. I have allot of fun writing things like this, so I will probably do more similar topics in the future.
Ultimately, I pray you come away with a better understanding and love for Your Divine King, the Messiah, the Lord Jesus. Amen.
- Translations are mine unless otherwise noted. ↩︎
- The way English Bibles number verses in the Psalms is stupid, and I could go on a whole rant about it. By “first verse,” I mean the Psalm header. However, English Bibles, contrary to I think the entire tradition of versification, even including later ones like the Vulgate, don’t count Psalm headers as a “verse.” I believe this gives the wrong impression to the reader that the Psalm headers aren’t actually part of the Bible’s original text, since other headers which label sections in the English Bible are just there for convenience. However, the Psalm headers are absolutely part of the original text, and that has massive ramifications if you believe that the original text has its source from God. Imagine if in any other book we just cut out the first verse of every chapter? ↩︎