This is the first instance in the KNOWLEDGE book displaying a unique feature of the NWT – the use of God’s name in the New Testament. The WTBTS and NWT translators assert that יהוה was in the original New Testament writings and was later removed. The forward of the WTBTS Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (hereafter referred to as KIT) states:

 

The evidence is that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures have been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX has been…Sometime during the second or third centuries C.E., the Tetragrammaton (YHWH, or JHVH) was eliminated from the Greek text by copyists who did not understand or appreciate the divine name or who developed an aversion to it, possibly under the influence of anti-Semitism. Instead of YHWH (or, JHVH) they substituted the words Ky’ri·os, “Lord,” and The·os’, “God.”[2]

 

As such, the NWT translation committee “restores” the divine name, Jehovah, to the New Testament 237 times.[3] The KIT forward continues:

 

Hence, the modern translator is warranted in using the divine name as an equivalent of those two Greek words, that is, at places where the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quote verses, passages, and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs.

 

…How may modern translators determine when to render the Greek words Ky’ri·os and The·os’ as the divine name? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then they must refer back to the Hebrew text to locate whether the divine name appears there. In this way they can determine the identity to be given to Ky’ri·os and The·os’, and make appropriate use of the personal name.[4]

 

Furthermore, the NWT translation committee asserts that יהוה occurred in the original writings of New Testament in passages that do not quote Old Testament passages. KIT states:

 

They have restored the divine name not only when coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures but also in other places where the texts called for such restoration.

 

…We have looked for some agreement with us by the Hebrew versions we consulted to confirm our rendering. Thus, out of 237 times that we have restored Jehovah’s name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance wherein we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely at 1 Corinthians 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support restoring the divine name.[5]

 

I highly recommend the following books for extensive study on the divine name and the New Testament: THE TETRAGRAMMATON and the CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES, THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION AND HEBREW VERSIONS Book 1, Jehovah in the New Testament, Book 2, and THE DIVINE NAME in the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION available for free download at http://www.tetragrammaton.org . (Accessed October 2007.) I also highly recommend Doug Mason’s book, Witnessing the Name, available on-line at: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/thename.htm#_Toc472342618 (Accessed October 2007.) I cannot express how greatly I encourage readers of this site to download/print a copy of these books, to read and study them thoroughly for an exhaustive understanding of this issue.

 

In a nutshell and very much contrary to the WTBTS assertion in the first blocked quotation of the KIT above, there is no “evidence” whatsoever that יהוה was ever used in the writings of the New Testament or that the New Testament writings were tampered with.

 

 

True, more recent discoveries of the LXX (the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament) have included fragments that use יהוה and Appendix 1C of the NWT with References lists 10 of these fragments.[6] However, the reader should note that these are ancient fragments of the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Many copies and fragments of the Masoretic (Hebrew) text prove that the divine name was used in the Old Testament. The presence of יהוה in the Old Testament is solidly attested to, but no one argues that God’s name wasn’t in the Old Testament. It was. The problem is we are not concerned with the Old Testament here, but the New.

 

The Old Testament cannon was closed centuries before Jesus’ birth and New Testament times. The Old and New Testaments are related, of course, but quite distinctive one from the other, especially in regards to manuscripts, canonization and standardization. The Old Testament was translated into Greek for Jews who no longer spoke or understood Hebrew, but no single version existed in New Testament times. There was no one, single LXX. There were many. Standardization of the LXX did not happen until long after Jesus’ resurrection, in response to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and the Christian adoption of the LXX in study, praise and worship. Before that time, a great many versions of the LXX were available and in use.

 

Finding a few copies/fragments of the LXX that contain יהוה does not demand nor require that Jesus, the Apostles or the early church used those particular versions of the LXX. In fact, of the fragments found that contain יהוה, those listed by the WTBTS are widely accepted as coming from Jewish, not early Christian sources. All these fragments prove is that some Jews had copies of the LXX that contained God’s name. It proves nothing in regards to LXX copies early Christians used.

 

Doug Mason, in his book Witnessing the Name, states:

The WTS wishes to give the impression that the LXX used by the Christian Church regularly contained the Tetragram. However, the LXX copies come from Jewish sources, apart from two LXX copies that come from a source of doubtful origin, possibly Jewish, or of a Jewish form of Christianity.

Extant versions of the Septuagint coming to us from Jewish sources contain the Tetragrammaton in ancient script whereas only two Septuagint copies that contain the Tetragrammaton may have possibly been of a Christian source.[4] But these "Christian" sources were of:

"a Jewish form of Christianity (that) persisted in Oxyrhynchus, and a possible explanation of these two eccentric texts would be that they were the work of Jewish-Christian scribes." (MANUSCRIPT, SOCIETY AND BELIEF IN EARLY CHRISTIAN EGYPT, C.H. Roberts, page 34.)[7]

In regards to one of the manuscripts whose origins is in doubt, LXXP. Oxy. VII.1007 (#6 on the NWT with References Appendix 1C list) I refer the reader to: http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/PCE276.pdf (Accessed October 2007), which states:

 

The treatment of kuvrio" suggests the text was copied by a Jewish scribe, and such has been argued by e.g. Kahle (The Cairo Geniza , 247), followed by Treu, 'Die Bedeutung', 142. The use of a blank space to mark the division between chapters 2 and 3 (r.i.25) can also be paralleled in other Jewish texts (e.g. 8 HevXIIgr; cf. Roberts, MSB, 18 with n.3). However, both the codex format and the use of the nomen sacrum for qeov" suggest a Christian context (Roberts, MSB, 33-34; 77). In scribal terms, both a Jewish scribe being influenced by Christian treatment of the sacred name and a Christian scribe preserving the Hebrew abbreviation (and contracting qeov" according to his own principles) are possible. It can be argued that the translation (LXX and not one of the other Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible), the codex format, and the use of nomina sacra makes a Christian context more likely. However, if one moves from scribal practice to actual use, it is more difficult to see how the text could have been employed for liturgical or private reading in a context in which the meaning of the Hebrew characters was not known (as would be most probable in Christian settings). If a Christian context is to be seen, it might be postulated that the text bears witness to a syncretic form of Jewish Christianity (Roberts, MSB , 34, cf. 57). Alternately, one might suppose that the text formed part of the collection of an educated Christian such as Origen, in whose opinion (PG 12.1104B) the most authoritative LXX manuscripts were those preserving the divine name in 'the most ancient' Hebrew characters.[8]

 

Mr. Mason further states, quoting Kahle, “We now know that the Greek Bible (or the LXX, the OT) text, as far as it was translated by JEWS FOR JEWS did not translate the Divine name KYRIOS, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained. ... It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by KYRIOS, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more".[9]

 

And again, speaking of Aquilla, who is attributed to two of the manuscripts cited by the WTBTS in the NWT with References Appendix, Mr. Mason said:

When he employed the Tetragram in his Greek translation of the (Hebrew) Scriptures, Aquila used the very ancient Hebrew script that had, even by his time, long ceased being used. In doing so, Aquila appears to be reaching back into the roots of Judaism, in opposition to the contemporary terminology being used by his opponents which, on the evidence of the NT manuscripts available, consisted of translation into Greek of the Hebrew surrogates ("Lord"; "God") and the use of Nomina Sacra.[10] (Emphasis mine.)

Appealing to Old Testament manuscripts that contain God’s name, especially when those manuscripts weren’t used by Christians (or whose origins are suspect) doesn’t prove anything. Since these manuscripts weren’t used by early Christians, but rather by Jews, it only proves that Jews had copies of the LXX that contained God’s name. We, however, are concerned with copies used by early Christians, not Jews.

 

I encourage readers to review a debate in regards to correlating the LXX usage of God’s name with a supposed New Testament usage of God’s name at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-27561.html (Accessed October 2007.) The WTBTS asserts that since יהוה was changed to Kurios in the LXX (at least in certain manuscripts), the New Testament could have been similarly altered. The debate contrasts the LXX context of these changes against the New Testament environment.

 

In summary:

 

Prior to the twentieth century our oldest copies of the Old Testament texts dated from a millennium or more after the close of the OT era. Overnight, that gap shrank hundreds of years. With a millennium-long gap, it would have been highly speculative to have guessed what we would find in older Greek translations of a Hebrew original. (The fact that a translation is the subject is significant, since translations exhibit a greater degree of verbal variance from one another than copies in the same language do from one another)…

 

The situation with the New Testament is not the same. We are not talking about translations of the original language texts into other languages, and we are not talking about a millennium long gap. We have manuscripts of the NT in the original language dating from as little as 25 years from the close of the NT era. We have manuscripts of virtually the entire NT dating from a century after the NT was finished. We also have a paper trail of writers quoting from those NT writings throughout the intervening century; these writers confirm the evidence of the NT manuscripts that no change in the text was made.[11]

 

In the above debate, Rob Bowman states, “…even though the manuscript evidence does not provide absolute, mathematically certain proof that your [WTBTS] position is impossible, the best explanation of the evidence we have is that your [WTBTS] position is incorrect.”[12]

 

I very much agree.

 

In any event, there are no New Testament manuscripts that contain יהוה.

 

We possess papyrus fragments and manuscripts of the New Testament that date to the second century, not to mention over 5000 other ancient New Testament manuscripts and fragments.[13] One fragment, P52 in the John Rylands Collection, has been dated to 125 A.D. – approximately 25 years after the New Testament canon was complete. None of these ancient manuscripts and fragments include יהוה. NONE. I can’t stress this enough: there is NO ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE WTBTS POSITION OF THE DIVINE NAME IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

 

Not only is there no manuscript evidence supporting the inclusion of the divine name in the New Testament, there is absolutely no evidence or even a mention about the WTBTS’ assertion of a corruption of the Biblical texts in which יהוה was replaced with “Lord,” in ANY non-canonical writings. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANFs) wrote prior to the Nicean Council of 325 A.D. We can obtain a general understanding of the beliefs of the early church from these, the earliest church writings.

 

None of the ANFs mention the removal of the divine name from the New Testament and this is at a time when the early church was persecuted to the point of death. They died to preserve and protect the Bible we have today. The heretic, Marcion, for instance, corrupted the text by throwing out the entire Old Testament and using only the Pauline epistles and editing his own particular revision of the Gospel of Luke. The ANFs wrote about Marcion and his corruption of the New Testament. But we find NO such discussion or mention of the removal of the divine name. Such a corruption of the text would certainly have been at the very least mentioned by one of the ANFs and discussed in the early church. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence of any such controversy.

 

Furthermore, the ANFs quote the New Testament writings extensively in their own writings throughout the period in which the WTBTS claims the removal of the divine name from the New Testament occurred. Of course, these works are not canon, but we are not concerned with what the writers said in this instance, but rather we focus instead on the Scripture in use and quoted at the time. Over half of the 237 Jehovah insertions “restored” by the NWT can be found in the Scripture quoted by the ANFs in their writings and 171 of these ANF quotations – written at the time the WTBTS insists Jehovah was removed from the New Testament writings – directly contradict and disprove the NWT.[14] None contain God’s name. None.

 

The quotations above also indicate that the NWT translators used Old Testament quotations in order to confirm where to insert Jehovah in the New Testament. Quite alarmingly, however, the NWT translators were not consistent in applying God’s name from Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. There are instances of a few Old Testament quotations that the NWT translators opted against inserting “Jehovah.”

 

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Ps. 45:6:

 

Psalms 45:6

 

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. (KJV)

 

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. (NASB)

 

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. (NIV)

 

God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever; The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness. (NWT)

 

Compare with Hebrews 1:8:

 

Hebrews 1:8

 

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. (KJV)

 

But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. (NASB)

 

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (NIV)

 

But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. (NWT)

 

You will note above that the variant translation offered by the NWT above, highlighted in red, “God is your throne” rather than the other translations that indicate ‘Thy/Your throne, O God.’ Of the 55 Bibles I reviewed for Psalms 45:6[15], 48 addressed God directly as reflected by ‘Thy/Your throne, O God’ and minor variations thereof.[16] 87.3% of the Bibles consulted address God directly in this verse. 7 Bibles do not address God directly, 6 of which indicate that the throne is given of God.[17] None of these translations agree with the NWT’s translation “God is your throne.”

 

When we look to the New Testament quotation of this Old Testament verse in Hebrews 1:8 and the translations/versions thereof, we find that 69 of 72 translations[18] also address God directly. Only the Daniel Mace New Testament (1729), Twentieth Century New Testament and the New World Translation indicate God is thy/your throne, reflecting a 4.17% agreement with the NWT in the pool of Bibles consulted. The vast majority of Bibles reflect the ‘thy/your throne, O God’ translation.

 

Of Hebrews 1:8, the NET Bible footnote states:

 

Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.” This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The μέν…δέ (men…de) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: “On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.” Thus, although it is grammatically possible that θεός (qeos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.[19] (Emphasis mine.)

 

Adam Clarke wrote quite extensively of Hebrews 1:8:

 

This verse is very properly considered a proof, and indeed a strong one, of the Divinity of Christ; but some late versions of the New Testament have endeavored to avoid the evidence of this proof by translating the words thus: God is thy throne for ever and ever;… ὁ Θεος being the nominative case, is supposed to be a sufficient justification of this version. In answer to this it may be stated that the nominative case is often used for the vocative, particularly by the Attics; and the whole scope of the place requires it should be so used here; and, with due deference to all of a contrary opinion, the original Hebrew cannot be consistently translated any other way…I may add that none of the ancient versions has understood it in the way contended for by those who deny the Godhead of Christ, either in the Psalm from which it is taken, or in this place where it is quoted. Aquila translates אלהים  Elohim, by Θεε, O God, in the vocative case; and the Arabic adds the sign of the vocative ya, reading the place thus: korsee yallaho ila abadilabada, the same as in our version. And even allowing that ὁ Θεος here is to be used as the nominative case, it will not make the sense contended for, without adding εστι to it, a reading which is not countenanced by any version, nor by any MS. yet discovered… in the same way, all reading it in the nominative case, with the force of the vocative; for none of them has inserted the word εστι, is, because not authorized by the original: a word which the opposers of the Divinity of our Lord are obliged to beg, in order to support their interpretation.[20] (Emphasis mine.)

 

None of the ancient manuscripts agree with the NWT translation.

 

Albert Barnes agrees with Clarke:

 

The “form” here - ὁ Θεὸς  ho Theos - is in the vocative case and not the nominative…This then is a direct address to the Messiah, calling him God;…Unitarians proposed to translate this, “God is thy throne;” but how can God be “a throne” of a creature? What is the meaning of such an expression? Where is there one parallel? And what must be the nature of that cause which renders such an argument necessary?[21] (Emphasis mine)

 

Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, also states:

 

The suggested translation of Heb. 1:8 in the RSV margin, “God is your throne forever and ever,” while possible grammatically, is completely inconsistent with the thinking of both Old and New Testaments: the mighty God who created everything and rules supreme over the universe would never be merely a “throne” for someone else. The thought itself is dishonoring to God, and it should certainly not be considered as a possibly appropriate translation.[22] (Emphasis mine.)

 

I have to agree with the ridiculousness of demanding that God is any creature’s throne.

 

Also, we must look to the Hebraic poetic parallelism in Psalms 45. Defining Hebraic parallels:

 

A common literary feature of Hebrew poetry in the Old Testament is called parallelism, in which the words of two or more lines of text are directly related in some way.  This feature can be found in any poetic passage, and sometimes even in narrative, although it is more common in the Psalms and Proverbs.

 

Recognizing parallelism as a poetic feature can sometimes aid in understanding or interpreting a passage.  For example, the use of parallelism usually means that the message of the text is in the larger passage and its overall point or impact rather than individual words or single lines.  Also, specific words that may be ambiguous or used in unusual ways can be clarified or more narrowly defined by seeing them in the context of a parallel structure.[23]

 

Psalms 45 reflects the parallel structure. In Brenton’s LXX:

 

Ps. 45:3 (44:3) Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in my comeliness…

 

Ps 45:5 (44:5) Thy weapons are sharpened, Mighty One, (the nations shall fall under thee)…

 

Ps 45:6 (44:6) Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever…

 

From another website, quoting two books (unbelievably) that I do not, in fact, own J:

 

The LXX translation of Psalm 45, from which the author is quoting, the king is addressed by the vocative dunate, dunate (“O Mighty One”; vv. 4, 6; cf. Reymond, Systematic Theology, 274). Similarly, Harris observes:

 

in the LXX version it is even more probable that o( qeoj is a vocative for the king is addressed a “mighty warrior” (dunate) not only verse 4 but also in verse 6. . . . This dual address heightens the antecedent probability, given the word order, that in the next verse o( qeoj should be rendered “O God.” One may therefore affirm with a high degree of confidence that in the LXX text from which the author of Hebrews was quoting o qeoj represents a vocatival )lhy{ [Elohim]” (Harris, Jesus as God, 215).[24]

 

“O God” in Psalms 45:6 is a poetic parallel to “Mighty One” and “O Mighty One” (the vocative dunate noted in the quotes above), arguing quite convincingly for a similarly vocative ho theos and against the “God is your throne” nominative translation.

 

The WTBTS, to my knowledge, has never provided an answer or response to this.

 

Significantly, Justin Martyr, an Ante-Nicene father, quoted Psalms 45:6/Hebrews 1:8 three times in Dialogue with Trypho, one of which I quote here:

 

…it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things;… `Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever… If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord,…[25]

 

Justin obviously didn’t interpret Psalms 45:6 as the NWT’s ‘God is thy throne,’ but rather that He considered this verse a direct address to ho theos, Yahweh God.

 

The only commentary I found that could possibly support the NWT translation, “God is thy throne,” is Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament:

 

It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in Joh 20:28 with the Messiah termed theos as is possible, Joh 1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Either makes good sense.[26]

 

However, the reader should note that Robertson indicates that the translation “makes good sense” from the perspective of grammatical possibility. The commentaries noted previously stated that the NWT translation was grammatically possible. No one denies that the translation is grammatically possible. Possibility, however, is not proof that it should be translated as such, nor does it reflect probability or likelihood of said translation.

 

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalms 45:6, which is a direct address to God as ho theos applied to Jesus in the New Testament. If the NWT translation committee follows its own rules in translating ho theos, this verse would read (paraphrasing from the NWT), But with reference to the Son: “Thy Throne, O Jehovah, is forever and ever…

 

Hebrews 1:8 stands firmly as a statement of the deity and Godhood of Jesus Christ.

 

Continuing…

 

Hebrews 1:8, 10-12

 

[8] But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. [10] And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [11] They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; [12] And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (KJV)

 

[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. [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." (NASB)

 

[8] But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. [10] He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. [11] They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. [12] You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." (NIV)

 

[8] But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. [10] And: “You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. [11] They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, [12] and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out.” (NWT)

 

This passage is addressed to the Son, Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quotation of Psalms 102:25-27:

 

Psalms 102:24-27

 

[24] I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. [25] Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. [26] They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: [27] But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. (KJV)

 

[24] I 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. (NASB)

 

[24] So I said: "Do not take me away, O my God, in the midst of my days; your years go on through all generations. [25] In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. [26] They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. [27] But you remain the same, and your years will never end. (NIV)

 

[24] I proceeded to say: “O my God, Do not take me off at the half of my days; Your years are throughout all generations. [25] Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, And the heavens are the work of your hands.  [26] They themselves will perish, but you yourself will keep standing; And just like a garment they will all of them wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn. [27] But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed. (NWT)

 

This passage is addressed to God the Father.

 

Albert Barnes states:

 

… it is clear that the writer here designed to adduce this as applicable to the Messiah… In the Psalm, there can be no doubt that Yahweh is intended… No one, on reading the Psalm, ever would doubt that it referred to God, and if the apostle meant to apply it to the Lord Jesus it proves most conclusively that he is divine.[27]

 

John Gill wrote that Psalm 102:25,

 

…is a proof of the deity of Christ, to whom these words belong: this is said to be done "of old", or "at" or "in the beginning", as Jarchi and the Targum; and so in Heb 1:10, where they are applied to the Messiah, the Son of God; and this, as it proves the eternity of Christ, who must be in the beginning, and before all things... and so fully express the eternal existence of Christ…[28]

 

David Guzik, furthermore, shows how this Old Testament quotation proves the deity of Christ, stating:

c. The Son is not only called God, but Lord (Yahweh) as well (Hebrews 1:10), and the Son is described with attributes that God alone has.

i. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, is the Creator (You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth).

ii. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity is self-existent (They will perish, but You will remain).

iii. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity is sovereign (Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed).

iv. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity is immutable, unchanging (You are the same), and eternal (Your years will not fail).[29]

Please note that Psalms 102:25-27 says that Yahweh, God the Father created the heavens and the earth, that the heavens are the works of Jehovah’s hands, denoting an intimate and personal involvement in the work of creation while Hebrews 1:10-12 ascribes the same to Jesus, i.e. both God the Father and Jesus were personally and intimately involved in the creation.

 

I refer the reader to:

 

Isaiah 44:24

 

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (KJV)

 

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone, (NASB)

 

"This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens who spread out the earth by myself, (NIV)

 

This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me? (NWT)

 

And again: