Allow me to add my pound of flesh. Here’s some of the research on the subject that I compiled a few years ago. As seen, in the discussion of Hebr. 1:8, one needs to look at Ps. 45:7. So, I agree with Leolaia, there is a certain amount of ambiguity involved. She’s right, it’s not bais, rather the tendency towards a low christology. I quote the following people, because I view them as “heavy weights” in their respective fields.
Psalm 45:7 (Ps. 44:6 LXX) : In a note in Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, fourth edition (1981), p. 50, Gesenius gives an alternative explanation to the traditional translation of Ps. 45:7 (MT): ‘Some feel that 'ëlohîm is used in a singular capacity (for the plural see A, 2), or for one king, for bên-'ëlohîm, and they refer especially to Ps. 45:7, where they render kiše'äkhâ 'ëlohîm `oulâm wâ`êdh as “your throne, O God (that is O divine King), will reside for ever” (protected and being made prosperous by God), according to the customary canon of the language, Lehrg. par. 233:6.'
Concerning the genitive, that is a noun followed by a suffix, Gesenius, in his Hebrew Grammar, p. 415, 452, says the following: “In Ps. 45:7 kiše'äkhâ 'ëlohîm (usually explained as thy godly throne), 'ëlohîm might possibly be a late addition. Another explanation is that khei'lohîm stands for ‘as God’s (throne)'. That the language – especially in poetic language – is not unwilling to produce even the most remarkable combinations that strongly emphasize the unconditional relationship between subject and predicate, which is demonstrated by examples like Ps.45:9 your clothingismyrrh and aloe and cassia (they are so saturated by perfume, it is as though they consist of it); Can. 1:15 thine eyesisdoves’ eyes (but 5:12 keyounîm), etc.”
Brown, Driver and Briggs in A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament(1951), on p. 43 B, confirm that differences exist among scholars concerning this verse. Under ‘godlike one’ they say: “Ex. 4:16 (J; Moses as regards Aaron), Ex. 7:1 (P; as regards Pharaoh), 1 Sam. 28:13 (the shadow of Samuel), Ps. 45:7 (the Messianic king), O God: LXX, Syriac, Jerome, most ancient and modern scholars, but your throne is God's = God’s throne: Aben Ezra, Dawid Kimchi (Qamchi), Thesaurus, Ewald, Hupfel cf. 1 Chron. 28:5.”
Koehler and Baumgartner, p. 51B, view this kind as a divine destroyer, he that comes to be Am. 4:11; Ex. 21:6; 22:7, 8; Ps. 45:7 [that is judge(s) that execute judgment], etc. All agree that the Psalmist is here talking of a human king. Therefore, did he refer to him as: 1) an exalted, divine being [NAV, LB]? 2) Alternatively, as God’s kingly representative [TEV]? 3) Alternatively, that God guarantees his prosperity, his figurative throne [Harrison, RSV]? 4) Alternatively, his throne can be compared to that of God’s throne [NEB]? The author of the book of Hebrews applies this verse to the future rule of the Messiah. Any of the above explanations fit the context and would therefore be acceptable.
Hebrews 1:8 : Here the author of the book of Hebrews quotes from Ps. 45:7. For some reason the Committee, responsible for the ‘Standard Text’, overlooks some of the basic rules of textual criticism in their handling of Hebr. 1:8. The first rule they ignore is that ‘internal criteria can never be the basis of a critical decision, even more so when it is in opposition to external evidence’, and secondly that ‘the more difficult reading is usually the correct reading’, according to The Text of the New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland. Bruce M. Metzger, on p. 663, of his Corrected edition of A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament discusses the reasons why they prefer the easy reading.
Although the reading autou, which has early and good support (p46, Sinaiticus 01, Vaticanus 03), may seem to be preferable because it differs from the reading of the Old Testament passage that is being quoted (Ps. 45.7 [=LXX 44.7] sou), to which, on this point of view, presumably the mass of New Testament witnesses have been assimilated, a majority of the Committee was more impressed by (a) by the weight and variety of the external evidence supporting sou, and (b) by the internal difficulty of construing autou. Thus, if one reads autou the words ho theos must be taken, not as a vocative [“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.”] (an interpretation that is preferred by most exegetes), but as the subject (or predicative nominative), [“God is thy throne (or, Thy throne is God) forever and ever, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of his [i.e., God’s] kingdom.”], an interpretation that is generally regarded as highly improbable. Even if one assumes that kai, which is absent from the Hebrew and the Septuagint of the Psalm, was inserted by the author with the set purpose of making two separate quotations, with ver. 8a in the second person and 8b in the third person, [“‘Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever,’ and ‘the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of his kingdom.’”] the strangeness of the shift in persons is only slightly reduced.
The Committee, responsible for The Greek New Testament (third corrected edition), therefore chooses “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom.” [Cf. RSV, NASB] instead of the more complicated “‘God is thy throne (or, Thy throne is God) forever and ever,’ and ‘the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of his kingdom’” [cf. Moffatt, Goodspeed] to be closest to the original reading. In spite of this, the latter reading is attested by older and more reliable MSS and satisfies all internal and external prerequisites. The second edition of Ei Kainei Diatheikei (‘The New Covenant’) of the British and Foreign Bible Society (1965 reprint), containing the Greek New Testament text of Dr. Eberhard Nestle (4th edition, 1903), gives the quotations as: “Ho thronos sou ho Theos eis ton aiounos , kai hei rabdos teis euthuteitos rabdos teis basileias autou.” He refers us to Ps. 44:6 (LXX) to confirm this reading.
The LXX by Brenton, based on Codex Alexandrinus, and that of Rahlfs, based on Codex Vaticanus no. 1209, differs in their use of the article. This is a timely reminder that above quote is taken from Ps. xliv. 7-8 (LXX). From a LXX perspective this seems to be an open and shut case. Kenneth J. Thomas, in New Testament Studies II, p. 305, writes:
As indicated above, this citation is part of the author’s argument that the ‘Son’ is superior to the angels. The changes from the LXX A/B text indicate that the author of Hebrews is using it to show the ‘Son’s’ association with God to the extent of sharing God’s power and authority. This is not done by calling the ‘Son’ ‘God’. [Footnote 2: Since the author of Hebrews is not concerned to address ‘the Son’ as God, the additional kai cannot be considered a separation of two quotations as suggested by Kistemaker, op. cit. p. 25.] The key to this interpretation is in the understanding the first line to mean ‘God is thy throne for ever and ever’. This is indicated by the use of basileias autou [Footnote 3: Autou is accepted as the original reading of Heb. i.8 because of the strong witness of the N.T. P46 a B (which, in eleven other instances of minority readings in Hebrews, where they are together, are considered to have the original reading), the scribal tendency to use sou to avoid difficulties of interpretation, and the tendency to retain sou as found in the LXX.] instead of basileias sou and the change to kai ei rabdos teis euthuteitos rabdos [Footnote 4: Parallel to change of word order found in LXX 142. Parallel to additional kai in LXX 39, 142.] from rabdos euthuteitos ei rabdos. The use of autou forces ho theos to be the subject so as to give an antecedent. The change of word order clearly establishes the parallelism of the two clauses indicating that the Father’s sceptre is also the ‘Son’s’: ‘Thy (the Son’s) throne is God (the Father) for ever and ever and the sceptre of uprightness (the Son’s) is the sceptre of his (the Father’s) kingdom.’ Thus, through the use of these changes the author of Hebrews has indicated that it is the ‘Son’ who is addressed and who is in closest association with God the Father, reigning with the power and authority of God over all, including the angels.
Bible scholar B.F. Westcott summarizes it this way: “It seems highly improbable that 'ëlohîm in the original was directed at the king... Thus, in its entirety, it would be best to accept the following reading in the first clause: God is Thy throne (of Thy throne is God), meaning ‘Thy kingdom had been established by God.’”
TDNT, vol. III, p. 164, under The Throne of David, puts it another way: “In the NT the only real reference to an earthly thrones is in Lk. 1:52 [katheilen dunastas apo thronoun, cf. Sir. 10:14.] The throne of David in Luk. 1:32 is the throne of the Messianic king. God has granted it to the son of Mary as the throne of David, His father, that He may exercise eternal dominion over the house of Jacob, according to the prophecy of 2 Sam. 7:12 ff (cf. Is. 9:6), which is applied to Him in Acts 2:30. There is also reference to the throne of the king of the last days in Ps. 45:6a, which is used in Hb. 1:8 to prove the superiority of the Son over the angels. What is meant is the sovereign majesty of Him who sits on the throne with God (cf. 1:3). Here “the idea of the Davidic monarchy achieves its definitive realisation.”
