Hebrews 1:10 And,“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,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 like a robe you will roll them up,like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same,and your years will have no end.”
found here: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=139#null:
"Now the God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews], addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom…i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102nd Psalm, viz. [Author uses KJV] To infer thence this conclusion, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before Thee. In like manner, it here proves the Son’s throne should be established forever and ever, by the same argument, viz., by God’s immutability.” ~Norton, Reasons, pp. 214 and 215.
"Theologians such as Norton say that as it is used in the Old Testament, the verse shows that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews: since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son.
Theologians such as Norton say that as it is used in the Old Testament, the verse shows that the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews: since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son."
I would also like to personally add that in surrounding scriptures like Hebrews 1:5-7 and 2:5-8 there are OT passages about the FATHER reapplied to the father again in Hebrews here.So it wouldn't be far fetched in the least in this context to see Hebrews 1:10-12 the same way.It's very possible.Since the writer switches back and forth from talking about the Son and the Father so much.
And finally here's a youtube with this other view presented pretty well!He doesn't start talking about verse 10 till about 6 and a half minutes in.He disabled embedding so go to the link:
I already had two blogs about this with a different perspective.I can't be dogmatically certain of how to view it.Both the view in this blog or the view in the linked others here from Anthony Buzzard seems possible,to be honest.A good case could be made for either without any compromise of monotheism,without demanding a preexistent agent in the old creation,much less a trinity.