The Finality of Christ: An Exposition of Hebrews 1:1–4

By David J. MacLeod

[David J. MacLeod is Dean of the Division of Biblical Studies, Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.]

The Jewish Christians who first received the written sermon[1] known as the Epistle to the Hebrews lived in the midst of violent change. The original readers, residing in Palestine,[2] lived under the dark cloud of the doom of national Judaism. This epistle was written about A.D. 67 or 68,[3] a year or so after the Roman war against the Jews had begun in September, A.D. 66.[4] Jesus had predicted judgment on Jerusalem (Luke 21:20–28), and part of that judgment was shaping up before their eyes. Roman forces were dealing brutally with the increasing signs of rebellion in the religious life and civil life of the Jewish nation.

The political change was accompanied by tremendous religious upheaval.[5] For nearly forty years Judaism and Christianity had coexisted in Palestine. Some fellowship between church and synagogue was allowed on both sides.[6] Christian Jews continued to pray at the temple (Acts 3:1). They loyally observed the Law (21:20) and continued to participate in sacrificial rituals (vv. 23–26). Some still numbered themselves among the Pharisees (15:5).

Although the readers had become Christians, it is possible that they viewed themselves as members of a “reformed Judaism.”[7] They may have felt that their participation in the Jewish rituals and sacrifices was merely a cultural or traditional practice that in no way conflicted with their trust in Christ as their Savior. With the passing of years and the clear revelation through the apostle Paul, it was becoming apparent that this could no longer be. In Hebrews 8:13 the author declared that the Old Covenant was obsolete.

Their devotion to the temple rituals and sacrifices was no longer an innocent thing.[8] They had to break with Judaism and go to Christ “outside the camp” (Heb. 13:13). They could not be deceived by Jewish arguments, offered by the rabbis and their families and neighbors, that there was salvation in the sacrifices and dietary laws of the Jewish altar (v. 9). The Book of Hebrews was written to exhort these Christian Jews to make a complete break with their past. They needed to remember that in the midst of this period of religious, political, and social upheaval Christ is God’s last word to humankind.

The Son Is Superior to All Human Spokesmen for God (vv. 1–3)

The author of Hebrews “is nothing if not a superb spiritual tactician.”[9] Jewish leaders had been telling the readers that the high priest and the Sanhedrin were right in crucifying the carpenter of Nazareth. No doubt there were attacks in the synagogues against the Jewish Christian “traitors.” Then there were appeals from rabbis, family, and friends. “Come back,” they cried, “to the faith of your fathers.” The author of Hebrews met the problem head on by emphasizing that the new revelation in Christ is better than the old, that Jesus Christ is no mere carpenter, and that He is in fact the Son of God.[10]

In Greek, Hebrews 1:1–4 is a single beautifully crafted sentence, in which the author presented a number of the key ideas he developed in the following chapters.[11]

The Superiority of His Revelation (vv. 1–2a)

Verses 1 and 2 contrast the revelation of Old Testament times with that of New Testament times. They are different in time, in method, and in the agents God used.[12]

Different in time. The revelation in the Old Testament was given “long ago” (πάλαι), that is, “very much earlier.”[13] It was given to the “fathers” (τοῖς πατράσιν), a term that often means the biblical patriarchs, but here it means earlier generations, that is, all the ancient people of God to whom the prophets spoke.[14] But now He has spoken “in these last days” (ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων).

In the Septuagint “last days” refers to the final days of this undesirable age, which will be followed by a better future (e.g., Num. 24:14; Jer. 23:20).[15] Ancient Jews divided redemptive history into two major periods, world history up until the coming of the Messiah (“these days”) and the “age to come,” that is, the days of the Messiah and His kingdom. Between the two was a transitional period, the end of “these days.” The Messiah had come, and so “these days” were almost over.

One might ask how the author of Hebrews would defend the doctrine of imminency in light of the fact that twenty centuries have come and gone. As Newman explained, “Up to Christ’s [first] coming… the course of [human history] ran straight towards [the] end, nearing it by every step; but now, [in the last days], that course has… altered its direction, as regards His second coming, and runs, not towards the end, but along it, and on the brink of it; and is at all times near that great event, which, did it run towards it, it would at once run into.”[16]

Different in method. The author described the methods of revelation in Old Testament times with the words “in many portions and in many ways” (nasb) or “at many times and in various ways” (niv) (πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως).[17] The adverb πολυμερῶς suggests that the Old Testament revelation came in many successive segments over a long period of time. This would include the time of the patriarchs, Moses, the judges, the kings, the captivity, and the restoration.[18]

The adverb πολυτρόπως focuses on the different forms and methods used by God in Old Testament times, including symbols such as the tabernacle (Exod. 25–30), visions (Isa. 6:1–3), dreams (Dan. 1:17; 7:1), states of ecstasy (Ezek. 3:14), and direct, verbal communication (Num. 12:6–8).[19] All this time, as Hession writes, “Jesus Christ had stood in the wings of history.”[20]

Different in agent. In Old Testament times God spoke “in the prophets” (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις). The “prophets” refers to those who received direct revelation from God, including Abraham (Gen. 20:7), Moses (Deut. 34:10), and David (Acts 2:30), as well as those who are generally thought of as having the office of prophet.[21] God dwelt in them,[22] inspired them, and caused them to utter what He wanted them to say (2 Pet. 1:21).

The author of Hebrews did not belittle these men; after all, God spoke through them. But the new revelation is better. God has now spoken in His Son. The Greek reads “in Son” (ἐν υἱῷ, without a definite article), thereby focusing on the nature of the new revelation—Son-type of revelation as opposed to a prophet-type or servant-type. Jesus reveals exactly what His Father is like (John 1:18).

Each Old Testament prophet seems to have had a primary theme.[23] Isaiah emphasized God’s holiness. Hosea was the prophet of divine love. Amos demanded social justice. Each man, as it were, grasped a fragment of the truth. Yet all the threads of Old Testament prophecy met in Christ.[24]

Dan Crawford (1870–1926), pioneer missionary to Africa, was sitting in the doorway of his tent, writing a letter. A little African boy stood staring in astonishment at the white man’s strange occupation. At last he asked, “What are you doing, Mr. Crawford?” The missionary explained that he was writing a letter; he was committing his thoughts to paper. The boy digested the information for a moment and then said, “Ah! I know what you’re doing. You’re putting thoughts in prison.” “Ah, no!” exclaimed the missionary with his ready wit. “You’re wrong, lad. I’m not putting thoughts in prison. I’m setting thoughts free!”[25]

That is what God did when He sent His Son into the world. God communicated through many prophets over the centuries, but so much remained unsaid. When Jesus Christ came, God fully expressed His heart, His mind, and His will.[26]

Hebrews 1:1–2 does not say that the old revelation was untrue or unworthy. Furthermore these verses do not focus on what both revelations have in common, that is, their common source in God. Instead the stress is on what is distinctive in the new.[27] The old was “partial and piece-meal.”[28] Only in the incarnation of the Son of God do people have a perfect revelation of God. He is the “highest modality of special revelation.”[29] Verses 1–2 also point out that God’s revelation has been progressive or cumulative.[30] The old revelation was the foundation and preparation for the new.

The Superiority of His Person (vv. 2b–3)

Why is a revelation from the Son of God superior to divine revelation given by the Old Testament prophets?[31] The answer lies in the seven-fold description of the Son of God in verses 2–3.[32]

His appointment as Heir. Jesus’ superiority is seen first in that He is the one for whom the universe was made.[33] God appointed His Son “heir of all things” (ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων). As elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt. 21:33–44; Gal. 4:7; Rom. 8:17), there is a firm link between heirship and sonship.[34] Only members of a family may inherit their father’s estate. In the pretemporal counsel of God[35] the Son as Messiah and Redeemer[36] was appointed Heir of all things.

The author of Hebrews was alluding to Psalm 2:8, “Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance.” This inheritance includes the Promised Land (Matt. 5:5) and the kingdom of God (25:34). The term “heir” does not refer to Christ’s present ownership and rule over all things.[37] Instead it points to the second coming of Christ, when God the Father will make the Son’s enemies the footstool of His feet (Heb. 1:13) and He will rule over the “world to come” (2:5).38 The author explicitly wrote that the Son is “waiting” for that time (10:13). In any case the prophets were only servants, whereas Christ is the Son and Heir.

To modern-day readers the author of Hebrews would say, “Come away from the novelty, transience, diversity, alienation, oblivion, conflict, grief, and disappointments of life. Focus your attention on the Son, the Heir of all things. He is coming again to receive His inheritance. Believers are part of that inheritance. He will inherit them and take them with Him into His kingdom. There they will enjoy their inheritance with Him (1:14; cf. 9:28).”[39]

His lordship over history. The Son’s superiority is also seen in the phrase “through whom He made the world” (δι᾿ οὗ καί ἐποίησεν τούς αἰῶνας). The prepositional phrase “through whom” (δι᾿ οὗ) indicates that the Son was the Father’s agent in creation.[40]

Many understand the phrase to mean that the Son created the material universe,[41] based on the fact that John 1:1–3 and Colossians 1:16 state that the Son of God created the universe. In this view the thought in Hebrew 1:2 is that Christ created the spheres that comprise the universe.[42]

However, the author literally wrote, “through whom He made the ages.” The Greek word for the material world is κόσμος, but the word for the temporal world is αἰών, which is used here.[43] Αἰών includes not only “the reaches of Space [but also] the ages of Time.”[44] It includes the “physical universe” as well as the “times and ages and aeons through which the purpose of God is gradually unfolding.”[45] Αἰών does not simply mean vast, meaningless periods of time; rather, it means “ages” or “dispensations,” that is, fixed periods of time in the outworking of God’s purposes.[46]

This word then has a temporal as well as a material or spatial sense.[47] The thought is that the Lord Jesus is the Creator of the “universe…as the theater of the divine dispensations or ages.”[48] He is the Creator and Lord of history, setting in motion the universe and managing it throughout its successive time periods.[49] He was the Father’s agent in creation. He executes the divine will of redemption during the present age, or more accurately, “at the consummation of the ages” (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, 9:26). He will accomplish world dominion in the age to come (cf. 2:5).[50]

Each Old Testament prophet appeared for a while in his own era. The Son of God, however, operates and manages the universe throughout all of its time periods. This clearly implies the preexistence of the Son, the One who existed before all the ages of history.[51]

His reflection of the divine nature. Many commentators,[52] although not all of them,[53] believe that the author recited a verse of a hymn in Hebrews 1:3. It certainly looks like a hymn in Greek.[54] The subject in verses 1–2 is the Father, but in verse 3 the subject changes to the Son.[55] And attention moves from the Son’s preexistent and cosmic role as Creator to His incarnate role as Revealer of God.[56]

Verse 3 states that the incarnate Son of God was and is (present participle ὢν) the “reflection [cf. rsv] of His [Father’s] glory” (ἀπαύγασμα[57] τῆς δόξης…αὐτοῦ). This is the third statement about the Son’s superiority over all human spokesmen for God. The thought is not that the glory of the Son’s deity shines through His humanity.[58] Rather, the glory of the Father is manifested in the perfection of His manhood. In the Septuagint the term “the glory” (ἡ δόξα) was associated with God.[59] In fact the words “the glory” came to be substituted for the word “God.”[60] It seems to be used that way here. Thus “the Son reflects God.”[61]

In the Old Testament the word “glory” often speaks of “the luminous manifestation of His person, His glorious revelation of Himself.”[62] His glory is seen in creation (Isa. 6:3), His great acts (Ps. 96:3), and the temple (Exod. 40:34–35; Ps. 26:8). In “these last days” God’s glory is seen in His Son. The same thing was taught by John (1:14) when he wrote, “We saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” And Paul wrote of “the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6).

In Jesus Christ there is the perfect, visible expression of the reality of God.[63] In Him people see in human form the love, mercy, justice, holiness, and goodness of God. To borrow a phrase from J. B. Phillips, Jesus Christ is the “focused God,” or God in focus.[64]

His embodiment of the divine essence. Besides reflecting the Father’s deity,[65] Jesus Christ is truly God in His own person. This fourth assertion about the Son’s superiority is that He is “the exact representation of His nature” (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). The term χαρακτήρ was used of a die for stamping an impression on coins, and it came to mean the impression itself. It then came to mean the distinguishing features or personal characteristics of a person.[66] The word ὑπόστασις originally meant “sediment,” that is, everything that settles. Then it came to mean “existence” and “reality.” Here in Hebrews 1:3 it means the “substance” or “real essence” or something in contrast to what merely seems to be.

In short, the Son is “not merely like the Father, He is of the same essence… [as] the Father.”[67] As the Father’s Son, He has the “distinguishing features” of deity.[68] To borrow a phrase from Denney, “[only] a virtuoso in exegetical evasion” could avoid the clear implication of the author of Hebrews that Christ possesses the very essence of God.[69] Lenski says that in this verse “language fairly groans with the weight of meaning.”[70]

His government of the universe. In the fifth statement about the Son’s superiority, His cosmic significance is again mentioned. As stated in verse 2, Christ as the Creator fixed the boundaries of the ages through which the purposes of God unfold. That looks primarily at His preexistent work. Verse 3 focuses on the present and on to the end time. The Son “upholds all things by the word of His power” (φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ).

Some take this to mean that the Son sustains the universe, that is, He assures its continued existence.[71] That is certainly taught elsewhere, most notably in Colossians 1:17 (“in Him all things hold together”). But that is probably not what is meant here. The word φέρων, translated “upholds” (nasb, rsv) or “sustaining” (niv), rarely has a static sense. It more often has a dynamic sense, “to bring, to lead, to drive.”[72]

The Son of God is “not an Atlas sustaining the dead weight of the world”[73] on His shoulders. Verse 3 is stating that the Son is the Governor of the universe and the Lord of prophecy.[74] He is providentially guiding the universe in the way He wants it to go.[75] A parallel is found in Numbers 11:14, where Moses said that he was not able to bear (φέρειν) the people of Israel. His point is that he was not able to govern them or guide them.[76]

The Son of God, however, is able to govern the universe, and He is guiding all things toward their consummation.[77] The course of the universe is guided by means of “the word of His power.”[78] This phrase draws attention to the Son’s deity and omnipotence. The One who created the universe of space and time (“the ages,” v. 2) is the One who guides it to its appointed goal.

His provision of spiritual cleansing. The sixth statement affirming the Son’s superiority is that “He made purification of sins” (καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος). With this assertion the main theme of the epistle is briefly introduced, which is the high priestly work of Christ.

Sins are those offenses against God that make one guilty.[79] As in the Old Testament, sins are regarded as defilements that cling to a person and need to be washed away, moral impurities that need to be removed.[80] This defilement that troubles the conscience gives one a sense of guilt and alienation from God.[81] Such guilt erects a barrier to one’s approach to God which must be removed.[82]

The blood of Christ (9:14, 22), shed on the cross, cleanses sins. The verb form (καθαρίζω) of the term “purification” or “cleansing” (καθαρισμός) is used in the Septuagint of the priestly act of pronouncing a person ritually clean.[83] To be declared cleansed from sin was the result of the priest’s sacrificial work on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:30; cf. Exod. 30:10).

At the cross Jesus made provision for removal of the guilt of sin. The word “made” (ποιησάμενος)[84] is an aorist participle, suggesting that the purification or cleansing was accomplished by a single act in the past.[85] This implicitly contrasts the single sacrifice of Christ with the repeated sacrifices of the Old Testament high priests. This contrast is discussed later in Hebrews. The middle voice of the Greek verb suggests that it was Christ Himself[86] who made purification. He had no assistance from others; He made it by Himself, offering Himself as the cleansing offering (Heb. 9:14).[87]

The focus of this passage, then, is on Jesus’ objective work on the cross, the offering of the sacrifice of Himself that provided cleansing from sin. The author of Hebrews was not writing here of individual believers being cleansed. Rather he was focusing on the sins of all the people. Later in the epistle he wrote of the application to believers of this cleansing, a cleansing that must be appropriated by faith. He equated cleansing with the forgiveness of sins, the cleansing or removal of guilt from the individual sinner (v. 22). And he said that cleansing is psychological as well as moral, that is, the pain of a guilty conscience is relieved when a believing sinner by faith appropriates the saving value of the blood of Christ (v. 14; 10:2).

His exaltation as Priest-King. The seventh assertion that confirms the greatness of the Son is that “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High” (ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς). This statement is the final clause of the author’s hymn, and in it he clearly alluded to Psalm 110:1.[88] As in other New Testament Christological hymns, the focus is now on exaltation.[89] After His work of purification the Son “sat down.” This verb is always used in Hebrews of this one dramatic event when the ascended Christ took His seat at God’s right hand (8:1; 10:12; 12:2). It speaks of “a formal and dignified act.”[90]

The significance of Christ’s taking His seat in heaven is twofold.[91] First, it suggests that He has completed His work of purification. The priests of the Old Covenant were always standing (10:11) because their sacrificial duties were never completed. Their work was never done, for they never completely dealt with the problem of sin. The Son, on the other hand, “sat down.” Second, it points to His position of highest honor, the right hand of a king being the place of great distinction (1 Kings 2:19). This was the third step in the exaltation of the incarnate Christ (resurrection, ascension, exaltation).[92] It signifies the Father’s endorsement or approval of what His incarnate Son had accomplished.[93]

The exalted Christ’s position of rank and dignity is reinforced by the lofty title given to God, “the Majesty on High.” This title stresses the greatness and transcendence of God.[94] That Christ is seated in God’s presence clearly indicates the Savior’s exalted state. As noted in Hebrews 1:13, angels do not sit in the divine presence.[95]

As the believers’ High Priest, Jesus represents them and intercedes for them at God’s right hand. His position as King is potential in the sense that He is the “heir of all things” (1:2) and will rule over the “inhabited earth to come” (2:5, 9).[96] Christ is not ruling today over this world as King.[97] The “throne” of verse 8 is not His present seat at the right hand of the Father.[98] That throne is the Davidic throne He will occupy in His rule over His future millennial kingdom (Luke 1:32–33). At present He is waiting “until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet” (Heb. 10:13; cf. 1:13).

The Son Is Superior to All Angelic Spokesmen for God (v. 4)

The opening paragraph of the Book of Hebrews began with the assertion that the Son’s revelation of God is superior to that given by other spokesmen (“prophets”). Now the paragraph concludes with the assertion that the Son is superior to angels.[99] His revelation is superior to that given by angels.

Like “the prophets” of verse 1, “the angels” of verse 4 stand for the entire Old Testament era.[100] Much of the Old Testament can be characterized as either prophetic or angelic. One writer has called angels “the ‘apostles’ of the Old Testament dispensation,” that is, they are “ministering spirits sent out [ἀποστελλόμενα] to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation” (v. 14).

“The word spoken through angels” (2:2) refers to the whole Old Testament revelation. The incarnate Christ now occupies a position of dignity superior to the angels, for He is “better than the angels” (κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων).

The Superiority of His Functions

Verses 8–10 speak of the Son’s deity; because of His divine nature He is superior to angels. Verses 4–6, however, speak of Christ in His human nature, which is clear from the expression “having become” (γενόμενος). In His deity the Son was always superior to the angels. The revelation through Him must therefore be superior. In His human nature, however, He has been exalted at His ascension and now occupies a place far superior to that of the heavenly messengers. He occupies offices (High Priest and King) that no angel has ever occupied, and these make Him and the revelation He gave superior to them.

The Superiority of His Name

Also the Son “has inherited a more excellent name than they” (ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ᾿ αὐτούς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα). What is this more excellent name? Surprisingly verse 5 clearly implies that it is the name “Son.”[101] How can this be? In verses 1–3 the author implied that Christ has always been the Son of God by divine nature. Yet he immediately wrote that the name that Christ has inherited is, oddly enough, “Son” again.

The solution to this difficulty is that the author used the title Son in two different ways in his epistle.[102] “In verse 2 it indicates what Jesus is, and has always been, by divine nature; in verses 4 ff. it is the Messianic title He receives in connection with … His human nature.”[103] The first kind of Sonship has been called “eternal sonship,”[104] “divine sonship,”[105] or “essential sonship.”[106] In this sense He has always been the Son of God. The second usage of the term has been called “messianic sonship,”[107] “mediatorial sonship,”[108] “functional sonship,”[109] “official sonship,”[110] “acquired sonship,”[111] or “eschatological sonship.”[112]

The aorist participle “having become” (γενόμενος) supports this distinction. It suggests that the name is something Jesus attained. Furthermore the sequence of events in verses 3 and 4 also suggests that sonship is something He attained. In addition the citation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1:5, a psalm associated elsewhere with Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 13:33) and human nature (Heb. 5:5), would indicate that the title “Son” was inherited when He was exalted to God’s right hand. In fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7) David’s son is adopted[113] as God’s messianic Son.[114]

This adoption or appointment (Rom. 1:4) took place at the time (“today”) of Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and exaltation.[115]

Some angels have wonderful names. The name Michael, for example, means, “Who is like God?”[116] The author of Hebrews would answer, “Jesus is like God.” He is just like His Father in His divine nature. And He has a moral likeness to God in His sinless human nature. The name Gabriel means “Mighty One of God.” But Jesus Christ is greater. In His divine nature He is Almighty God. And in His human nature He is the sovereign over the “world to come” (2:5), which is true of no angel.

Conclusion

Hebrews 1:1–4 provides a general survey of the nature and work of Christ,[117] drawing attention to His divine essence, preexistence, incarnation, work on earth, ascension, and exaltation.

The practical problems faced by the readers of Hebrews involved faulty thinking about certain doctrines. In these four opening verses the author briefly set forth some of the main doctrinal themes of the epistle, drawing particular attention to Christ’s three functions as Prophet, Priest, and King.[118]

The Son as Prophet

The main point of verses 1–4 is that the Son is God’s supreme and final agent of revelation. His revelation is greater than that of all human prophets of God. Furthermore His revelation is greater than that of all of the angels of God. God’s Son is the final agent of revelation. As Stedman asked, “What more can God say?”[119] The answer is that He can say no more, and people must respond believingly to God’s final message in Christ.

The Son as Priest

The Son’s ministry as High Priest is the central doctrinal theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author here alluded to that priesthood when he wrote that Christ “made purification of sins.” One of the reasons this great sermon-letter was written is that the original readers had “lost confidence to draw near to the throne of grace because of the barrier of sin.”[120] The book seeks to restore that confidence by teaching them correct doctrine about the Son of God, who offered Himself as a sacrifice that washes away sins and qualifies believers to draw near to God.

Jesus Christ, who is the Lord over history, who manifests the divine nature, who embodies the divine essence, who governs the universe—He is the one who has effectively dealt with the sin barrier.

The Son as King

The Son has taken His seat at the right hand of God, to wait until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet (cf. 10:13). He is the appointed “Heir of all things” (1:2). Soon He will return to take His place as rightful Ruler over “the world to come” (2:5). When He comes, believers will not shout, “Angelus victor!” Instead they will shout “Christus victor!” He is the Son of God![121]

Notes

1. That Hebrews is a written sermon or homily is the general consensus of scholarship today. See, for example, Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 14; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 25; and William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1991), lxx.
2. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1892), xl-xli; C. Spicq, L’ Épître aux Hébreux (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1953), 1:220–52; George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1972), 256; and Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 11, 19. For the view that Hebrews was addressed to an audience outside of Palestine see Craig R. Koester, Hebrews, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 48–50; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to theHebrews, 13–14; Attridge, The Epistle to theHebrews, 10, and most modern commentators.
3. Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899), 25; Spicq, L’ Épître aux Hébreux, 257–61; Jean Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allsock (London: Epworth, 1970), xv; Henry C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), 304; and John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 215.
4. F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City, NY: Anchor-Doubleday, 1972), 378.
5. Paul O. Wright, “Except through Me” (unpublished ms., 1982), 9–10.
6. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, xxxviii; and Alexander Nairne, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917), lxxiv.
7. Alexander Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood (Edinburgh: Clark, 1913), 14.
8. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, xxxviii.
9. David Gooding, An Unshakeable Kingdom: The Letter of Hebrews for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 27.
10. Ibid., 27-28.
11. Attridge, The Epistle to theHebrews, 36. The sentence is a beautiful example of chiastic structure (Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 6–7; D. W. B. Robinson, “The Literary Structure of Hebrews 1:1–4, ” Australian Journal of Biblical Archeology 2 [1972]: 178-86; and Daniel J. Ebert, “The Chiastic Structure of the Prologue to Hebrews,” Trinity Journal 13 [1992]: 167-68). Ebert’s proposed arrangement is as follows: A. The Son contrasted with the prophets (vv. 1–2a) B. The Son as messianic Heir (v. 2b) C. The Son’s creative work (v. 2c) D. The Son’s threefold mediatorial relationship to God (v. 3a, b) C.´ The Son’s redemptive work (v. 3c) B.´ The Son as messianic King (v. 3d) A.´ The Son contrasted with the angels (v. 4)
12. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 3.
13. H. Seesemann, “πάλαι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Friedrich Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 717.
14. G. Schrenk, “πατήρ,” in ibid., 976. See also James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), 3; and Attridge, The Epistle to theHebrews, 38.
15. Buchanan, To theHebrews, 4. Several commentators say that the expression “last days” speaks of the messianic age (Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. T. L. Kingsbury (Edinburgh: Clark, 1871), 2:40; Hugh Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper, 1964), 34; Hughes, Hebrews, 37; Leon Morris, “Hebrews,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 13; F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 46 n. 14; and Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 10. However, the expression refers to the transition between “this age” and “the age to come” (Buchanan, To the Hebrews, 4; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament [1861; reprint, Chicago: Moody, 1958], 4:3; Westcott, The Epistle to theHebrews, 6; A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Edinburgh: Clark, 1882], 38–39; Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 3; and Gooding, An Unshakeable Kingdom, 33).
16. John Henry Newman, “Waiting for Christ,” in Parochial and Plain Sermons (London: Longmans, Green, 1924), 6:241.
17. For the two adverbs πολυμερῶς and πολυτρόπως there are no good English equivalents. The first has a quantitative sense and the latter has a qualitative sense (Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:41). See also Attridge, The Epistle to theHebrews, 37.
18. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 5.
19. Bernard Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 53–54.
20. Roy Hession, From Shadow to Substance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 19.
21. Koester, Hebrews, 177.
22. Many have taken the ἐν in the phrase “in the prophets” as instrumental, that is, viewing ἐν as the same as διά (“through”). Examples include numerous Bible versions (kjv, jb, neb, niv, rsv); Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:41; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2; Buchanan, To theHebrews, 3; Attridge, The Epistle to theHebrews, 38; and Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 11. C. B. Moll, however, argues that ἐν is used instrumentally only with things and not with individuals (“The Epistle to the Hebrews,” trans. A. C. Kendrick, in A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. John Peter Lange [1863; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.], 3:24). The emphasis here is not on the human authors as divine instruments but on the divine activity of God “in them as the quickening power of their life” (Westcott, The Epistle to theHebrews, 6). What the prophets spoke, God spoke (Marcus Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910], 4:249).
23. “Some suggest that the prophetic witness was fragmentary or ‘partial.’… Nevertheless, if no one prophetic message was complete, together they constituted a manifold corpus” (Koester, Hebrews, 176).
24. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Late in Time Behold Him Come (Heb. 1:1–4),” Believers Bible Bulletin, December 23, 1979, 2–3.
25. John Phillips, Exploring Hebrews (Chicago: Moody, 1977), 41–42.
26. Ibid., 42.
27. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:41.
28. F. F. Bruce, “Hebrews,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. M. Black (London: Thomas Nelson, 1962), 1009.
29. Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God, 53.
30. Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 214–15.
31. Significantly no quotation of Jesus is cited in the epistle. The emphasis of the author is not on His spoken ministry, but on “His personality and career, in which God’s saving purpose came to full expression” (Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 19). Nevertheless in 2:3 the author did allude to Jesus’ teaching ministry. In that passage the teaching of the Lord is viewed as “the true origin of the Gospel” (Westcott, The Epistle to theHebrews, 39). But in 1:2–3 the Son Himself is the message. The emphasis is on who He is and what He did (Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8).
32. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 46.
33. Gooding, An Unshakeable Kingdom, 37.
34. W. Foerster, “κληρονόμος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 (1965), 781–82. Foerster argued that the parable in Matthew 21:33–44 establishes a firm link between sonship and inheritance which runs through the entire New Testament. The “heir is the Son, and the inheritance is God’s kingdom” (ibid.).
35. Some (e.g., Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 40) argue that Christ’s appointment as Heir took place at His exaltation. Others (e.g., Westcott, The Epistle to theHebrews, 7; and Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 5) assert that it was made in the eternal decree of God before all time. The second view is preferable in that there seems to be a logical development in the phrases that follow, culminating in Christ’s present exaltation.
36. The writer here rejects the view of Montefiore (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 34) and Morris (“Hebrews,” 13), who argue that the heirship of Christ was a metaphysical prerogative, that is, at His exaltation He merely reentered His rightful position as Owner and Ruler of the universe. In context, however, the inheritance of Christ is a dispensational or economic prerogative related to His work of redemption. The dignity, then, is an official or functional one.
37. Some commentators do not hold this view, among them Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 34; Morris, “Hebrews,” 13; and Koester, Hebrews, 178.
38. Attridge, The Epistle to theHebrews, 40.
39. Cf. Wright, “Except through Me,” 13.
40. Davidson, The Epistle to theHebrews, 40.
41. These include versions (ASV, Darby, kjv, NASB, niv); John Albert Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, trans. C. T. Lewis and M. R. Vincent (Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1864; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), 2:576; Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:43; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 5; Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 34; Héring, The Epistle to theHebrews, 3–4; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 40; Morris, “Hebrews,” 114; Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 41; H. Sasse, “αίων,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (1964), 204; and James Barr, Biblical Words for Time (London: SCM, 1962), 75. Several reasons are given in favor of this interpretation. (1) The word αἰών is used of the material universe in the rabbinic writings of the first century a.d. and later. (2) The word τοὺς αἰῶνας is synonymous with πάντων in the previous phrase, which suggests that the αἰῶνες are “things.” (3) The parallel passage in 11:3 suggests that the translation “world” or “universe” is appropriate.
42. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 41.
43. C. J. Vaughan, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1890), 5.
44. Alford, Hebrews-Revelation, 6.
45. Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 250.
46. Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 35.
47. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 8–9; Vaughan, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 5; Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 250; Buchanan, Hebrews, 5–6. Some commentators (e.g., Alford, Hebrews-Revelation, 5; and Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 4) include the elements of space, matter, and time. The temporal sense is implied by three factors: (1) The common meaning of αἰών and its Hebrew equivalent עוֹלָם is “age.” (2) A Jewish audience would believe that God had not only created the material world but also the ages, the days of the week, the annual festivals, the weekly sabbaths, etc. (3) The plural τοὺς αἰῶνας favors this view. The author has no concern for other “worlds.” His sole concern is for this earth as the theater of redemption. The singular αἰών would have more accurately suggested the material world. When speaking of the material universe the author used κόσμος (4:3; 9:26).
48. William Kelly, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: T. Weston, 1905), 8 n. 1.
49. Cf. Johnson, “Late in Time Behold Him Come (Heb. 1:1–4),” 3.
50. Johannes Schneider, The Letter to the Hebrews, trans. W. A. Mueller (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 11.
51. As James Denney observed, the preexistence of Christ and His mediatorial (δἰ οὗ) work of creation has profound significance. “If pre-existence is a legitimate way of expressing the absolute significance of Jesus… then the mediation of creation through Christ is a legitimate way of putting the conviction that in the last resort, and in spite of appearances, the world in which we live is a Christian world, our ally, not our adversary” (“Mediation,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings [Edinburgh: Clark, 1915], 8:517).
52. That verse 3 is the verse of a hymn or a hymn fragment is widely held. Advocates include Buchanan, Hebrews, 8, 10; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 33; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 47; Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 41–42; Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribners, 1965), 220–21; Jack T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 19–20, 92–94; Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 6; James W. Thompson, “The Structure and Purpose of the Catena in Heb. 1:5–13, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 353; Janusz Frankowski, “Early Christian Hymns Recorded in the New Testament: A Reconsideration of the Question in the Light of Heb. 1:3, ” Biblische Zeitschrift 27 (1983), 191; and David Alan Black, “Hebrews 1:1–4: A Study in Discourse Analysis,” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 180, 186.
53. A number of scholars have rejected the notion of a hymn or hymn fragment in verse 3. These include Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 7–8; Koester, Hebrews, 179; Robinson, “The Literary Structure of Hebrews 1:1–4, ” 179–80; John P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb. 1:5–14, ” Biblica 66 (1985): 524-28; and Ebert, “The Chiastic Structure,” 175–76. Meier writes, “We are left wondering why anyone would insist on expending so much time and effort on such a weak hypothesis when the simpler solution is also the obvious one: Heb 1:1–4 is the composition of our author, from start to finish” (“Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Hebrews 1:5–14, ” 528). It seems to this writer that these scholars have demolished the thesis that the author made use of a preexisting hymn. Frankowski’s thesis seems best: the author of Hebrews composed his own hymn, possibly using existing hymnal themes. Two further observations may be noted. (1) The author of Hebrews, the most polished Greek book in the New Testament, had the ability to compose a verse of a hymn. (2) The hymn is just where it belongs in Ebert’s structure, that is, at the center or core of the exordium (cf. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 7).
54. That verse 3 is a hymn is indicated by several facts: (a) the shift of subject from God to Son in the transition from verse 2 to verse 3; (b) the opening relative pronoun ὃς (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16; Phil. 2:6); (c) the presence of two New Testament hapax legomena, namely, ἀπαύγασμα and χαρακτήρ; (d) the presence of participles without the article (ὤν, φέρων, ποιησάμενος); (e) the rhythmical style and formal parallelism; (f) the use of exalted language to describe the Son of God; and (g) the similarity to other passages where similar criteria suggest a hymn. See Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 7; Sanders, Christological Hymns, 19; Frankowski, “Christian Hymns,” 183–84; and Ebert, “Chiastic Structure,” 175.
55. Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:6.
56. Several writers assert that verse 3 refers to Christ’s preexistent state (e.g., Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 41, 74–75; Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:49; and Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 43–44). The present participle ὤν and the active sense of ἀπαύγασμα (“radiance”) points to Christ’s timeless being. The Son, it is asserted, would have been “the radiance of His glory” even if He had never become incarnate (Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 74). However, the focus of the immediate context is God’s speaking to humankind through His Son, that is, during His incarnate ministry. Because of His incarnate work the Son has been “appointed Heir” and has “inherited” a name. As a man He made purification for sins. See L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2, ” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 155–56. Hurst’s essay falters when he ignores the clear assertion of the Son’s deity in verses 5–14. He mistakenly concludes that the Son inherits the names (plural) “Son,” “God,” and “Lord.” Actually the Son inherits only the name “Son.” Those who see here a reference to Christ’s incarnate state include R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James, 37; W. E. Vine, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1952), 13; and Donald Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 66.
57. The word ἀπαύγασμα is found in Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon 7:26. With regard to the author’s possible use of Philonic terms Moffatt said the author expounds “unborrowed truths” in “borrowed terms” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6). Ronald Williamson says, “All that is written in 1:1ff can be accounted for without the theory of Philonic antecedents or influence” (Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums [Leiden: Brill, 1970], 4:101). Bruce concedes that the language is that of the Book of Wisdom, but he argues that the author’s meaning goes beyond it (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 48). In the Book of Wisdom, wisdom is only the personification of a divine attribute. But in Hebrews Christ, who reflects or radiates God’s glory, is a man who lived in Palestine but who was the eternal Son of God. See also William L. Lane, “Detecting Divine Wisdom in Hebrews 1:1–4, ” in The New Testament Student and His Field, vol. 5 of The New Testament Student, ed. J. H. Skilton and C. A. Ladley (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1982), 150–58.
58. There is much ambiguity in the use of this term ἀπαύγασμα. The suffix -μα seems to require the passive sense of “reflection.” Nevertheless the active sense of “radiance” was the unanimous choice of the Greek fathers, and the word is used in both an active and a passive sense in Greek literature (Westcott, The Epistle to theHebrews, 11; Gerhard Kittel, “ἀπαύγασμα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:508. As James Hope Moulton and Wilbert F. Howard noted, “the question is exegetical rather than grammatical or lexical” (Accidence and Word Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: Clark, 1919], 299). Commentators debate whether the Son actively radiates divine glory “out from” (ἀπ ᾿) the Father or reflects “back” divine glory like a mirror (Koester, Hebrews, 179–80).
59. When the Septuagint translators used δόξα for כָּבוֹד, they initiated a linguistic change of far-reaching significance. They took a word meaning “opinion,” which implies all the subjectivity and therefore all the vacillation of human views and conjectures, and they made it express something absolutely objective, namely, the reality of God (Gerhard Kittel, “δόξα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2 [1964], 245).
60. Δόξα is “a term for [the] divine nature or essence either in its invisible or its perceptible form” (ibid., 244).
61. Cf. Gerald F. Hawthorne, “Hebrews,” in International Bible Commentary, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 1506.
62. Characteristically “glory” is linked with verbs of “seeing” (Exod. 16:7; 33:18; Isa. 40:5) and “appearing” (Exod. 16:10; Deut. 5:24; Isa. 60:1). See S. Aalen, “Glory,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 2:45.
63. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 13.
64. J. B. Phillips, Your God Is Too Small (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 90.
65. The phrase “radiance of His glory” (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης…αὐτοῦ) has been understood to stress the equality of God the Father and God the Son, that is, the Son is one nature with the Father; and the phrase “exact representation of His nature” (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ) stresses the separate or individual existence of the Son, that is, the Son personally and distinctly embodies the divine essence (Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 9).
66. Ibid., 12; J. Gess, “Image,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:288; and U. Wilckens, “χαρακτήρ,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9 (1974), 418–19.
67. Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 5.
68. “While our Lord is God He is also the Son of God, or rather, that He is God because He is the Son of God. We are apt, at first hearing, to say that He is God though He is the Son of God, marveling at the mystery. But what to man is a mystery, to God is a cause. He is God, not though, but because He is the Son of God… I do not say that we could presume thus to reason for ourselves, but Scripture draws the conclusion for us. Christ tells us Himself, ‘As the Father has life in Himself, even so he gave to the son also to have life in Himself.’ And [the author of Hebrews] says, that He is ‘the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature’ ” (John Henry Newman, “Christ, the Son of God Made Man,” in Parochial and Plain Sermons, 6:56–57 (italics his).
69. Quoted by Johnson, “Late in Time Behold Him Come (Heb. 1:1–4),” 4.
70. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James, 38.
71. This includes numerous versions (ASV, Darby, jb, kjv, neb, niv, rsv); Gottlieb Lünemann, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the New Testament, ed. H. A. W. Meyer (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), 9:398; Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:9; Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 42; and Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 45.
72. Cf. K. Weiss, “φέρω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:56–59. The usage in Hebrews varies, exhibiting both the dynamic (6:1; 9:16) and static senses (12:20; 13:13).
73. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 14.
74. Johnson, “Late in Time Behold Him Come (Heb. 1:1–4),” 4.
75. Neil R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 55; and Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 35.
76. Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 251.
77. The interpretation adopted here is found in the margin of the New English Bible (“bears along”). This is also the view of Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:52; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13–14; Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 35; Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, 7–8; and Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 45. Some commentators have adopted both ideas, that is, the Son both sustains the universe and providentially governs it (Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 251–52; Spicq, L’ Épître aux Hébreux, 2:10; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 49; and Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 14).
78. In the Book of Hebrews λογός is used to describe revelation (2:4; 4:12), while ῥῆμα (“utterance”) designates divine activity. In 11:3 the ῥῆμα of God effects creation, and in 1:3 the ῥῆμα of the Son effects providence (Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 35). The phrase has been taken as “His powerful or mighty word” (a descriptive genitive) or as “the word that expresses His power” (a subjective genitive). The former view is held by Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 48–49; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 46 n. 23; Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 45, and others; and the latter is favored by Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:52–53; Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews, 4:252; Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 42; and others.
79. Cf. G. Stählin, “ἁμαρτάνω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (1964), 293–95.
80. The objective genitive τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν has been understood in two ways. One way is that a person is cleansed from sins (Lünemann, “Hebrews,” 398; Montefiore, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 38; Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 6), but this interpretation would be more likely if the text read ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. A second way is to view the sins themselves as impurities to be removed (Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:54; Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:10; Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 42; and Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 15).
81. Alford, The Greek Testament, 4:172.
82. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 15.
83. F. Hauch, “καθαρός,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 (1965), 414.
84. Ποιησάμενος may be seen as a circumstantial participle of time, that is, the time is antecedent to that of ἐκάθισεν (“He sat down”).
85. Spicq, L’ Épître aux Hébreux,2:10. Spicq notes that the Vulgate is defective in that it substitutes a present participle (faciens) for the aorist participle. The Latin translation (“making atonement”) serves well the Roman Catholic doctrine of a pres-ent heavenly session of Christ during which He continues to make purification for sins (see Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 49 n. 31; and Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47 n. 24).
86. To intensify this idea a number of early manuscripts added the phrase δι ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ (“by Himself,” kjv).
87. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 15; and Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 49 n. 32).
88. “The allusions to Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 firmly sandwich the whole section together” (Robinson, “The Literary Structure of Hebrews 1:1–4, ” 186).
89. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 46.
90. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1932), 5:337. See also the verb κάθημαι in 1:13 (C. Schneider, “κάθημαι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 [1965], 440).
91. Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 252; and Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47.
92. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47.
93. Vine, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 14. As John Owen noted, the phrase ἐν δεξιᾷ does not refer to “the essential, eternal glory of the Son of God… but [to] that glory and honor which is bestowed on Him by the Father, after and [because of] the sacrifice of Himself for the expiation of sin” (An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold [London: Johnstone & Hunter, 1855], 3:119, italics his).
94. W. Grundmann, “μεγαλωσύνη,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4 (1967), 544; Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early English Literature, 3rd ed., ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 623.
95. Cf. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 15; and Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 6–7.
96. Many commentators speak of Christ’s present session in terms of dominion, authority, and sovereignty, that is, in terms of His present reign as King (e.g., Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:55; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 16; Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 252; Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47–48; and Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 16). However, the Son’s throne, scepter, and kingdom (1:8–9, 13) describe not His present position, but rather what He will be when He returns (1:6) and reigns in the world to come (2:5). See J. H. Davies, “The Heavenly Work of Christ in Hebrews,” Studia Evangelica 4 (1968): 386.
97. “The use of Ps 110:1 at [Hebrews] 1:3 and 13 fosters notions of glory, honor, and protection, but the absence of 110:2 suggests ex silentio that the process of ruling is not in the view of our author. The absence of Ps 110:2 is all the more noteworthy in the case of Hebrews, which is so dominated by Psalm 110 and concerned with the present ministry of the ascended Christ” (Mark Saucy, “Exaltation Christology in Hebrews: What Kind of Reign?” Trinity Journal 14 [spring 1993]: 48).
98. For a distinction between Christ’s eschatological throne and the Father’s throne see Revelation 3:21. Attridge writes, “Christ’s reign, inaugurated at his exaltation, will be fully implemented only eschatologically” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 45 n. 121).
99. Verse 4 is transitional, that is, grammatically it belongs to and concludes the preceding section, but in subject matter it introduces the next section (1:5–2:18). See Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 16.
100. Robinson, “The Literary Structure of Hebrews 1:1–4, ” 181–82.
101. Although angels are collectively called sons of God in the Old Testament, no single angel is called a son of God (Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:59).
102. Two views on the title “Son” in Hebrews are to be rejected. One is the view that the title speaks uniformly of Christ’s eternal being, that is, His deity (B. B. Warfield, “The Person of Christ according to the New Testament,” in The Person and Work of Christ [Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1950], 47). The other view is that Christ’s sonship in Hebrews is a sonship by appointment or adoption (John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973], 155–61; G. B. Caird, “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age, ed. W. C. Weinrich [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984], 1:73–81). The view adopted here satisfies the tension that many have detected in the epistle (Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 54–55).
103. Moisés Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976): 63 (italics his).
104. Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 253.
105. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 55.
106. Norman F. Douty, Union with Christ (Swengel, PA: Reiner, 1973), 37.
107. Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 253.
108. Robert Alexander Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 99–110.
109. Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 74.
110. Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 141.
111. Douty, Union with Christ, 37.
112. James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 53.
113. The term “adoption” was incorrectly used by the adoptionists of the second and eighth centuries. They taught that Jesus was only a man who became God by adoption. Evangelicals rightly reject this ancient heresy. The New Testament teaches that Christ is the eternal Son of God. Yet in His human nature He was adopted or appointed as the messianic Son of God. The eternal Son took a human nature and in that human state as David’s son, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:12–14; Ps. 89:26–28), He was “adopted” as God’s messianic Son. Jesus is not only the eternal Son; He is also the messianic Son (H. F. Vos, “Adoptionism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], 13–14; Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983], 781; and David J. MacLeod, “Eternal Son, Davidic Son, Messianic Son: An Exposition of Romans 1:1–7, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 [January-March 2005]: 76-94).
114. Not all commentators agree that the inherited name is “Son.” Some argue that no specific name is intended and that the verse refers to the character and personality of the Son, that is, all that believers have found Him to be (Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1:60; and Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 17). Most writers, however, agree that the more excellent name is υἱός (“son”). See Lünemann, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 400; Dods, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” 253; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 50; Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 47; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 17; and H. Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 5 (1967), 273.
115. In addition to the two uses of the title “Son” or “Son of God” discussed here, a third use is found in Luke 1:35. There the title is incarnational, that is, it expresses the paternity of God with respect to Christ’s human nature (Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, 142; Kelly, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 15; and Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 25–26).
116. On the names Michael and Gabriel see C. Fred Dickason, Angels, Elect and Evil, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 70–73.
117. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 17; and Héring, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 7.
118. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 49; cf. Ebert, “The Chiastic Structure of the Prologue to Hebrews,” 177–79; and Johnson, “Late in Time Behold Him Come (Heb. 1:1–4),” 5.
119. Ray C. Stedman, What More Can God Say? A Fresh Look at Hebrews (Glendale, CA: Regal, 1980).
120. Barnabas Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 394.
121. Louis H. Evans Jr., Hebrews, Communicator’s Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 57.