Charles Ellicott Commentary Hebrews 1

God, who at sundry times...—Admittedly, the fine arrangement of the words in the Authorized Version fails to convey the emphasis intended in the original.

The writer’s object is to place the former revelation in contrast to that which has now been given; and the remarkable words with which the chapter opens (and which could aptly serve as the motto of the whole Epistle) strike the first note of contrast. If we may imitate the artistic arrangement of the Greek, the verse will run thus: In many portions and in many ways God having in the past spoken to the fathers in the prophets.

To the fathers of the Jewish people , God’s word was given part by part, and in divers manners. It came in the revelations of the patriarchal age, in the successive portions of Holy Writ: various truths were successively unveiled through the varying ministry of law, prophecy, and promise, a promise growing ever clearer through the teaching of experience and history. At one time the word came in direct precept, at another in typical ordinance or act, at another in parable or psalm. The word thus dispensed in fragments and imparted in various ways was God’s word, for the revealing Spirit of God was in the prophets (2 Corinthians 13:3).

We must not unduly limit the application of prophet; besides those to whom the name is directly given, there were many who were representatives of God to His people, and interpreters of His will (compare Numbers 11:26, 29; Psalms 105:15).

Has in these last days . . .—Better, at the end of these days spoke to us in a Son. The thought common to the two verses is “God has spoken to man”; in all other respects the past and the present stand contrasted. The manifold successive partial disclosures of God’s will have given place to one revelation, complete and final; for He who spoke in the prophets has now spoken “in a Son.”

The whole stress lies on these last words. The rendering “a Son” may at first cause surprise, but it is absolutely needed; not, “Who is the Revealer?” but, “What is He?” is the question answered in these words. The writer does not speak of a Son in the sense of one out of many; the very contrast with the prophets (who in the lower sense were among God’s sons) would be sufficient to prove this, but the words which follow, and the whole contents of this chapter, are designed to show the supreme dignity of Him who is God’s latest Representative on earth.

The prophet’s commission extended no further than the special message of his words and life; “a Son” spoke with His Father’s authority, with complete knowledge of His will and purpose. It is impossible to read these first lines (in which the whole argument of the Epistle is enfolded) without recalling the prologue of the fourth Gospel.

The name “Word” is not mentioned here, and the highest level of St. John’s teaching is not reached; but the idea which “the Word” expresses, and the thought of the Only Begotten as declaring and interpreting the Father (John 1:18; John 14:24) are present throughout.

There is something unusual in the words, “at the end of these days.” St. Peter speaks of the manifestation of Christ “at the end of the times” (1 Peter 1:20); and both in the Old Testament and in the New we not infrequently read “at the end (or, in the last) of the days.” (See 2 Peter 3:3; Jude 1:18; Numbers 24:14; Daniel 10:14, etc.)

The peculiarity of the expression here lies in “these days.” The ages preceding and following the appearance of Messiah are in Jewish writers known as “this world” (or, age) and the “coming world” (or, age); the “days of Messiah” seem to have been classed sometimes with the former, sometimes with the latter period; but “the end of these days” would be understood by every Jewish reader to denote the time of His appearing.

Whom He has appointed.—Better, whom He appointed: in the divine counsels He was constituted “Heir of all things.” The clauses which follow describe the successive steps in the accomplishment of this purpose.

The words have often been understood as referring to the Son’s essential Lordship: as Eternal Son He is and must be Heir of all. But this explanation is less consistent with the word “appointed,” with the strict significance of “Heir,” and with the development of the thought in the following verses; and it is on all grounds more probable that in these words is expressed the great theme of the Epistle, the consummation of all things in the Christ.

By whom.—Rather, through whom. So in John 1:3 we read that all things came into being through the Word; and in Colossians 1:16, “All things have been created through Him.” In this manner Philo repeatedly describes the creative work of the Logos. Here, however, “this mediatorial function has entirely changed its character. To the Alexandrian Jew it was the work of a passive tool or instrument; but to the Christian Apostle it represented a co-operating agent” .

The worlds.—A word of very common occurrence in the New Testament as a designation of time occurs in two passages of this Epistle (here and in Hebrews 11:3) where the context shows more than “age” to be intended. Under time is included the work that is done in time, so that “the ages” here must be (to quote Delitzsch’s words) “the immeasurable content of immeasurable time.”

“Also” may seem an unnecessary addition, but (almost in the sense accordingly) it points to creation as the first step towards the fulfillment of the design expressed in the preceding clause.

Who being the brightness . . .—Who being the effulgence of His glory and the exact image of His substance. The first figure is familiar to us in the words of the Nicene Creed (themselves derived from this verse and a commentary upon it), “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God.”

Again, striking parallels to the language present themselves in Philo, who speaks of the spirit breathed into man at his creation as an “effulgence of the Blessed and Thrice-blessed Nature”; and in the well-known passage of the Book of Wisdom, She (Wisdom) is the effulgence of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness . In the Old Testament the token of the divine presence is the Shechinah, the “cloud of glory” (called the glory in Romans 9:4; compare to Hebrews 9:5 in this Epistle); here it is the divine nature itself that is denoted by the “glory.”

Of the relation between this word and that which follows (“substance”) it is difficult to speak, as the conceptions necessarily transcend human language; but we may perhaps say (remembering that all such terms are but figurative) that the latter word is internal and the former external—the latter the essence in itself, the former its manifestation.

Thus the “Son” in His relation to “God” is represented here by light beaming forth from light, and by exact impress—the perfect image produced by stamp or seal. These designations, relating to the essential nature of the Son, have no limitation to time; the participle “being” must be understood (John 1:1) of eternal, continuous existence. The word “person” is an unfortunate mistranslation in this place. Most of the earlier English versions have “substance,” person being first introduced in the Genevan Testament in deference to Beza.

By the word.—The thought seems suggested by Genesis 1:0 (Psalms 33:9); the spoken word was the expression of His power. What is said above of “being” applies to “upholding,” except that the latter implies a previous creative act.

When he had by himself purged our sins.—The older MSS. omit “by Himself” and “our,” so that the words must be rendered, when He had made purification of sins. At first the change may seem a loss; but it is easily seen that the simpler statement is more majestic, and also more suitable in this place; the more complete explanation of the truth belongs to a later stage (Hebrews 9:0). To “make purification of sins” is an unusual phrase (compare to Matthew 8:3, his leprosy was cleansed), meaning, to make purification by the removal of sins (John 1:29; 1 John 3:5; 2 Peter 1:9).

Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.—See Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2; Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; also Hebrews 1:13, and Hebrews 10:12. This figure, which we meet with more than twenty times in the New Testament, is throughout derived from the first words of Psalm 110:0, which are descriptive of the exaltation of the Messiah. Jehovah’s investiture of the Son of Man with unlimited dominion (Daniel 7:14) and supreme dignity (Ephesians 1:20–21); the Savior’s rest after the accomplishment of His work on earth (Hebrews 8:1); His waiting for the complete and final subjection of His enemies, are the ideas signified. On the Psalm see below (Hebrews 1:13).

Being made.—Better, having become. These words must be closely connected with the last clause of Hebrews 1:3; they speak not of the glory that was always His, but of that which became His after He had made purification of sins.

Better.—That is, greater. We may discern a twofold reason for the comparison: having become greater than the angels, our Lord is exalted above the highest of created beings (Philippians 2:9), and above those through whom God had previously declared His law (Hebrews 2:2).

Name.—The verses which follow show that we are to understand by this all the dignity and glory contained in the name SON OF GOD. Not that this name first belonged to Him as exalted Mediator; but the glory which became His (Hebrews 1:3–4) is proportionate to and consonant with the name which is His by essential right (Hebrews 1:2).

That this name and dignity belong to Jesus Christ (still unnamed, but admittedly the subject of the preceding verses) is now to be established by the testimony of Scripture. Two important questions have been asked:

1. Does the writer present these quotations as strictly demonstrative?
2. If so, on what assumption does their relevance rest?

It is evident that the whole argument is addressed to those who believed that the Christ had appeared in the person of Jesus. Of the passages cited here, some were already applied to the Messiah by universal consent. As for the others, it was sufficient if the trained and thoughtful reader could recognize the accuracy of such an application once it was suggested.

It is hoped that it will be made clear that in no case is there mere “accommodation” or illustration. On the other hand, the writer’s object is less to convince his readers of some new truth than to draw attention to what the well-known passages really contain and express.

For unto which of the angels . . . . “God has spoken of the Messiah as His Son, a title which no angel ever receives from Him.” That the appellation “sons of God” may be used in an inferior sense, and that thus angels may be so designated (Job 1:6; Job 38:7), does not affect this argument; for every reader must perceive that in these quotations “Son” is used of One, and in a sense that is unique. The two quotations are taken from Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14.

It seems probable that the second Psalm was written by David during the troubled times of 2 Samuel 8–10, in the fresh recollection of the promises of which we read in 2 Samuel 7. In the midst of the rebellious conspiracies of kings and nations is heard Jehovah’s word, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion” (Psalms 2:6). In Hebrews 1:7 the Anointed King declares the divine decree, “The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee”; and the following verses describe the kingly dominion of the Son.

The clearest comments on Hebrews 1:7 are supplied by 2 Samuel 7:12–14, and especially by Psalm 89:27. This verse, reading “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth,” plainly shows that in their first meaning—that which relates to the royal rule of David or David’s son—the words “I have this day begotten thee” signify “I have this day established you as my chosen king, and thus constituted you my son”; for to the firstborn belongs natural, though derived, rule over the kingdom of his father.

At what period the people in general, guided by prophetic teaching and the discipline of history (see below), learned in how secondary a sense such words could be used of any human king, we do not know; but we have clear evidence, both from the New Testament (Hebrews 5:5; Acts 4:25–27; Acts 13:33; Revelation 2:27) and from Jewish tradition, that the second Psalm was understood to be a distinct prophecy of the Messiah; indeed, this very name “Messiah” and the appellation “Son of God” (John 1:49) may be traced to this Psalm.

The declarations of Hebrews 1:6–7 are typical of the enthronement of the Messiah. St. Paul (Acts 13:33) refers the words here quoted to the period of the Resurrection. With this the language used above (Hebrews 1:4) perfectly agrees. As, however, in that verse the exaltation of the Christ is declared to correspond to that essential dignity which lay in the name Son, a name which in this very context bears its highest sense (Hebrews 1:1–3), we are constrained to regard the “day” of the Resurrection as itself typical, and to believe that “this day” also pointed to the “eternal Now”—to what Origen speaks of as “the day which is co-extensive with the unbegotten and everlasting life of God.”

The second passage, which seems to have been the basis of the words we have just considered, occurs in the course of the divine promise that David’s seed shall be established in his kingdom, and that David’s throne shall be established for ever: the seed of David shall be received as God’s Son. With the words here quoted are closely joined others which plainly prove that Hebrews 1:14 is not a simple and direct prophecy of Christ, but in the first instance belonged to an earthly ruler. Through the teaching of successive disappointments, each “son of David” failing to realize the hopes excited by the promise, the nation was led to look to the future King, and at once to remove from the prophecy the purely earthly limitations and to discern a higher meaning in the promise of divine sonship.