Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Hebrews 1

It is significant that the subject of the first verb is “God,” for God is constantly before the author (used sixty-eight times in the letter). Right at the beginning, then, we are confronted with the reality of God and the fact that he has been active. The first divine activity commented on is that God has spoken in a variety of ways. He spoke to Moses in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2ff.), to Elijah in a still, small voice (1 Kings 19:12ff.), to Isaiah in a vision in the temple (Isaiah 6:1ff.), to Hosea in his family circumstances (Hosea 1:2), and to Amos in a basket of summer fruit (Amos 8:1). God at times conveyed his message through visions and dreams, through angels, through Urim and Thummim, through symbols, through natural events, etc. He appeared in various locations, such as Ur of the Chaldees, Haran, Canaan, Egypt, and Babylon. Revelation was never monotonous activity that took place in the same way. God used variety. The revelation the writer is speaking of has its roots deep “in the past” (GK 4093). He is referring to what God did in days of old, in the time of “our forefathers.” This expression is usually translated “fathers” and is normally used in the NT of the patriarchs, but here the contrast to “us” in v.2 shows that the term “forefathers” is a shorthand way of referring to OT believers in general. “Through [lit., in] the prophets” uses the Greek preposition en; this suggests that God was “in” the prophets as his interpreters. They were God’s messengers, inspired by his Spirit. The construction used here is parallel to that in v.2: God was in Christ and before that he was in the prophets, using them as his voice. The “prophets” here probably means more than the canonical prophets and may include people like Abraham.

“In these last days” is more literally “on the last of these days”—an expression that often refers in some way to the days of the Messiah (e.g., Numbers 24:14). Here it means that in Jesus the Messianic Age has appeared. Jesus is more than simply the last in a long line of prophets. He has inaugurated a new age altogether. In Jesus there is both continuity and discontinuity. The continuity comes out when we are told that God “has spoken to us by his Son.” The verb “spoken” (GK 3281) is the same one used in v.1 of the prophets. The earlier revelation is continuous with the later revelation; the same God has spoken in both. The old prepares the way for the new, a truth that will be brought out again and again in this letter. The discontinuity is seen in the reference to the Son. It is noteworthy that in the Greek there is no article with “Son” (i.e., there is nothing corresponding to NIV’s “his”). In essence the writer is saying God has spoken “in one who has the quality of being Son.” It is the Son’s essential nature that is stressed. This stands in contrast to “the prophets” in the preceding verse. The consummation of the revelatory process took place when God spoke not in the prophets but in his very Son. Throughout the letter we shall often meet such thoughts, as the writer shows that in Jesus Christ we have such a divine person and such divine activity that there can be no going back from him. This emphasis on the Son leads to a series of seven propositions about him. First, God “appointed” him “heir of all things.” The verb “appointed” (GK 5502) is somewhat unexpected. We should have anticipated that the Son would simply “be” heir. Perhaps there is a stress on the divine will as active. In the term “heir” (GK 3101) there is no thought of entering into possession through the death of a testator. In the NT this word and its cognates are often used in a sense much like “get possession of,” without reference to any specific way of acquiring the property in question. “Heir of all things,” then, is a title of dignity and shows that Christ has the supreme place in all the mighty universe. His exaltation to the highest place in heaven after his work on earth was done did not mark some new dignity but his reentry to his rightful place (cf. Php 2:6–11). The second truth about the Son is that “through” him God “made the universe.” God is the Creator, but as is said elsewhere in the NT, he performed the work of creation through the Son (cf. Jn 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16). “The universe” (lit., “the ages”; GK 172) has a temporal sense. While the universe may well be in mind as that which was “made,” it is the universe as the sum of the periods of time. This word may be hinting at the temporal nature of all things material.

The third proposition about the Son is that he is “the radiance of God’s glory.” The word translated “radiance” (GK 575), meaning a shining forth because of brightness within, may also mean “reflection,” a shining forth because of brightness from without. Jesus is thus spoken of either as the outshining of the brightness of God’s glory, or as the reflection of that glory. In both cases we see the glory of God in Jesus, and we see it as it really is. “Glory” (GK 1518), sometimes used of literal brightness (cf. Acts 22:11), is more commonly used in the NT of the radiance associated with God and with heavenly beings in general. It sometimes indicates the presence of God (e.g., Ezekiel 1:28; 11:23), and, to the extent that human beings are able to apprehend it, the revelation of God’s majesty. “The exact representation of his being” is the fourth of the statements about the Son. “Exact representation” (GK 5917) originally denoted an instrument for engraving and then a mark stamped on that instrument. Hence it came to be used of the impress of a die and of the impression on coins. It could also be used figuratively (e.g., of God as making us in his own image). Here the writer is saying that the Son is an exact representation of God. The word “being” (GK 5712) suggests that the Son is such a revelation of the Father that when we see Jesus, we see what God’s real being is. “Sustaining” (GK 5770), the fifth characteristic of the Son, does not picture Christ as holding up the universe like the Greek god Atlas, but as carrying it along and bearing it onward toward the fulfillment of the divine plan. The concept is dynamic, not static. “All things” is the totality, the universe considered as a whole. Nothing is excluded from the scope of the Son’s sustaining activity. And he does this “by his powerful word.” “Word” (GK 4839) is thought of as active and powerful—the same word that created the universe (11:3); “powerful” (GK 1539) is often used to describe literal physical power. With the sixth statement about the Son (his having effected purification of sins), the author comes to what is for him the heart of the matter. The thing that gripped him most was that the very Son of God had come to deal with the problem of human sin. The author sees him as a priest, who offers up the sacrifice that really put sin away. The author has an unusual number of ways of referring to what Christ has done for us (e.g., see 2:17; 8:12; 9:15, 26, 28; 10:12, 17–18). From such passages it is clear that the author sees Jesus as having accomplished a many-sided salvation. Whatever had to be done about sin he has done. The word “purification” (GK 2752) is most often used in the NT of ritual cleansing (e.g., Mark 1:44), but here it refers to the removal of sin (cf. also 2 Peter 1:9) with its defiling aspect. Sin stains, but Christ has effected a complete cleansing of sin at Calvary. In this letter sin appears as the power that deceives people and leads them to destruction. Only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ could remove it. In him and him alone are sins really dealt with. The seventh in the series of statements about the Son is that when his work of purification was ended, “he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” Sitting is the posture of rest, and the right-hand position is the place of honor. Sitting at God’s right hand, then, is a way of saying that Christ’s saving work is done and that he is now in the place of highest honor. “Majesty” (GK 3448) means “greatness” and thus came to signify “majesty.” Here it is obviously a title for God himself, who dwells in heaven (cf. Ephesians 4:10).

“He became” is again somewhat unexpected (cf. “appointed,” v.2). The writer has made some strong statements about the excellence of Christ’s person, and so we should expect him to describe Christ as eternally superior to the angels rather than as “becoming” superior to them. But the writer says it this way because he was thinking of what the Son did in becoming human and putting away the sins of humanity. Of course, the Son was also eternally superior to the angels. That, however, is not what is in mind here. It was because he had put away sins that he sat down on the throne in the place of highest honor, and it is in this aspect that he is seen as greater than any angel. “Superior” (usually rendered “better”; GK 3202) is one of the author’s favorite words (7:7, 19, 22; 8:6; 9:23; 10:34; 11:16, 35, 40; 12:24). This strong emphasis on what is “better” arises from the author’s deep conviction that Jesus Christ is “better” and that he has accomplished something “better” than anyone or anything else. Another word that appears frequently in this letter is “angel” (GK 34). While the term can be used of a human messenger , sometimes sent by God (Mark 1:2), in the overwhelming number of cases it means a spirit being from the other world. In many cases the idea of a messenger remains. Sometimes, however, the thought is simply that of beings intermediate between God and human beings. It also may be used of evil beings, but references to good angels are much more common. In antiquity “the name” (GK 3950) meant much more than it does today. We use a name as little more than a distinguishing mark or label to differentiate one person from other people. But in the world of the NT the name concisely sums up all that a person is. One’s whole character was somehow implied in the name. Opinions differ as to what is meant here by “the name.” Some take this to mean that in his whole character and personality Christ was superior to any angel. Others think the reference is simply to the name “Son,” which is a better name than “angel” because it denotes superiority in character and personality. Either interpretation is possible. The word “superior” (GK 1427; a different word from earlier in v.4) as applied to “the name” has a derived sense, “excellent”; the name of the Son is “more excellent” than that of any angel. “Inherited” (GK 3099) as used here denotes entering into possession of an inheritance without regard to the means. So here we should think of Christ as obtaining the more excellent name as the result of his atoning work. The main idea is that of an abiding possession in Christ’s capacity as heir (see comments on v.2). II. The Excellence of the Christ (1:5–3:6) In the introduction the author has drawn attention to the excellence of the Christ; now he dwells on the point by emphasizing that Christ has a greater dignity than any other being—so great indeed that he must be classed with God rather than with human beings. Without weakening the doctrine of the Incarnation, this letter has as high a Christology as is conceivable. Nobody insists on the limitations of Jesus’ human frame as does the writer of Hebrews. But he unites with this the thought that Jesus is exalted far above all creation.

The opening question, “For to which of the angels did God ever say,” implies that Christ is to be seen in all the Scriptures because there is no explicit reference to him in the passage cited. In the OT angels are sometimes called “sons of God” (cf. NIV note on Job 1:6; 2:1); and the term was applied to Israel (Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1) and Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 28:6). But none of the angels nor anyone else was ever singled out and given the kind of status this passage gives to Christ. The first quotation comes from Ps 2:7. Among the rabbis, the “Son” is variously identified as Aaron, David, the people of Israel in the messianic period, or the Messiah himself. Our writer is clearly taking the psalm as messianic and sees it as conferring great dignity on Jesus. The second quotation comes from 2 Samuel 7:14 (= 1 Chronicles 17:13). Though the words were originally used of Solomon, the writer of Hebrews applies them to the Messiah. There was a widespread expectation that the Messiah would be a descendant of David. The quotation points to the father-son relationship as the fundamental relationship between God and Christ. No angel can claim such a relationship. This and 12:9 are the only passages in Hebrews in which the term “Father” is applied to God.