God’s Definitive Revelation
The magnificent opening verses of this passage provide an immediate expression of the author’s theological perspective: he moves from past revelation to definitive revelation, from God’s word to the OT “fathers” to his final word through his Son, Jesus Christ. He gives first his doctrine of Christ in order to set the tone for the entire book. The introductory christological prologue in these verses is thus similar to the prologue of the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–18) in its function as well as in its christocentric theology. The author, however, does not want to present such an exalted Christology without first indicating that God’s word spoken in his Son is continuous with, and not alien to, what has preceded. What God has done in Christ is the climax of what he had begun to do in earlier times. And having finished the work of atonement, Christ enjoys an exalted status far superior to that of the angels.
1:1 God has spoken at many times and in various ways in the past. This serves as a good characterization of what we call the Old Testament—the account of God’s revelation of himself to Israel through not only his words, but also his acts. Moreover, our author identifies himself and his readers with those to whom God spoke in the past, our forefathers. This statement is an affirmation of what the Jews have always been committed to: God has indeed spoken to us in the past through the prophets. Prophets here are to be understood as God’s spokesmen, his representatives to people in every era and therefore as all the writers of Scripture, not just those referred to in the literature we designate as “the Prophets.” This affirmation provides a strong sense of continuity, of reaching back; it says God began with Israel but is even now at work in the church and in what the church believes. A unity of revelation can be seen as we move from the past into the incomparable present.
1:2 In these last days (lit., “at the end of these days”) God has spoken through his Son. The writer uses eschatological language, that is, language of the last or end time, thereby affirming that we have entered the eschatological age. In other words, God’s plan has now come to fruition; we have entered a new age (cf. 9:26). A fundamental turning point has been reached as God speaks climactically, definitively, and finally through his Son. Any further speaking about what remains to happen in the future is but the elaboration of what has already begun. All that God did previously functions in a preparatory manner, pointing as a great arrow to the goal of Christ. This is the argument our author so effectively presents throughout the book. Christ is the telos, the goal and ultimate meaning of all that preceded.
But in what sense was the writer, or any of the writers of the NT for that matter, justified in referring to his time as the last days? The key to understanding this kind of statement (see also 4:3; 6:5; 9:26; 12:22ff.), is found in the theological ultimacy of Christ. There is no way our writer can have recognized the reality of Jesus Christ—who he is and what he has done—and not have confessed this to be the last time. The sense in which it is “last” is not chronological but theological. The cross, the death, and the exaltation of Jesus point automatically to the beginning of the end. Theologically we have reached the turning point in the plan that God has had all through the ages, so by definition we are in the last days. Eschatology is of one theological fabric: when God has spoken through his Son, the eschatological age has begun, and we are necessarily in the last days theologically. These are the last days because of the greatness of what God has done. The surprise is, of course, that this period of eschatological fulfillment is so prolonged that these last days are not necessarily (though for any age it may turn out that they are) the last days chronologically.
This book, this opening passage, and particularly verse 2, point to the centrality of the Son and the superiority of the Son to all that preceded, all that exists now, and anything that might exist in the future. God has now spoken to us climactically by his Son, in whom, as Paul puts it, all of God’s promises are “Yes” (2 Cor. 1:20). The very mention of the Son has strong OT messianic overtones, as is evident immediately in verse 5, which quotes Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father,” and 2 Samuel 7:14, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.” Indeed, the remainder of the chapter, with its numerous OT quotations, points to the unique identity of the Son as the Promised One, the Messiah designated by God to bring about the fulfillment of God’s great plan and purpose.
The true nature of the Son is then expounded in seven glorious phrases that portray his incomparable superiority. He is, in the first instance, the one whom he [God] appointed heir of all things. In the Hebrew culture, to be a son means to be an heir, especially when one is the only or unique son. Therefore, the Son of God, by virtue of his sonship, is appointed the one who will finally possess everything. To the messianic Son of Psalm 2:7 (quoted above) are also spoken the words, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (Ps. 2:8). The Son is thus of central significance at the beginning, in creation, and at the end, in inheritance. Paul’s language is parallel: “all things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16).
Second, the Son is described as the one through whom he [God] made the universe. The Son is God’s agent in the creation of the universe of all space and all time—in short, of all that exists. This view of Christ is present also in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:3, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”), and in Paul (Col. 1:16, “all things were created by him”; 1 Cor. 8:6 “through whom all things came”). The background of this view possibly lies in the concept of Divine Wisdom, which, personified, is instrumental in creation according to Proverbs 8:27–31 (cf. Wisd. of Sol. 9:1f., 9).
1:3 The third and fourth phrases in this characterization of Christ turn to the manner in which the Son is a true expression of the father. The Son (lit., “who”) is the radiance of God’s glory. The word radiance or “radiant light” means intense “brightness.” Barclay effectively paraphrases: “The Son is the radiance of his glory just as the ray is the light of the sun.” Again a parallel exists between the personification of wisdom, this time in the apocryphal book the Wisdom of Solomon (7:25f.): “For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; … she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (RSV). Other NT writers hold a similar view of Christ. In the prologue of the Gospel of John, Christ is designated “the true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world” (John 1:9), in whom “we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father” (John 1:14). For John, as for our author, Jesus expresses the brilliant glory of God. Paul, too, speaks of the light that Christ brought, referring to “the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 4:4).
The next phrase, he is the exact representation of his being, is simply a more explicit way of expressing what the author has just said. The Son is a perfect representation of God’s being “just as the mark is the exact impression of the seal” (Barclay). The thought is again reminiscent of Christology elsewhere in the NT, for example in Paul’s statements that Christ is “the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4) and “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15); although in these two instances, the Greek word (eikōn, from which comes the English word “icon”) is different from that used here. John expressed the same idea in the words “anyone who has seen me [Jesus] has seen the Father” (John 14:9). It is to be noted further that it is God’s own being that is expressed so accurately, the word being here to be understood as “substance” or “essence.” These two parallel phrases at the beginning of verse 3 obviously speak of the uniqueness of the Son. They also point to the extraordinary connection between the Father and Son. In order for the Son to be the kind of direct, authentic, and compelling expression of the Father described in these phrases—for him to be the radiance of God’s glory and the impress of his very essence—he must participate somehow in the being of God itself, that is, he must himself be deity to accomplish the wonderful mission described here. Our author would have us conclude, without denying the distinction between Father and Son, that the Son is of the same order of existence as God, and so with God over against all else that exists.
As the Son was instrumental in the creation of the universe (v. 2), so the continuing significance of the Son is seen, in the fifth phrase, in his sustaining all things by his powerful word. Philosophers of every age are prone to ask what it is that underlies reality—that is, what dynamic sustains and makes coherent all that exists. Our author, further revealing his christocentric perspective, finds the answer in the mighty word of the Son. This view also finds parallels in Paul and John. When John uses “Word” (logos) to describe Jesus, he uses a term that has both Jewish and Greek associations. For the Greek Stoic philosophers logos was the underlying principle of rationality that made the world orderly, coherent, and intelligible. Without using the technical term logos, Paul argues in similar fashion: “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). Although the author of Hebrews does not use the specific term logos in this passage, the idea that Christ sustains the universe, is behind it all, and keeps it all going (as the present participle sustaining indicates), is parallel.
Our author, however, is not content simply to mark off the incomparable character of the Son against all others and all else, as he has done in the first five phrases. He wants also to get to one of the main points of the epistle, the atoning work of the Son, for this, too, is vitally a part of and dependent upon the Son’s uniqueness. What makes these the last days is that “once-and-for-all” (to borrow language that will be encountered later in the epistle) he … provided purification for sins. This indeed is the preeminent work of the Son. The “cleansing of sins” (a literal translation) may seem strange in the midst of glorious clauses pointing to the deity of the Son. This phrase, after all, describes the work of the high priest and, though impressive in itself, would seem familiar enough to a Jewish reader. With the insertion of this clause, however, the author anticipates a main argument of the book (cf. chaps. 9 and 10): the work of the high priest is not efficacious in itself but rather foreshadows the priestly work of the one who alone can make atonement for sins. Only God in the Son can accomplish the sacrifice that makes possible the cleansing and the forgiveness of sins (see Rom. 3:24–26). Thus the cleansing of sins rightly belongs with phrases that describe the uniqueness of the Son in his relationship to God.
When he had thus accomplished the purpose of his incarnation, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. The words of this final and climactic clause convey a sense of completion and fulfillment of God’s purpose. They are drawn from a messianic psalm of the OT (Ps. 110) that is exceptionally important to our author’s argument. Psalm 110:1 is cited or alluded to here and in 1:13 (more fully); 8:1; 10:12–13, and 12:2. Psalm 110:4, the Melchizedek passage, is cited or alluded to in 5:6, 10; 6:20; and throughout chapter 7 (vv. 3, 11, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28). Why is this psalm so important to our author? Two main arguments of the epistle can be supported by Psalm 110: the incomparable superiority of Christ (as revealed in his exaltation to the right hand of God) and the extraordinary high priesthood of Christ (as paralleled and prefigured by Melchizedek). The ascension of Christ to the position of power and authority at the side of the Father is the vindication of the true identity of the one who suffered and died in accomplishing the forgiveness of sins. This view is found often in the NT and is regularly associated with the ascension of Christ. “He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe” (Eph. 4:10); Christ, “who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him” (1 Pet. 3:22). Jesus alludes to Psalm 110:1 in the synoptic tradition (see Mark 12:36 and 14:62, both with parallels in Matthew and Luke). What the psalmist promised now had come to pass—hence the note of completion and finality. That he has sat down signifies the completion of his atoning work (cf. 10:11–12).
1:4 So he became … superior to the angels describes the result of the reference in the preceding clause to Christ’s exaltation; it thus refers not to the character of the Son from the beginning, but to the last clause of verse 3, which refers to the ascension of Christ. In this exaltation to the right hand of the Father, the Son comes to hold a position that indeed was always his by virtue of his identity, but which was set aside during the incarnation. The ascension is a dramatic attestation of the true identity of the Son and thus also of his superiority to angels. By the ascension the son became … superior to the angels. In this statement the author employs one of his favorite words in describing the definitive and final character of the Son and his work, the comparative superior (lit., “better”).
We have come to the end of this important christological prologue. It sets the tone of the book and has been put first by the author in order that it may inform our understanding of all that follows. The Son is set forth as the embodiment of the three main offices of the OT: prophet (speaking for God), priest (accomplishing forgiveness of sins), and king (reigning with God at his right hand). But he is even more than this marvelous combination of traits can express. He is the one through whom and for whom everything that exists has been created, the one who sustains the universe, and who is the very expression of God’s glory and essence. He is the one with whom not even the angels can compare. The person of Christ is the key to understanding this epistle.
Additional Notes
1:1 The opening sentence in the Greek is skillfully constructed from the literary standpoint, beginning with effective alliteration and measured cadence. See D. W. B. Robinson, “The Literary Structure of Hebrews 1:1–4,” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1 (1972), pp. 178–86. At many times (lit., “in many parts”) … various ways are two Greek words occurring only here in the NT, whose nuance is captured nicely in NEB: “in fragmentary and varied fashion.” On prophets as spokesmen of God, see G. Friedrich, “prophētēs,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 830ff.
1:2 In these last days is language of the Greek translation of the OT (the LXX) commonly used for describing the eschatological expectation of the prophets (e.g., Jer. 23:20; Ezek. 38:16; Dan. 10:14). The first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ are closely related theologically in that both are eschatological in character. This being so, it is normal to expect that the second will quickly follow the first. The theological interconnectedness of Christ’s work implies (but does not necessitate) the chronological imminence of the second coming. Christians must be careful to preserve the eschatological character of Christ’s first work without weakening their expectation of his future work. For a masterly description of the tension of this as the time of the end yet not the end, see O. Cullmann, Christ and Time, trans. F. V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964). On the eschatology of Hebrews, see C. K. Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (Festschrift for C. H. Dodd), ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), pp. 363–93.
On the designation of the Messiah as the Son of God, see E. Lohse on hyios in TDNT, vol. 8, pp. 360ff.; see too M. Hengel, The Son of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 85–88; on the Christology of Hebrews see V. Taylor, The Person of Christ (London: Macmillan, 1958), pp. 89–98.
Universe is literally “the ages”; hence Barclay’s translation, “the present world and the world to come” (cf. 6:5). For “age” as a spatial term meaning “world” see H. Sasse on aiōn in TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 203f.
The eschatological dimensions of “inheritance” and its connection with sonship are important not only for Christ, but for his people who, according to Paul (Rom. 8:17) and Peter (1 Pet. 3:7), enjoy their sonship by adoption and are made fellow-heirs with Christ. For our author the inheritance of the saints is important. See 6:12, 17; 9:15; 10:36; 11:8.
1:3 Some scholars have argued that v. 3 was originally part of a confessional hymn. The opening relative pronoun “who” (hos), the characteristic participles, and the content all point to this possibility. (On these points see the similarity in other “hymns” in NT epistles, e.g., Col. 1:15, Phil. 2:6ff., and 1 Tim. 3:16.) See further J. T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns, SNTSMS 15 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 19f. and pp. 92ff. It is striking that the major christological passages of the NT bear marks of being adapted from hymns. The best theology, after all, is better sung than spoken. See also J. 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), 183–94, who argues that the hymn is the author’s own, created from already existing hymnic fragments.
This verse contains two key words that are found only here in the entire NT, “radiance” (apaugasma) and “exact representation” (charaktēr). The former has the active sense of “effulgence” as well as the passive sense of “reflection” in its occurrences in Philo, who uses the word to describe what God breathed into man at his creation. The active is probably the nuance here. (See R. P Martin in NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 289f.) The latter word, also found in Philo, means accurate representation in the manner of an “impress” or “stamp,” as of a coin to a die. (See U. Wilckens in TDNT, vol. 9, pp. 418–23.) The Greek word katharismos is a technical term for cultic cleansing and is so used in the LXX and even within the NT, where it can signify “ritual washing” (John 2:6; 3:25) or, more generally, purification (as also in Luke 2:22; 2 Pet. 1:9). The use of the word here is no accident, given the central argument of our author about the sacrificial ritual of the temple finding its goal in the work of Christ. Purification for sins is used in an absolute sense, thus including the sins of all humanity.
Psalm 110 is of very great importance in the early church. Understood widely as bearing messianic significance by Jewish interpreters before the time of Jesus, this psalm was seen to be vividly fulfilled in the risen and ascended Christ whom the church now confessed as sovereign Lord. See the excellent study by David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1973). The extensive use of Ps. 110 by the author of Hebrews is striking and is to be explained by the effective way in which its content supports the arguments of the epistle. G. W. Buchanan, however, probably goes too far in describing Hebrews itself as “a homiletical midrash based on Ps. 110.” To the Hebrews, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 1972), p. xix.
The Greek text of the prologue studiously avoids unnecessary use of the word “God” (theos), as is befitting a document addressed to Jewish readers who regarded the word as very holy. Thus, apart from the initial use in v. 1, the word does not occur again in the Greek text. Our translation repeats it in v. 3, where it is substituted for a pronoun. Two circumlocutions for God may be noted in v. 3: glory and the Majesty in heaven.
1:4 This verse introduces the author’s favorite word in drawing the contrast between new and old, “better” (kreissōn, alternately spelled kreittōn). The word occurs thirteen times, being used in reference to the Son (1:4), Melchizedek (7:7), salvation (6:9), covenant (7:22; 8:6), sacrifice (9:23; 12:24), promises (8:6), present possession (10:34), and future expectation (7:19; 11:16, 35, 40). The frequent use of this word is exactly in line with the central argument of the book.
On the theological significance of the ascension, see J. G. Davies, “Ascension of Christ,” in DCT, pp. 15f.
Christ Is Superior to the Angels in His Deity
The great attention given to the superiority of Christ to the angels, which occupies the remainder of chapter 1 and most of chapter 2, probably strikes us as odd since we do not have the same consciousness of angels as the ancient world. So important was the idea of angels in the first century that one encounters it in both Greek and Jewish religious thinking. In the former we have to do with Gnosticism, which stressed a special knowledge leading to the experience of salvation. Fundamental to the gnostic perspective is a dualism between spirit and matter. On the one hand, God is pure spirit and therefore good; human beings, on the other hand, have physical bodies that involve them in the evil that is intrinsic to matter (salvation consists in the escape of the soul from the body). Mediating between God and humanity are his emanations in the form of a host of spiritual beings, who are God’s agents of rule and who thereby elicit worship. These spiritual beings, having no material bodies, are regarded as intrinsically superior to Jesus (unless it be argued, as it was by Christian gnostics, that Jesus never had a real, physical body, but only appeared to have one).
Even within the realm of Jewish thought, which affirmed the goodness of matter and shunned the dualism of the gnostics, God was perceived as remote in his transcendence, and the need for angelic intermediaries was felt. Thus, in much of the intertestamental and rabbinic literature the role of angels is considered vitally important. We do not know whether the situation addressed in Hebrews stems primarily from gnostic or Jewish circles or from some indeterminate mixture of the two. If, however, we are correct in arguing that the recipients of the epistle are Jews who are in danger of lapsing back into Judaism, it may well be that they found it expedient to regard Christ as an angel and thereby to avoid the stumbling-block of Christ as deity. For our author it is intolerable that Christ be regarded as less than the angels or even that he be regarded as an angel himself. The only acceptable view is that which sees the Son as superior to the angelic host—one who belongs on the side of God against all else that exists, incomparable in his splendor.
Since in the ascension the Son assumed the position that was rightfully his, he also in this event was given the name that is rightfully his. In the NT the ascension is regularly associated with the bestowing of a name upon the ascended Christ. Behind this association lies the Hebrew view of names as more than labels, but as actually connected with the nature and character of what is named. Thus the name “Son,” which is the name referred to here (see the next verse), although in a sense always appropriate to describe Jesus Christ, assumes a special appropriateness in the event that newly installed him at the right hand of God. This installation, following the completion of the work of the incarnate Son wherein he revealed God and accomplished redemption, now afforded the actual reality that coincided with the meaning of the name. In Paul’s epistles the ascension is also linked with the granting of a name. In the classic passage Paul writes, “therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9; see also Eph. 1:20–21). In this instance the name is “Lord” (kyrios), a title comparable in meaning to “Son.” Our author’s argument is that the ascension of the Son to the right hand of God gives him a unique position and name, marking him out as far superior to the angels.
1:5 In order to strengthen the argument of Christ’s superiority to the angels (cf. v. 4), the author now gives a series of seven OT quotations, the meaning of which he regards as rather evident, since he does not, apart from an occasional introductory note, bother to interpret them for us. His approach to the OT is here, and throughout the book, manifestly christocentric. That is, regarding Jesus Christ as the goal of all the preceding works and words of God, the author finds in him the ultimate meaning of it all and thus the key to its proper understanding. In light of the fulfillment that has come, a deeper and truer meaning of the OT may now be perceived. (A discussion of the author’s hermeneutics may be found in the Introduction.)
The first quotation is drawn from Psalm 2, a psalm that has its own historical setting. Psalm 2 was originally a royal psalm composed for the coronation of some Israelite king of the past. Yet such is the content of the psalm that Jewish interpreters before the NT era saw a deeper meaning in the words than a straightforward historical reading can establish. Though not directly prophetic, the psalm is nonetheless seen to anticipate that special Anointed One who would bring with him judgment and blessing—judgment for the wicked and blessing to Israel in the deliverance that it longed for. The historical king is thus a foreshadowing of the king to come. And the psalm is thus appropriately designated as “messianic.” By “messianic” is simply meant that this “anointed” deliverer is in view (the Hebrew word “Messiah” and the Greek word “Christ” mean “the Anointed One”). Psalm 2 specifically refers to such an “anointed” one (2:2) who will be given all the nations of the earth and who will bring judgment (2:8–9). This Anointed One, or Messiah, is identified as uniquely related to God: You are my Son; today I have become your Father (Ps. 2:7). It is indeed preeminently from the background of this psalm, identifying God’s Messiah as his Son, that our author can use the title “Son” in the absolute sense in which it occurs in the christological prologue (see vs. 2). Psalm 2:7 is cited again by our author in Hebrews 5:5, and alluded to in 7:28. It is an important text in the early church (see Acts 13:33) and, combined with Isaiah 42:1, is applied to Jesus both at his baptism (Mark 1:11 and parallels) and at the transfiguration (see Mark 9:7 and parallels; cf. 2 Pet. 1:17). The today is understood most appropriately as referring to the resurrection (see Rom. 1:4), or especially the ascension, given the context of our verse. God never spoke so gloriously of angels.
The second of this chain of quotations also refers to a special Son, this time with words drawn from the Davidic covenant: I will be his Father, and he will be my Son (2 Sam. 7:14; see also the parallel, 1 Chron. 17:13). Again a king is in view, a descendant of David, whom grammatico-historical exegesis most naturally defines as Solomon. He will build a temple and with David will be at the head of a dynasty that lasts forever (2 Sam. 7:13, 16). But such is the glorious nature of this promise that this “son of David” comes to merge with the expectation of a messianic king who will bring the fulfillment of God’s promises. The passage accordingly was seen by Jewish interpreters before the time of Jesus to have a deeper meaning than had yet been realized in any descendant of David. This passage, like Psalm 2:7, was regarded as having a distinctly eschatological significance. Indeed, the combination of these two texts in just such a perspective is encountered in the literature of the covenant community at Qumran on the shore of the Dead Sea, just prior to the NT era. The repeated references to Jesus in the Gospels as the “Son of David” identify him at once with the Messiah and with the Davidic covenant (for the latter see Luke 1:32, 69 and Rom. 1:3). In these first two quotations the author establishes the unique sonship of the Son and thus the superiority of the Son on the basis of the authority of Scripture (which he can presuppose in writing to Jewish readers).
1:6 The third quotation consists of words contained only in the LXX (Deut. 32:43). All of God’s angels must worship him, although there is also a parallel in Psalm 97:7, “worship him, all you gods!” where the LXX has “all his angels.” Most probably our author here as elsewhere depends upon the LXX version of the OT and thus upon Deuteronomy 32:43. What is remarkable in this passage (also in Ps. 97:7) is that the one who is worshipped is the Lord, or Yahweh (i.e., the personal name of God, consisting of the consonants YHWH), and thus the Son is identified with Yahweh of the OT. This quotation is utilized primarily for the reference to the worshiping angels. But if the words spoken to the Lord are referring to the Son, then the deity of the Son (and thus, obviously, his superiority to the angels) is clearly implied.
1:7 The fourth quotation presents a description of the function of angels that puts angels in a decidedly subservient position. The source of the quotation is again the LXX (Ps. 104:4). Angels are likened to the natural elements that function at God’s bidding and thus are also his messengers. Angels are spirits who serve God, as our author will put it in verse 14. There is also an implied contrast between the changeability and transitoriness of wind and fire (and hence of the angels) and the unchanging character and permanence of the Son in verse 12, “you remain the same, and your years will never end” (see also 13:8). The angels are indeed God’s agents, but they are distinctly subordinate agents, not of central significance, not to be likened to God or the Son.
1:8–9 In a fifth quotation, Psalm 45:6–7, words originally used at a royal wedding are understood to have their fullest application to the Son of God. The king originally in view was an Israelite monarch, but so glorious are the words spoken to him that their ultimate fulfillment can only be in the messianic king, the Son of David, the Son now at the right hand of the Father. The opening words of the quotation are ambiguous both in the Hebrew and the LXX. Either “God” is to be understood as vocative, O God, and God is thus the addressee, or “God” is the subject and throne is a predicate nominative, “God is thy throne” (as in margin of RSV). The latter does not make much sense but is sometimes preferred because of the difficulty of God speaking to another as God (as in v. 9), as well as the difficulty of understanding the original historical context wherein a king of Israel is addressed as God. The latter difficulty can be explained as hyperbole for the king who functions as God’s representative in his office. In understanding these words as applying to Christ, however, the author takes the words literally and not hyperbolically. He thus affirms the deity of the Son (as we have seen him do also in v. 6). The Son is not simply the representative of God; he is God by virtue of his nature and function. The throne that will last for ever and ever and will be characterized by righteousness is the promised messianic kingdom with its eschatological overtones.
In verse 9 the word God, as it first occurs, may possibly mean “O God,” thus continuing the address to God in this passage. (Thus the NEB: “therefore, O God, thy God has set thee above thy fellows.”) The one addressed has an unrivaled position of honor. The messianic dimensions of this passage are heightened by the words God has set you above your companions by anointing you. The appropriateness of this passage, for the Son who is the Messiah was not lost upon the author or his readers. The Anointed One who is the consummation of God’s purposes is rightly addressed as God. He is thus without peer, having been set … above his companions. This last word may contain an allusion to the reality of the incarnation for it is the cognate to the verb “shared” in 2:14; more specifically it may refer to all other anointed kings in whose lineage the Son stands. Although there is no specific reference to angels in this quotation, the link with the preceding quotation is such that a contrast to the angels remains the intention of the author. If this Son is who this psalm says, the superiority of the Son is transparently obvious.
1:10–12 The longest quotation in this chain is the sixth (Ps. 102:25–27). In the midst of his troubles the psalmist praises the Lord (Yahweh) as providing the permanence and security that he so painfully lacks. It is understood that these words are meant to apply to the Son. What is in view is the eternality of the Son over against all that is transitory. The opening lines, in the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands, echo the statement of the prologue that the Son is the one “through whom he [God] made the universe” (v. 2). The Son is identified as the Lord (Yahweh). So far as the created order is concerned, the time is coming when it will be revamped, altered completely. In metaphorical language of the last times, the Lord will roll up the heavens and earth like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But in the midst of eschatological crisis with all else appearing to fail, you remain the same, and your years will never end, the psalmist affirms. There is nothing else of which it can be said that it will remain forever, except God and what he chooses to sustain. Angels are even less in view in this passage than in the preceding one. The Son is being extolled as God. And the christological prologue of vv. 1–4 is thus undergirded by the quotation of these OT passages.
1:13 The seventh and climactic quotation introduces Psalm 110:1, that passage of such fundamental importance to the author of Hebrews, which we first encountered at the end of verse 3 in the final and climactic clause of the christological prologue. Here, however, we have the verse quoted in full. Again in mind is the ascension of Christ to the position of unparalleled honor and authority at the right hand of the Father. There he exercises his present reign, yet strangely, in a period when his enemies are not yet a footstool for your feet. This aspect almost certainly enhanced the meaningfulness of this verse for the early church, capturing as it does the tension between realized* (the fulfillment that has already occurred) and future (the wrapping up that still remains) aspects of the eschatological age. For our author the psalm is doubly meaningful because of the reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek and the utility of this reference for the author’s main argument (see below, 5:6–10 and chap. 7). The words that introduce this quotation again raise specifically the issue of the superiority of the Son to the angels. This verse, describing the vindicating capstone of the Son’s completed ministry, serves as one of the basic weapons in our author’s arsenal of arguments concerning the superiority of the person and work of the Son.
1:14 What then is a realistic estimate of angels and their function? They are ministering spirits; but, as has been shown, they have a subordinate role of serving God. God’s concern is not with angels, but with us, and he accordingly sends them to bring help to those who will inherit salvation. God and the Son are the source of our salvation, as the author will demonstrate so boldly in this epistle. By God’s grace, his servants serve us in and toward this end. The idea of personal aid from angels builds on an OT motif (e.g., Ps. 91:11), recalls the ministry of angels to Jesus (Matt. 4:11; compare 26:53), and is meant as a note of personal comfort and encouragement in the face of real difficulty for these Jewish Christians.
Additional Notes
The major concern with angels in the opening chapters of Hebrews has helped some scholars to reach conclusions about the addressees of the epistle. T. W. Manson saw a correlation between the argument of the author of Hebrews and that pursued by Paul against the Jewish-gnostic, Colossian heresy in which, among other things, the worship of angels is mentioned as a specific problem (Col. 2:18, cf. 2:15). He concluded that Apollos (as he argues) wrote Hebrews to the church at Colossae. (See “The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Studies in the Gospels and Epistles [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962].) Hughes finds the concern with angels supportive of his tentative conclusion that the addressees were inclined toward the teaching of the Dead Sea Sect wherein angels played an exceptionally important role (p. 52f.). Montefiore, in contrast, points out convincingly that the concern with angels need point to nothing more specific than the probability that the Jewish readers would have found it easier to retain their Jewish presuppositions and a form of Christian experience if they were able to regard Jesus as merely an angel (p. 41f.). Angelology, after all, was in full flower in the intertestamental and rabbinic literature.
1:5 There is a good possibility that the author borrows this chain of quotations (vv. 5–13) from a previously existing collection. Evidence from Qumran indicates that collections of Scripture texts were used in the first century and, indeed, suggests that Ps. 2:7 and 2 Sam. 7:14 had been combined long before the writing of Hebrews. (See J. M. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature” JBL 75 [1956], pp. 174ff.; J. A. Fitzmyer, “4Q Testimonia and the New Testament,” Theological Studies 15 [1957], pp. 513–37.) The dependence of the author on such a source is of course speculative, and it remains possible that he was himself the collector of these OT passages. See J. W. Thompson, “The Structure and Purpose of the Catena in Heb. 1:5–13,” CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 352–63. More generally on the subject of OT quotation in Hebrews (in addition to the material in the Introduction), see R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 158–85; G. B. Caird, “Exegetical Method of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Canadian Journal of Theology 5 (1959), pp. 44–51; S. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in Hebrews (Amsterdam, 1961); S. Sowers, The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Zurich, 1965).
Psalm 2 is an exceptionally important messianic text in the first century in both Jewish and Christian interpretation. For the former we have mentioned its presence in the Dead Sea Scrolls and may add Psalms of Solomon 17:23–27. For the latter, in addition to the three occurrences of 2:7 in Hebrews (see 5:5 and 7:28), see also Matt. 3:17, 2 Pet. 1:17, and especially Acts 13:33. Also noteworthy in the early Christian proclamation is the citation of Ps. 2:1–2 in Acts 4:25–26. Finally, several allusions to other verses of Ps. 2 are also found in Revelation.
Psalm 2:7 is a fundamental text for our author, whose Christology is expressed preeminently in the concept “Son of God” (4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29). Son, used absolutely as in the prologue, of course carries the meaning “Son of God.” In this sonship lies the uniqueness of Jesus, who participates fully in the deity of the Father. To be the “Son of God” is to be one with God. See O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press [ET], 1959) pp. 303–5.
The citation of 2 Sam. 7:14 implies the title “Son of David,” with its clear messianic connotation. That the “Son of David,” the messianic descendant, signified the dawning of the eschatological era was plain, but that he was also to be the Son of God was not understood prior to the fulfillment experienced by the church in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus.
1:6 That our author regularly quotes the LXX is nowhere more evident than in the present quotation from Deut. 32:43, which is not found in the Hebrew Bible. The LXX is a pre-Christian translation of the OT (by a number of translators from the third century B.C. to the Christian era) and thus rests upon earlier Hebrew manuscripts than those that were handed down as canonical authority by the Masoretes (Jewish scholars who added vowels to the consonantal text and faithfully transmitted the text into the Middle Ages). That in the first century divergent Hebrew manuscripts of the same book were occasionally available is demonstrated by the discovery of the present quotation in a Hebrew manuscript of Deuteronomy among the scrolls at Qumran (cave 4). The LXX translator apparently had this verse in the Hebrew manuscript that he translated. (See F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran, [New York: Doubleday, 1958], pp. 181ff.) The LXX is important for our author’s theology and argument throughout the book. Here, for example, it may be pointed out that the LXX’s translation of YHWH as kyrios (Lord) in the context of our quotation, serving as the antecedent of “him,” has facilitated our author’s use of this quotation in applying it to Christ. Since kyrios is the favorite title given to Christ in the early church, it becomes easy to identify Christ with the kyrios (YHWH) of the LXX. In v. 10 (“In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth”) the identification is explicit. See further, K. J. Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” NTS 11 (1964–65), pp. 303–25; T. F. Glasson, “Plurality of Divine Persons and the Quotations in Hebrews 1, 6ff.,” NTS 12 (1966), pp. 270–72.
In the words that introduce this quotation, when God brings his firstborn into the world, the time of the sending of the Son into the world is unclear, that is, whether this refers to his earthly ministry or his second advent. For the former, one may note the reference to angels in Luke 2:13f. (or possibly Matt. 4:11); angels are of course regularly associated with the eschatological advent. If again is taken with reference to the sending, the second advent is indicated. More probably, however, the again simply refers to the adding of another quotation in which God speaks concerning the Son.
The word firstborn, applied to the Son, is to be understood in a special sense, referring not to the creation of the Son but to his supremacy of rank. He stands at the apex of all that exists, not as one who was born first, but rather with God over against the entire created order, which indeed exists only by the agency of the Son. The preeminence of the Son is thus conveyed by the word, as also in Paul (Col. 1:15, 18). The two other occurrences of the word in Hebrews (11:28; 12:23) do not refer directly to the Son. See further, L. R. Helyer, “The Prōtotokos Title in Hebrews,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 6 (1976), pp. 3–28.
1:7 The apocryphal book 2 Esdras (8:21) contains this interesting parallel, “who art attended by the host of angels trembling as they turn themselves into wind and fire at thy bidding” (NEB), which is itself probably dependent upon Ps. 104:4.
1:8–9 Your kingdom in some manuscripts reads his kingdom. The weight of manuscript evidence slightly favors your, as does the sense of the passage, which, if his is accepted, demands acceptance of the more difficult “God is your kingdom.” For an excellent study of these verses, see M. J. Harris, “The Translation and Significance of ho theos in Hebrews 1:8–9,” TB 36 (1985), pp. 129–62.
1:10–12 The LXX (Ps. 101:26 [NIV, 102:26]) has inserted “Lord” (kyrios) in the first line of this quotation, thereby making our author’s application of this passage to the Son (who is Lord) much easier. Although, however, the Hebrew lacks the vocative just at this point, the immediately preceding line (Ps. 102:24) reads: “O my God … your years go on through all generations.”
1:13 For the centrality of Ps. 110 for our author and the early church, see comment and note on 1:3.
1:14 The expression ministering spirits (leitourgika pneumata) is not found in the OT, but bears considerable resemblance to the description of the angels as “servants” (leitourgoi) in Ps. 104:4 (LXX: Ps. 103:4), which is quoted by the author in v. 7. Underlying NIV’s to serve (lit., “for service”) is the common NT noun diakonia, which occurs only here in Hebrews. The word inherit (klēronomeō) is important to the author (cf. 6:12, and cognate nouns in 6:17; 9:15; 11:7f.). This language reflects the reception of the fulfillment of the OT promises and is therefore particularly suitable for the author’s purpose when he writes of the salvation received by Christians. See W. Foerster, TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 776–85. On salvation (sōtēria), see note to 2:3.
On the entire passage, see J. P. Meier, “Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations of Heb. 1 5–14,” Biblica 66 (1985), pp. 504–33.
