1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, And his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, And they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
‘By many portions and in many ways, God, having of old time spoken to the fathers in the prophets.’
God, says the writer, has spoken in the past ‘by many portions’ (polumerôs) --- ‘in many ways’ (polutropos).’ These words, which cover every aspect of Old Testament prophecy and teaching, emphasise, by their placement at the beginning of the sentence (and the letter) and by their emphasis on ‘many -- many’, the variety of God’s divine activity through the centuries, and the source from which the writer will draw in order to present his case.
For God, he says, has not in the past left Himself without a witness. He has spoken through many prophets, in many and varied ways, so that those who came after them had a growing source of material on which to draw. It was an enterprise worthy of God. And these were the Scriptures, deeply revered by men. Yet the very size and diversity of the material could only produce its own difficulties, as men sought to interpret their message and meaning.
But now, he writes, God has spoken in a greater and even more wonderful way, for He has spoken by sending to us One Who is, in relation to God, of the nature of Sonship, One Who is true ‘Son’, One Who is of the nature of God Himself. He is the One to Whom these Scriptures have been pointing.
And this Son, he will stress, is the fulfilment of all of which these prophets spoke. For it is now his intention to draw from those Scriptures in order to demonstrate that Who He is, and what He came to do, sums up the whole of their message. They were but the dawning. He is the sun. No longer need men seek to wrestle with what they say, puzzling over them, seeking to draw from them hidden meanings. No longer should they look to old institutions which were preparatory but have now been replaced. For they only provided a temporary measure, as they themselves revealed by their stress on what was coming. They looked ahead to what was to be, always in some way lacking, never finding total fulfilment.
But now here was their fulfilment in God’s true Son, Jesus Christ. The shadows had been replaced by the reality. And from now on those Scriptures must be read in that light. For He has come as the full revelation of God, the outshining of His glory, and those Scriptures therefore can no longer be read as though they stood by themselves. They must now be seen as heralds of His coming, and interpreted in those terms. They must be read in the light of Who He is. His very presence must illuminate every hidden message and explain every hidden thought, bringing to light their hidden depths and establishing that which is truly permanent.
Indeed now that He has come there is nowhere else to look. All else is but a pale reflection of the real thing. He alone is the fulfilment of their deepest meaning. For all must recognise that God has spoken through One Who is His Son, One for Whom those very Scriptures prepared. And as such He is the One Who has fulfilled, and has thus brought to final realisation, all to which those Scriptures point. And only in Him can they now have any meaning.
We must not, as he says this, overlook the pride that the Jews, and those who sought to their ancient Scriptures, had in those Scriptures. They saw them as containing ancient knowledge from the past which bore the stamp of God’s inspiration, and were a source of light in a dark world. They were treasured and carefully preserved and exalted to the heavens. When men were everywhere searching for truth, they were confident that here was that truth, if only one knew how to interpret it. And men had been, and still were, busy interpreting them, and were willing to die for them.
The writer does not deny this, as he indicates here. Indeed he too honours those Scriptures, and their diversity, and their wide coverage of divine wisdom. Through them ‘God has spoken’. But his emphasis is on the fact that they point to Someone even Greater than they Who has now come. They are truly God’s inspired revelation, but in the end their purpose has been to point to One Who was to come. And now He has come they must be interpreted in that light.
So this first verse is not intended to diminish those Scriptures in any way. Rather it is to give them due honour, as the vehicle which has prepared for the Coming One. But it is also to emphasise that a greater revelation than they are is here. In Him God’s final word to man has arrived.
And now he will go on to draw on those Scriptures in order to explain and amplify the one final way that God has now chosen to use, the manifestation of Himself through His Son! For He alone is the full manifestation of God and has brought His unique means of salvation. As he will reveal, the whole of Old Testament prophecy, including Moses and what we see as salvation history, is now to be seen as summed up in Christ. He is the whole of which all that was before revealed was a part.
So these words emphasise that God had built up through the centuries, in what we call ‘the Scriptures’, a multiplicity of different records, written at different times, and in various stages, and at distinct times in history, as a progressive revelation which had built up into a huge amount of different kinds and expressions of knowledge, but all pointing forward in the end to the One Who has now come, Who has summed it all up in Himself. They were God’s servants, He is ‘the Son’.
‘God has spoken to the fathers in the prophets.’ God, he stresses, has spoken through the prophets. He has no doubt that their words came from God. From Abraham (Gen 20:7 ), through Moses (Deu 34:10 ), and David (Act 2:30 ), and all the prophets, and on to Malachi, the prophets spoke from God to ‘the fathers’, bringing God’s word to men, to those who came before. He did not leave Himself without a witness, for through all of them God spoke in every age. The authority of the Old Testament Scriptures and of the Hebrew prophets is firmly asserted.
Mention of ‘the fathers’ does not necessarily mean that the recipients of the letter were Jews, (it does not say ‘our fathers’) for past faithful Israel could be seen as the fathers of the whole church, not just the Jews, for the church was very much seen as the new Israel, made one with them by integration through the covenant (Gal 6:16 ; Eph 2:12-22 ; Rom 11:16-24 ), a part of the growth of the olive tree. But the content of the letter confirms his readers’ close connection with Judaism.
Indeed we should note that what came to be known as ‘Israel’ had never been limited to direct descendants of the patriarchs. It had always grown by accumulation, beginning with the servants and retainers of the patriarchs made up of a number of nationalities (Eliezer the Damascene, Hagar the Egyptian, etc.), moving on to the ‘mixed multitude’ of foreigners who had joined with them in the deliverance from Egypt (Exo 12:38 ), followed by the command that they be ready to absorb ‘foreigners’ who willingly submitted to the covenant (Exo 12:48-49 ), the continual influx of foreign names into Israel (e.g. Uriah the Hittite), and the absorption of Gentile proselytes, as the witness of the dispersed Israel, with their emphasis on the one God and their high moral basis, proved attractive among the Gentiles, and so on. The Jews were in fact a ‘gathering of God’ (the congregation of Israel) made up from many nations, all outwardly true to the covenant, and their true ancestry was a complicated one, and nothing like they themselves suggested.
‘Having of old time.’ As often in the New Testament time is split into ‘Then’ and ‘Now’; ‘of old time’ (in the completed past) and ‘at the end of these days’ (the final push towards the end, which results in the consummation, during which God is especially working) (Heb 1:2 ). The whole of the Old Testament period is covered by these words in Heb 1:1 , ‘God has of old time spoken to the fathers in the prophets’. He spoke in Abraham, and indeed before Abraham (Luk 1:70 ; Act 3:21 ), and on in the prophets to Malachi. Each was God’s spokesperson, God’s mouthpiece (Mat 10:20 ; 2Pe 1:21 ). But, he affirms, all that has been spoken and written through men of God over the past centuries, revealing truth only in part as man was able to receive it, has been preparatory to this time (compare 1Pe 1:10-12 ). They have been laying the foundations for the One Who has now come.
‘Has at the end of these days spoken to us in one who is Son.’
And now that time has come. At ‘the end of these days’ He has now spoken through One Who is ‘Son’. Away all partial understanding of God. He has revealed Himself through One Who is the very representation of Himself. He has revealed Himself through His Son. And no one better represents a father than his son. That is why He can be described as ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Col 1:15 ) for He is His full manifestation.
We are now, he writes, at ‘the end of these days’, the end of the days of preparation, the end of the days of continuing revelation (for the phrase compare Gen 49:1 LXX; Num 24:14 LXX; Jer 23:20 LXX). Called elsewhere ‘the last days’ (Act 2:17 ), ‘the end of the times’ (1Pe 1:20 ), ‘the end of the ages’ (1Co 10:11 ; Heb 9:26-28 ), this was the time to which God had been building up, the time when He would send into the world His own Son to bring about redemption, the end to which all the prophets had looked. The word ‘Son’ is without the article, not in order to mean ‘a son’ but in order to stress the nature of the One coming. He has come as ‘one Who is Son’. He is truly ‘Son’, of the same nature and being as ‘the Father’.
Note on the Sonship of Christ.
The question is regularly raised as to whether Christ saw the title ‘the Son’, and His reference to Himself as ‘the Son of God’, as first applying to Him when He came from God and was born into the world, with the Father likewise then coming to be seen as ‘the Father’ in that unique sense, or whether it can be related back, in terms of its New Testament use, to the very beginning.
We must emphasise that the question relates to the use of the title not to the significance behind it. The fact that the One Who came as Jesus was a coequal member of the Godhead must be decided on other bases than the use of terminology, although the use of terminology may relate to it. For the terminology was used in order to convey ideas.
Certainly in these verses it would seem that the One Who is ‘Son’ is being depicted as Creator in ‘the beginning’, and even as appointed as heir before the beginning. And the whole idea here is to relate the One who came to the One from Whom He came, as being of the same nature, essence and being. For the idea of ‘sonship’ here is precisely in order to do that. It is not the fact that He has come representing Himself as the Son that is of prime importance, but that He is ‘Son’, of the same nature and essence.
It is of interest in this connection that the writer in Hebrews does not speak of ‘the Father’, except when impelled to because it was in a quotation from Scripture that he wished to use (Heb 1:5 ), the reason being that it was not an idea that he was seeking to convey. He nowhere emphasises the fact of God as Father. He speaks simply of ‘God’, as the glorious One, the transcendent One, the consuming fire. Thus his use of ‘Son’ stands alone in all its glory.
The same idea of Jesus as Son from the beginning may be also said to apply to Joh 1:18 . ‘No man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him (made Him known).’ The idea of Him as the One Who ‘is in the bosom of the Father’, coming to declare Him, suggests ‘eternal Sonship’. And even if we accept the alternative rendering ‘God only begotten’, the thought is similar.
Again the thought that God ‘gave His only born Son’ in Joh 3:16 confirms that He was seen as ‘Son’ before being given. And in Gal 4:4 God ‘sent forth His Son’, suggests that He was Son before He was sent forth. While the fact is also intrinsic in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, for in that parable the son who was finally sent was sent precisely because he was already the son (Mar 12:1-11 ).
And Jesus constantly spoke in the Gospels of Himself as ‘the Son’ in contradistinction to ‘the Father’ in what appears to be a timeless way, setting Himself apart from all others as having a unique and permanent relationship with God.
On the other hand what is certainly true is that that ‘Sonship’ did also emphasise His coming into the world and becoming man. He came as the Son from the Father. Thus it could be stated at His baptism, ‘You are my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased’ (Mar 1:11 ), and in Heb 1:5 here ‘You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.’ So we may distinguish His absolute Sonship, as being of the same being as the Father (as seems to be intended in its use by Jesus as He speaks of His relationship to the Godhead from man’s perspective), and His relative Sonship as representing His coming into the world from God to lead many sons to glory (Heb 2:10 ).
Both, however, are describing Jesus relationship with God in human terminology. How God was seen by the angels (and by Himself) prior to the creation of man was unlikely to be in terms of Father and Son. In view of the fact that among the angels there were no such relationships, for they neither married nor were given in marriage, we must doubt whether father-son relationships would have had any meaning to them. As far as we have cause to be aware father-son relationships began shortly after the creation of man (or if we prefer it the creation of reproducing creatures).
But the very fact that ‘God is love’ demands that there ever be a lover and a beloved, that there was and is always One available to be eternally loved. It must in itself be seen as requiring a plurality within God. Love could only be if there was One to be loved. But that is a totally different question from the idea of the love between ‘Father and Son’, in contrast with love within the interpersonality of the Godhead. ‘Father and Son’ was an idea which would not exist before the creation of the world because the language and concept is based on human relationships. Until humanity existed there were no grounds for thinking in terms of a son being born. As we have said, there is no hint of such among the angels, who neither marry nor are given in marriage, and thus presumably do not produce children. So it is only with regard to man that the concept of ‘Father and Son’ gains meaning, and we may see the terminological distinction made in the Godhead by these words as being made in order to help us to understand and appreciate relationships within the Godhead, not as describing the essential nature of God. It is probably safe to say that a book on doctrine written by the angels before the creation of the world would not have spoken of Father and Son.
We may see therefore that God represented Himself as ‘Father/Son’ in order for man to begin to understand Him. It was a way by which He could bring home to man that these two ‘persona’, inter-personalities, within the Godhead, were of the same nature, being and essence. But it also conveyed the idea of the One as coming forth from God, and as continually looking to God as a son would look to his father. (For in human understanding a son would not send his father. It was the father who was supreme. He would send the son). The same applies to the Holy Spirit. It was because He came to act in the world that His relationship with the Godhead had to be defined in the terms used. But all three were still of the essential nature of God.
All the titles and descriptions are thus to be seen as ‘pictures’ describing the indescribable so as to illuminate men, and must be taken as such and not be pressed beyond what is elsewhere revealed. The fact that in His eternal existence as seen by men Jesus is described as ‘the Son’ does not mean that He was as such at some stage ‘born’ as a son, as a human child is born. It is a declaration of like nature, of relationship. For He is revealed as eternal. That is until, of course, He was born into the world. Thus it is saying that, in the dealings of the Godhead with the world of men, ‘Son’ conveys something of the significance of what He essentially is, as being of one nature and being with the Father, and yet as having a part in God’s dealings which would be in an outwardly subsidiary role as ‘the Sent One’.
So we should not see ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ as descriptions of how the Godhead essentially is, but of how the Godhead is towards the world, and as a means of seeking to bring home to men certain truths about God and His interpersonal activities. In that sense therefore the question as to when the title of Son first applied is simply a doctrinal one, not an essential one.
The only question therefore is whether it is applied back in Scripture as referring to ‘before the beginning’ (but put in terms we can understand), in order to indicate the loving relationship within the Godhead in eternity, while at the same time recognising how that relationship would develop in terms of redemption, or whether it should only be referred to the incarnation. The Scriptures indicate that it refers to both.
However, this in itself warns us against overpressing the idea. ‘The Son’ is a human term and a human idea which is intended to help us, in terms of our own relationships, to appreciate that the Father and the Son are of one nature and being, while at the same time being a twoness in an eternal interpersonal relationship, and a threeness with the Holy Spirit. And as stressing the subsidiarity in position that the One Who is seen as ‘the Son’ took up in the course of the plan to redeem man. It was He Who ‘came forth’ from the Godhead, while declaring His total dependence on, and oneness with, the Godhead. ‘Father and Son’ was seen as a fitting way to describe this relationship, in the same way as it was in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mark 1:2 ). But both the ‘begetting’ of ‘the Son’ and the ‘procession’ of the Holy Spirit are to be seen as ways of describing how God is seen as He comes into relationship with man, not as they are in ‘themselves’. They do not with full accuracy describe the essence of the Godhead which was essentially a tri-unity. This is why we have to speak of ‘eternal begetting (or filiation)’ and ‘eternal procession’ (both concepts beyond man’s understanding and experience) in order to seek partially to do so.
Eternally the Son’s relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit is not to be seen as essentially any different from the Holy Spirit’s relationship with the Father and the Son; and the Father’s relationship with both is similarly not to be seen to be as essentially different. It is only as seen in their relationship with man and with creation that they are seen as different, and to have an order of priority, which results from the fact that Son and Spirit personally came into the world, while ‘the Father’ continually represents the triune Godhead in Heaven.
End of note.
‘Who being the outshining of his glory, and the exact representation of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power.’
The ‘being’ of the coming Mighty One is now described. ‘Being’ (ôn), speaks of absolute and timeless existence (the present active participle of eimi) in contrast with genomenos (having become) in Heb 1:4 . Compare ‘was’ (ên) in Joh 1:1 , in contrast with ‘became, was made’ (egeneto) in Joh 1:14 , and ‘being, subsisting’ (huparchôn) and ‘having become’ (genomenos) in Php 2:6-7 . This is thus describing the ‘being’ of God’s Son, what God’s Son essentially was, in contrast with what He ‘became’.
He ‘is’ the ‘outshining’ of the glory of God, the ‘effulgence of his glory’ (apaugasma tês doxês). Thus could John say, ‘we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Son of the Father’ (Joh 1:14 ). The word apaugasma, is a late substantive from apaugazô, which means to ‘emit brightness’, to ‘illuminate’, in 2Co 4:4 , and apaugasma is found only here in the New Testament. But it is found in the Wisdom of Solomon Heb 7:26 where it refers to the outshining of wisdom, and in Philo, when expressing the relationship of the Logos (the eternal reason) to God. Thus it speaks of ‘revealing the essence of’. It can sometimes indicate reflected brightness, but even then it indicated the reflection of the real, for such reflections were not seen scientifically but as ‘revealing the true nature of’. So its meaning here is of the outshining of light from an original light body, and thus as being of the same nature as the light body. These ideas had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos, of which they were partially true. But they are even more appropriate here.
For ‘outshining’ is more consonant of Christ in His relationship to God than reflected brightness. See Joh 1:4 with Joh 5:21 ; Joh 5:26 ; Joh 3:16 with Joh 3:9 ; Joh 12:45 ; Joh 14:9 . The meaning "outshining" suits the context best. This is not a clinical analysis but an expression of worship. Compare ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ (2Co 4:6 ) where the parallel of the glory on the face of Moses was not a reflection but the essential light of God. It was the outshining of what God essentially is.
‘And the exact representation of His substance’ (charaktêr tês hupostaseôs). Charaktêr comes from charassô, to cut, to scratch, to mark. It was first used of the tool that did the marking, then of the mark or impress which it made, the exact reproduction; compare charagma in Act 17:29 . It was used of the ‘stamped out image’ on coins, and of the impression that was reproduced by seals and dies. It thus indicates an exact representation.
The word hupostasis is used philosophically for the substantial nature, thus for the actual being or essence of God. Etymologically it is used, for example, of the sediment or foundation under a building, as that which forms the basis underneath, that which supports all, from which it came to mean the essence of a thing, what a thing is ‘underneath’. Thus the whole phrase means the exact reproduction of what God essentially is. It means that ‘what God was, the Word was’ (Joh 1:1 ).
‘And upholding (‘bearing’) all things by the word of his power.’ He not only fully represents and reveals God, He fulfils His responsibility to creation. By His powerful word, His creative and active word, He upholds all things. In Him all things consist (hold together) - Col 1:17 . He did not just create and leave it to function on its own, He continued His activity in maintaining its functioning. It should be noted that the impression given is that this process continued even while He was on earth revealing the fullness of God. The thought of ‘bearing’ is not that of carrying a weight, but of moving all things forward so that the world does not go into decline.
‘Having become by so much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.’
Furthermore in His exaltation He, as man, ‘has become’ (contrast ‘being’ - Heb 1:2 ) superior to the angelic realm (see Heb 2:6-9 ). He has received superiority (kreitton) in status and power above the angels as a result, being raised far above all (Eph 1:19-22 ), something which will now be shown from Scripture. This was important. The Jews saw the Law as having been ministered by angels (Heb 2:2 ; Gal 3:19 ), and as therefore superior. They saw it as something which gave it its supernatural aura (see also Deu 33:2 ; Psa 68:17 ; Act 7:53 ).
This idea of Messiah’s exaltation above the angels is also found in the Rabbinical writings. For example, commenting on Isa 52:13 , they wrote ‘he shall be exalted beyond Abraham, and extolled beyond Moses, and raised high above the ministering angels’. He was to be supreme.
Angels had an important place among both orthodox (e.g. the Pharisees) and unorthodox (the Essenes, etc.) Jews, as well as in the Gentile world (Col 2:18 ). They were seen as intermediaries and mediators, maintaining the separation of the awesome holiness of God from men. They were those through Whom God acted because He Himself was unapproachable. Others considered that there were hierarchies of them between God as pure spirit, and man as unworthy flesh, a descending order with a gradual lessening of deity as the lower ‘angels’ became less spirit-like. Through them men received ‘knowledge’ about God. Their mediation was seen as essential so that they had even been introduced into the idea of God’s dealings with Moses. In their view it had to be so. Thus the thought that Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) was in direct touch with God and reigned with Him as representative Man was awesome. It was a revelation of the fact that even in His Manhood He was superior to the angels. Who then, the writer will ask, could sensibly and rightly seek to come to God through angels, when a greater than the angels, Who is directly approachable, is here?
That Jesus Christ is already seen in His essential deity to be superior is first confirmed by the fact that the One Who came is called ‘Son’, that is, among other things, the One Who is over the house instead of just being in it (Heb 3:6 ), the One Who has unique rights of intimate relationship. However, the writer now describes Him as also ‘having become so’ in His manhood as a result of inheriting a ‘more excellent’ name. He will then go on to describe other indications of His superiority to the angels from Scripture.
‘Having become.’ Note the contrast with ‘being’ (Heb 1:3 a). What is described in Heb 1:3 is His essential being, what is described here is what He ‘became’ as man in the purposes of God, ‘so much better than the angels’.
‘As he has inherited (come into possession of) a more excellent name than they.’ And this is because He ‘has inherited’, perfect tense, ‘has inherited and still possesses’, ‘a more excellent name.’ In view of the following quotations where it is continually mentioned, it would appear that that more excellent name is the title ‘Son’. Although it may be that we should not lay the emphasis on a particular name, but on the significance of ‘name’ which indicates status. Thus the more excellent name also has in mind His exaltation in His manhood as ‘Lord and Christ’ (Yahweh and Messiah) which goes with the idea of His sonship (Act 2:34-36 ; Php 2:9-11 compare Eph 2:20-22 ). For ‘the name’ refers to what a person actually is. As the appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2 ) He Who was already the outshining of the glory of God has now ‘inherited’ in His manhood that exalted status as the Son, the anointed Christ, the receiving Heir. He receives in practise what was already His.
So in these verses the writer has laid bare the full truth about Jesus Christ; His eternal Being (Heb 1:2 ), His being able fully to reveal the Father (Heb 1:2 ), His being appointed before time began to bring the world to Himself (Heb 1:3 ), His creative and sustaining power and activity (Heb 1:3 ), His becoming man and dying for our sin (Heb 1:3 ), His rising and being exalted in His manhood by taking His seat at ‘at God’s right hand’ (Heb 1:3 ), and His receipt as man of the name of ‘Son’ as both ‘Lord’ (Yahweh) and ‘Christ’ (Messiah) (Heb 1:4 ).
‘For to which of the angels said he at any time, “You are my Son, This day have I begotten you?” ’
‘For to which of the angels.’ Angels are only ever seen singly when on direct service for God as His messengers. Otherwise they are always seen in plurality. As a class angels can be called ‘sons of the Elohim (heavenly beings/God)’ (Psa 29:1 ), but ‘son’ in the singular is never used of an angel. Whereas, says the writer, the Christ (Messiah) is addressed as God’s Son in both Psa 2:7 and 2Sa 7:14 .
Thus to no angel has He ever spoken in terms of true sonship. When they were thought of as ‘sons of the elohim’ it was their supernatural nature that was in mind, not their divinity. The idea was that they had the likeness of the ‘elohim’, the heavenly. To Israel the description ‘sons of -’ signified ‘likeness to’ without necessarily signifying relationship, compare the ‘sons of Belial’ (1Sa 2:12 and often).
“My son you are. This day have I begotten you?” Note the emphasis on ‘son’. Literally it is ‘Son to me you are.’ This quotation is taken from Psalms 2 which is a psalm declaring the choice and anointing of the house of David to be ‘God’s anointed’, God’s ‘chosen and set apart one’ for ever, so as to bring about world subjugation to God and final judgment, and calling on all to respond to Him.
Initially it may well have been used as a coronation Psalm, with ‘begotten’ carrying the significance of adoption by God at the crowning of each king, but the whole Psalm was intended to be a constant reminder of God’s promise of their final worldwide dominion, clearly to be fulfilled in a super-king. It was a true ‘Messianic’ psalm from the beginning, with a vision of the ‘Messianic’ future, for it spoke of the Davidic kingship in terms beyond the ordinary as ‘the anointed’ of Yahweh for the purpose of total worldwide domination. This was His purpose in ‘begetting’ the house of David, as represented in each king, until the One came in the future Who would finally achieve the dream.
Once the house of David ceased to be relevant after the time of Zerubbabel, and even before, thoughts moved forward to the necessary coming of a greater David (so that God’s promise would not fail) who would bring in God’s everlasting kingship (Isa 9:6 ; Eze 37:24-28 ). These developed into the explicit idea of a coming ‘Messiah’ (anointed one) which was already intrinsic in the Psalm. Thus the psalm undoubtedly has ‘Messianic’ reference, (compare Act 13:33 ), depicting the eternal kingship of the house of David, and in the end, by necessity, the coming of an eternal king Who is to be ‘God’s Son’.
The writer’s main point is that He is there emphatically called ‘my Son’, which he then links with begetting by God. And it is Jesus, Who, being of the house of David, and because He was recognised as ‘the Christ’, that he depicts as finally fulfilling this role. He must necessarily then be greater than the angels. What this ‘begetting’ is to be referred to is an open question which is much disputed. Some see it as referring to an ‘eternal begetting’, although that disagrees with the idea of ‘Today’, (although, as is pointed out by many, if we have eternal begetting we can have an eternal ‘today’). That would, however, run counter to the use of ‘today’ elsewhere in the letter where it means a specific point in time (see especially Heb 4:7 ).
Others therefore refer it alternately to His birth, His baptism, His resurrection or His exaltation as being the time when He is declared to be and instated as, or reinstated as, Son. All are possible. In a sense all are true, for each is a reaffirmation of His Sonship in increasing degrees, right from the beginning.
He was sent forth as the Son (Gal 4:4 ), His miraculous birth pointed to His Sonship (Luk 1:35 ), at His baptism He was declared to be the Son (Mar 1:11 ), in the Transfiguration He was manifested as the Son (Mar 9:7 ), by His resurrection He was revealed as the Son (Rom 1:4 ), and in His exaltation He was established as the Son, sharing His Father’s throne (Rev 3:21 ). In the end it resulted in Him being made the heavenly High Priest (Heb 5:5 ; Heb 5:9 ).
In Act 13:33-34 Jesus is described in terms of being ‘raised up’, and there too we have the problem as to whether ‘raised up (anistemi) Jesus’ in Act 13:33 means the incarnation, the baptism or the resurrection. We can compare Act 13:22 where it speaks of David as being ‘raised up’ (egeiro) after the rejection of Saul. But this is in contrast with, or paralleling, the raising up (anistemi) from the dead (Act 13:34 ). The fact is that egeiro and anistemi cross over in meaning. Both have similar varieties of meaning and both can refer to the resurrection, but in Acts 3:3 are probably intended to differentiate between David’s ‘raising up’ and that of Jesus as being of a different nature, both in His birth/ministry and in His resurrection.
However, the point behind all is that it is God’s unique act on this One unique ‘person’, demonstrating that He and He alone is God’s Son, that thus shows Him to be superior to the angels.
‘And when he again brings in the firstborn into the inhabited earth he says, “And let all the angels of God worship him.”
The idea of sonship (and heirship - Heb 1:2 ) continues under another title, the firstborn. ‘When He again brings in the firstborn into the inhabited earth ’. The firstborn is another title for the unique son. Israel had been His son, even His firstborn (Exo 4:22 ), but had then come to be represented by the King whom they saw as ‘the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Yahweh’ (Lam 4:20 ), so that the Davidic king is described as God’s ‘firstborn’ in Psa 89:27 . There the idea is of high favour and honour, which is very much in mind there. The idea behind the use of ‘firstborn’ (of a king) is of prestige and authority. Colossians links the title to creation indicating the One Who is the pre-existent non-created source Who has authority over creation (Col 1:15 ), ‘pre-born’ not created, and to the resurrection (the new creation) indicating the One Who as the initial Resurrected One, raised in honour and power, is the Giver of life to God’s people (Col 1:18 ), and thus He is the Firstborn twice over. All contain the thought of authority and power and relationship.
But the idea of the firstborn also contains within it that the firstborn is the heir. This ties it in here with Heb 1:2 where He is declared to be the heir of all things. So as the Firstborn He is the One Who was before all things, the One for Whom all things are destined, and the One Who was raised as the Source of all true life.
‘Again.’ The question here is as to whether we translate ‘again’ as indicating a second ‘bringing into the world’ of the Firstborn (‘again brings’), thus looking to His second coming, or whether ‘again’ is to refer back in contrast and conjunction with the previously quoted verses, as with ‘again’ in Heb 1:5 . This latter is superficially attractive in the English rendering but the opening construction in Greek is very different. It is not kai palin as in Heb 1:5 but ‘otan de palin’, representing not a simple continuation but a specific break. The natural reading is to take it as ‘again brings’.
Such a reference to His second coming as the Firstborn to finalise His creative and life-giving purpose, following the description of His first coming as ‘Son’, gives added significance to the passage, indicating an advancement in idea rather than it being just a string of quotations all with the same point, and significantly it parallels the similar idea in the seventh. It also fits in with the use of firstborn in Col 1:18 as ‘the firstborn from the dead’. He Who was the firstborn from the dead, the first to arise and the Lord of resurrection, now comes again to the inhabited world for His own to raise them too, whether by resurrection or rapture (compare Heb 9:28 ). It also explains the emphasis on the ‘inhabited earth’. The idea then is that He is called Son or its equivalent, firstly at His anointing, and then on His return to bring all to its consummation.
‘He says.’ Compare the use of the present tense with ‘He said’ (aorist - Heb 1:5 ), thus giving a differing emphasis. Heb 1:5 was referring to a once for all event. This refers to something that is to be said continually. Thus God’s command comes over continually, ‘let all the angels of God worship Him’.
“And let all the angels of God worship him.” This could be a paraphrase of Psa 97:7 where we read, ‘Worship Him all you heavenly beings (elohim - LXX ‘angels’)’, the Him referring to ‘the Lord’ Who ‘reigns’, and this would fit the quotation reasonably well.
But the almost (but not identical) exact phrase may be seen in Deu 32:43 LXX, where it is shown as an addition which is not found in the Hebrew text, (but is now actually confirmed as in a Hebrew text found at Qumran). The LXX version reads, ‘Rejoice, you heavens, with him, and let all the sons of God worship him; rejoice you Gentiles, with his people, and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in him.’ This is spoken of the Lord Who comes to judge His people (Deu 32:36 ), and would therefore naturally be applied to Him Who is called Lord, and to Whom judgment has been committed (Joh 5:22 ; Joh 5:27 ).
But the important point here is that all angels will pay Him homage, confirming that He is to be superior to the angels at the second coming (Mar 13:26-27 and often in the Gospels) as He was at the first (compare Php 2:9-11 ; Eph 1:19-21 ).
This is now followed by a series of quotations which are clearly interpreted Messianically, and thus as referring to the Son, in line with previous verses. But first we have one which contrasts the transitory work of angels. Note that this one is placed in the middle of the seven. The angels in their anonymous tasks are sandwiched within the authority and power of the Son as He fulfils His destiny, in order to indicate the secondary and derived nature of their authority and power.
‘And of the angels he says,
“Who makes his angels winds,
And his ministers a flame of fire,” ’
Firstly he takes a quotation to demonstrate what the angels are. They are powerful. They are made winds and a flame of fire (Psa 104:4 compare Psa 148:8 ), but they do not represent God directly.
We note first of all that they are said to be ‘made’ not ‘begotten’. Then that they have specifically allocated functions and do God’s will. ‘Winds’ refers to invisible but powerful activity, ‘a flame of fire’ to glory and judgment.
It may also be that we are to see them as carrying on their ministry through natural forces which are transitory and not lasting, affecting the world but not permanently transforming it. (The movement between spiritual activity and physical activity is not always made plain. The two were seen as going closely together). Certainly when connected with their attendance on Yahweh these descriptions are often connected with storm phenomena. Thus they are described in terms of created things, not as creating.
Their tasks, however, are many and varied as required, but like wind and fire they reveal no permanence. Like winds and fiery flames they arise and then disappear. They are here today and gone tomorrow. They are servants who do God’s will.
And yet that does not indicate that they must be looked on lightly. While invisible they are effective, and even devastating. They can make an impact in the world. We must not underestimate or dismiss them as unimportant. Their activity is, for example, indicated in Daniel 1:0 . And we can indeed compare all the Psalms where such phenomena signal the approach of God Himself accompanied by His attendants. But in the end, however great, that is all they are, servants of Yahweh. Compare in Jewish literature 2Es 8:21-22 , ‘before whom the hosts of angels stand with trembling, at whose bidding they are changed to wind and fire’ (probably also based on the Psalm). Then he moves on to show what the Son is, the One to Whom God has in contrast given a permanent and everlasting purpose over all universes.
We should note therefore that this verse does not stand by itself but is specifically contrasted with the idea of the Son’s permanent rule. They are set individual but temporary tasks as servants. He rules on an everlasting and permanent throne. Their tasks are physical. His go to the root of morality. They are many, but He is the Anointed one, anointed as over all. Thus he now makes this contrast.
‘But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is (or ‘your throne is God’) for ever and ever.
And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
With the oil of gladness above your fellows.”
This fourth quotation parallels ideas in the first. There He was crowned, here He has his everlasting throne. There He became God’s Anointed. Here He is anointed as supreme ruler. And central to the idea is His perfect righteousness and uprightness.
‘But of the Son.’ There is a direct contrast here of ‘the Son’ with the angels.
His supreme greatness is emphasised in that He Who is the Son, the Messiah, is either called ‘God’, or has ‘God as His throne’ (Psa 45:6-7 ). If we translate in the first way it was originally a courtesy title, flattering the Davidic king as being almost like one of the elohim (heavenly beings), or indicating his unique position as God’s prime representative and adopted son, and the description is kept in its rightful place by referring almost immediately to ‘your God’. In that case the writer has no hesitation in seeing it as an unconscious prophecy (compare Joh 11:51 ) concerning the greatest of the Davidic kings, and of the Messiah. The One Who is Son is described as ‘God’, as One Who will sit on an eternal throne. As such He will reign under the Heavenly Rule of God.
However the equally possible translation ‘your throne is God’ (compare ‘Yahweh is my rock’ (Psa 18:2 ), ‘You are my rock’ (Psa 31:3 ) so that they could equally well have said a parallel, ‘My rock is God’) would equally indicate the Son’s unique status. It could be seen as the equivalent of sitting at God’s right hand (Heb 1:13 ), but even more so, as sitting in God’s hand, so that God is giving full support to Him in his rule. He acts totally as God’s viceroy, and is seated in God as the one who is in God’s hand. In the initial Psalm it might indicate the divinity, the heavenly status, of the king’s throne as indicating that he is the favourite of Yahweh.
(It is in fact difficult to think of the Davidic king in the Psalm, who was originally an ordinary king, even though Davidic and therefore adopted by God, and in the Psalm in process of being married, being called ‘God (elohim)’. It is true that it could be seen as meaning ‘godlike’, or even ‘glorious representative of the true God’, but it is only used in this sense in the plural, and such a description in the singular would be unique in the Old Testament, and this is especially significant in the light of the fact that an alternative translation is equally possible. It is very different from the reference which Jesus does use, ‘I have said you are elohim’ (Psa 82:6 ) for there the plural is referring to a plurality and the use is explained and defined. The use of Mighty God in Isa 9:6 is different because it refers to a unique, miraculously born person. Had Jesus interpreted the Psalm as describing the king as elohim would He not have used that against the charges of blasphemy that were brought against Him? It would have been the perfect riposte. That being so, however, many translators and interpreters do prefer the rendering ‘O God’, and it certainly ties in with the progression ‘Son’, ‘God’, ‘Lord’ in the quotations.).
‘And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom.’ The sign of His kingly office will be uprightness, which will be the symbol of what distinguishes His kingdom, for his throne is God. That would mean that we have the parallels, ‘his throne is God’ and ‘his sceptre is uprightness’. This in direct contrast to the winds and flames of fire, where they but act as servants and ministers.
‘You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.’ And it is because of His truly righteous rule, and especially because of His love for righteousness and hatred of iniquity, that ‘God His God’ (the equivalent of ‘Yahweh your God’), has anointed Him with the oil of gladness, the special anointing that makes glad the heart because it is the anointing of the supreme king. No joy is like the joy of being supreme.
‘Above your fellows.’ In the Psalm initially this probably signifies other kings. But it possibly has in mind here both the whole of mankind and of the angels as his ‘fellows’ over whom He is set. So again He is set above the angels. (For if the king is elohim, so can be the angels, who are also elsewhere called elohim, but the overall point is rather that He is the One chosen as supreme king on the everlasting throne and above all His ‘fellows’ of whatever kind). So His deep love and concern for righteousness is what has set Him apart from all others. It is seen to exceed that of all, even that of the angels, of kings and of his fellow-men. He is uniquely the King of Righteousness, the Righteous One (Heb 7:2 ; 1Pe 3:18 ), the One Who is ‘apart from sin’ (Heb 9:28 ).
‘And,
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of your hands.
They will perish, but you continue,
And they all will wax old as a garment does.
And as a mantle you will roll them up,
As a garment, and they will be changed.
But you are the same,
And your years will not fail.”
This next quotation is taken from Psa 102:25-27 . Having described His supremacy over all rulers and powers, the writer now stresses His supremacy over creation. If ‘God’ can be seen as a suitable address for ‘the One Who is Son’ (Heb 1:8 ), so certainly can ‘Lord’ (as found in the text of the Psalm in LXX), a regular ascription by the writer to Jesus Christ (Heb 2:3 ; Heb 7:14 ; Heb 13:20 ). The Psalm is here quoted as having in mind the Son’s upholding of all things by His powerful word (Heb 1:3 ). Once He withdraws His word they perish and He ‘rolls them up’. For He is here seen as Lord of creation, and controller of its destiny. Both heavens and earth will be taken off like a cloak and rolled up, or stripped off like used clothes and changed, while He remains the same and goes on for ever, never growing old, and having no beginning or end. As such He is superior to the angels, who while they could devastate the earth with wind and fire, were unable either to create the earth or to effect its final destiny. (And once the world ceased there would be no more wind and fire for them to control).
We note also that in the fifth quotation reference was made to His enduring throne. Here in the sixth reference is made to His own enduring. He is the Enduring One.
In the original Psalm the One addressed is Yahweh. But the writer has already made clear that Jesus is the outshining of Yahweh, and the express image of what He is. And Paul also makes clear that Jesus bears the name of Yahweh (Php 2:9-11 ). So that as Jesus is constantly called ‘Lord’ (Yahweh) regularly in the New Testament, and therefore in the early church, and is regularly depicted as the Creator in the New Testament (Heb 1:2 ; Joh 1:3 ; Col 1:16 ), this action with regard to creation can be assigned to the Son. The writer has no difficulty in applying the words to Him.
‘But of which of the angels has he said at any time,
“You, sit on my right hand,
Until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet?” ’
It will be noted that this is the seventh quotation, a number seen as the number of divine perfection in all nations from the time when numbering was first invented. The sevenfold witness is thus seen as divinely decisive. This quote is taken from Psa 110:1 and refers to God’s king being told by God to take His seat at God’s right hand while God makes His enemies His footstool. The placing of the foot on a conquered king’s neck may well have been an evidence of his submission, but the thought may simply be to picture submission. To which of the angels, the writer asks, did God ever say that? So do we have the sevenfold witness to the superiority of Christ over the angels.
To sit in the presence of God was the Davidic king’s prerogative (2Sa 7:18 ; Eze 44:3 ). It was in itself a clear indication that He enjoyed God’s favour and was God’s viceroy. To have all enemies ( here both of heaven and earth) His footstool is an indication of His guaranteed final triumph.
So we note here the advancement in thought of the quotations:
· 1). He is declared to be God’s Son and ‘begotten’ as His anointed (compare ‘in a Son’ - Heb 1:2 ).
· 2). He continually shares in a special relationship with God whereby God is His Father and He is God’s Son (compare again ‘in a Son’ - Heb 1:2 ).
· 3) As the Firstborn Who will come again into the world He receives homage and worship continually from God’s angels (compare ‘heir of all things - Heb 1:2 ).
· 4) His throne is God and therefore His rule is everlasting and perfectly righteous, with Him being anointed as Supreme Ruler, high above all (compare ‘heir of all things’ - Heb 1:2 ).
· 5) As ‘Lord’ He is the Creator, Sustainer and Culminator of Creation, so that all awaits His will, while He Himself is everlasting (compare ‘through whom also He made the worlds’ and ‘upholding all things by His word of power’ - Heb 1:2-3 ).
· 6) He has been called to sit at God’s right hand until all His enemies are subjected to Him (compare ‘sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high’ - Heb 1:3 ) .
And within it all is set the contrast with the angels. This contrast between the Son and the angels (Heb 1:4-9 ; Heb 1:13 ) is then brought to its conclusion by a positive declaration of what the position and responsibilities of the angels are.
‘Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?’
What the angels are is now made clear. They are spirits who serve God, who are sent by Him to do service for those who are to inherit salvation, that is, for those who are His, and destined for final salvation, God’s elect, in order to keep them and help them as they walk in God’s ways. Rather than being Lord over God’s people the good angels are His servants and theirs. This is noble service indeed, but not enjoying the same dignity as the status of the Son, Who is made Lord of all.
We must beware of reading too much into the words in this verse. The task of angels has been defined in Heb 1:7 as to be that of being like winds and flames of fire, and it is as such that they serve the heirs of salvation. This would seem to point to invisible yet physical help, rather than to spiritual sustenance. Elsewhere specifically seeking to angels is frowned on (Col 2:18 ), and there is nowhere a suggestion that we look to the angels for help. They are not at man’s bidding, but at God’s. We may, however, draw lessons from past angelic activity which involves their going invisibly before God’s people as they obey God (Exo 23:20 ; Exo 23:23 compare Num 20:16 ), protection (Psa 91:11 ; Dan 6:22 ), deliverance (Act 12:7 ), and strengthening (Luk 22:43 ), as well as occasional judgment (2Sa 24:16-17 ; Act 12:23 ), and acting as God’s messengers (often). And Revelation makes clear the powerful background activity of angels. But all solely as God wills. We should be looking to the Son, not to angels.
Rights in the Authorized (King James) Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Published by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Univ. Press & BFBS
