Hebrews 1:1

In sonorous and dignified terms the writer abruptly makes his first great affirmation: “God having spoken … spoke”. ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας … ἐλάλησεν, for, however contrasted, previous revelations proceeded from the same source and are one in design and in general character with that which is final. In the N.T. λαλεῖν is not used in a disparaging sense, but, especially in this Epistle, is used of God making known His will. See Hebrews 2:2; Hebrews 3:5; Hebrews 5:5, etc. God spoke, desired to be understood, to come into communication with men and therefore uttered Himself in intelligible forms, and succeeded, all through the past, in making Himself and His will known to men. He had not kept silence, allowing men to feel after Him if haply they might find Him. He had met the outstretched hand and guided the seeker. And this “speaking” in the past was preparatory to the final speaking in Christ; “God having spoken … spoke”. The earlier revelations were the preparation for the later but were distinguished from it in four particulars in the time, in the recipients, in the agents, in the manner.

πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως “in many parts and in many ways”. The alliteration is characteristic of the author, cf. Hebrews 5:8; Hebrews 5:14; Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 9:10, etc. For the use of the words in Greek authors see Wetstein. πολυμερῶς points to the fragmentary character of former revelations. They were given piece-meal, bit by bit, part by part, as the people needed and were able to receive them. The revelation of God was essentially progressive; all was not disclosed at once, because all could not at once be understood. One aspect of God's nature, one element in His purposes, reflected from the conditions of their time, the prophets could know; but in the nature of things it was impossible they should know the whole. They were like men listening to a clock striking, always getting nearer the truth but obliged to wait till the whole was heard. Man can only know in part, ἐκ μέρους, 1 Corinthians 13. [A fine illustration will be found in Browning's Cleon, in lines beginning: “those divine men of old time have reached, thou sayest well, each at one point the outside verge,” etc.] The “speaking” of God to the fathers was conditioned by the capacity of the prophets. His speaking was also πολυτρόπως [cf. Odyss. i. 1. Ανδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα, f1πολύτροπον] not in one stereotyped manner but in modes varying with the message, the messenger, and those to whom the word is sent. Sometimes, therefore, God spoke by an institution, sometimes by parable, sometimes in a psalm, sometimes in an act of righteous indignation. For, as Peake says, “the author is speaking not of the forms in which God spoke to the prophets, but of the modes in which He spoke through them to the fathers. The message took the form of law or prophecy, of history or psalm; now it was given in signs, now in types.” So Hofmann. These features of previous revelations, so prominently set and expressed so grandiloquently, cannot have been meant to disparage them, rather to bring into view their affluence and pliability and many-sided application to the growing receptivity and varying needs of men. He wins his readers by suggesting the grandeur of past revelations. But it is at the same time true, as Calvin remarks, “varietatem fuisse imperfectionis notam”. So Bengel, “Ipsa prophetarum multitudo indicat, eos ex parte prophetasse”. These characteristics, while they encouragingly disclosed God's purpose to find His way to men, did yet discredit, as inadequate for perfect achievement, each method that was tried. The contrast in the new revelation is implied in the word ἐκάθισεν, indicating that the work was once for all accomplished.

The next note of previous revelations is found in πάλαι “of old,” not merely “in time past” as A.V.; marking the time referred to in λαλήσας as contrasted with the writer's present, and gently suggesting that other methods of speaking might now be appropriate. Already in 2 Corinthians 3:14 the Mosaic covenant is spoken of as ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη cf. Hebrews 8:13. Here πάλαι is contrasted with ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, “at the last of these days,” [“Aufs Ende dieser Tage,” Weizsâcker], i.e., in the Messianic time at the close of the period known to the Jews as “this present time or age”. The expression is used in the LXX indifferently with ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τ. ἡμερῶν or ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις to translate בְאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים (see Isaiah 2:2; Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14), which was used to denote either the future indefinitely or the Messianic period, “the latter days” in which all prophecy was to find its fulfilment. Bleek quotes Kimchi as saying: “Ubicunque leguntur ‘Beaharith Hayamim' ibi sermo est de diebus Messiae”. And Wetstein quotes R. Nachman: “ Extremum dierum consensu omnium doctorum sunt Dies Messiae”. It was this Jewish usage which the N.T. writers followed in speaking of their own times as “the last days;” ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τ. χρόνου (Jude 1:18); ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τ. ἡμερῶν (2 Peter 3:3); ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τ. χρόνων (1 Peter 1:20); and in this Epistle, Hebrews 9:26, Christ is said to have appeared ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων. The first Advent as terminating the old world and introducing the Messianic reign was considered the consummation. The introduction of the word τούτων is suggested by the Jewish division of the world's course into two periods: “This Age” (Ha-Olam Hazzeh) and The Coming Age (Ha-Olam Habbah). The end of “this age” or “these days” was signalised by the coming of the Messiah, the new revelation in Christ. More effectually than the Jews themselves expected has the Advent of the Messiah antiquated the old world and opened a new period.

The temporal contrast is further marked by the words τοῖς πατράσιν (Hebrews 1:1) and ἡμῖν (Hebrews 1:2). Former revelations had been made to “the fathers,” i.e., of the Jewish people, as in John 7:22; Romans 9:5; Romans 15:8; 2 Peter 3:4. More frequently “our” “your” “their” is added, as in Acts 3:13; Acts 3:25; Luke 6:23. But it is idle to urge, with von Soden, the absence of the pronoun as weighing against the restriction of the term in this place to the Jewish fathers. ἡμῖν “to us” of these last days, of the Christian dispensation.

The determining contrast between the two revelations is found in this, that in the one God spoke ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, while in the other He spoke ἐν υἱῷ. “The prophets” stand here, not for the prophetic writings as in John 6:45; Acts 13:40, etc.; but for all those who had spoken for God, and especially for that great series of men from Abraham and Moses onwards who had been the organs of revelation and were identified with it (cf. the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen). The prep. ἐν is not used in its instrumental sense (cf. Habakkuk 2:1), nor is it = διὰ, it brings God closer to the hearers of the prophetic word, and implies that what the prophets spoke, God spoke. So Hofmann and Weiss. [“Ipse in cordibus eorum dixit quicquid illi foras vel dictis vel factis locuti sunt hominibus,” Herveius.] The full significance of ἐν is seen in ἐν υἱῷ. ἐν υἱῷ without the article must be translated “in a son” or “in one who is a son,” indicating the nature of the person through whom this final revelation was made. The revelation now consisted not merely in what was said [προφήταις] but in what He was [υἱός]. This revelation was final because made by one who in all He is and does, reveals the Father. By uttering Himself He expresses God. A Son who can be characteristically designated a son, carries in Himself the Father's nature and does not need to be instructed in purposes which are also and already His own, nor to be officially commissioned and empowered to do what He cannot help doing. “No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him” (cf. John 1:18). The whole section on “The Son of God” in Dalman's Die Worte Jesu should be read in this connection. “Son” is here used in its Messianic reference, as the quotations cited in Hebrews 1:5-6 prove. The attributes ascribed to the Son are at the same time Divine attributes. [So Baur and Pfleiderer. Ménégoz denies this]. The writer apparently experiences no difficulty in attaching to one and the same personality the creating of the world and the dying to cleanse sin.

The Son is described in six particulars which illustrate His supremacy and His fitness to reveal the Father: (1) His destination to universal lordship (ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων); (2) His agency in creation (διʼ οὗ ἐποίησεν τ. αἰῶνας); (3) His likeness to God (ὢν ἀπαύγασμα κ. τ. λ.); (4) His relation to the world) φέρων τὰ πάντα); (5) His redemptive work (καθαρισμὸν … ποιησάμενος); (6) His exaltation (ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ κ. τ. f1λ.). Cf. Vaughan. δν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων “whom He appointed heir of all”. Davidson, Weiss and others understand this of the actual elevation of Christ, on His ascension, to the Lordship of all. [“Dass der Verfasser bei diesen Worten an den erhöhten Christus gedacht habe, halten wir für unzweifelhaft,” Riehm, p. 295]. But the position of the clause in the verse and the subsequent mention of the exaltation in Hebrews 1:3 rather indicate that ἔθηκεν has here its ordinary meaning (see Elsner and Bleek) of “appointed,” and that the reference is to Psalms 2:8 δώσω σοι ἔθνη τὴν κληρονομίαν σου κ. τ. λ., so Hofmann. Through this Son God is to accomplish His purpose. The Son is to reign over all. The writer lifts the thought of the despondent to Christ's triumph and Lordship. In the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Christ speaks of Himself as Heir. It is involved in the Sonship; Galatians 4:7. It is not simply possessor but possessor because of a relation to the Supreme. The Father could not be called κληρονόμος. Dalman shows that the 2nd Psalm “deduces from the filial relation of the King of Zion to God, that universal dominion, originally proper to God, is bequeathed to the Son as an inheritance,” Worte Jesu, p. 220, E. Tr. 268. Cf. also Matthew 11:27, πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου. [Chrysostom says the use of the term brings out two points τὸ τῆς υἱότητος γνήσιον, καὶ τὸ τῆς κυριότητος ἀναπόσπαστον.] The inheritance is not fully entered upon, until it can be said that “the kingdom of the world is become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,” Revelation 11:15. Cf. Hebrews 2:8. But by His incarnation He came into touch with men and poured His life into human history, at once claiming and securing His great inheritance.

διʼ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας “through whom also He made the world,” “per quem fecit et secula” (Vulg.), “durch Welchen er auch die Weltzeiten gemacht hat” (Weizsâcker). “Secula et omnia in iis decurrentia” (Bengel). Weiss thinks it quite improbable that so pure a Greek writer should use αἰῶνας in the rabbinical sense as = “world,” and he believes that the Greek interpreters are right in retaining the meaning “world-periods”. But in Hebrews 11:3 it becomes obvious that this writer could use the word as virtually = κόσμος. “The thought of duration is never wholly lost in the Scripture use of αἰών, though in this place, and in Hebrews 11:3 it is all but effaced” (Vaughan). Cf. Schoettgen and McCaul. The writer perhaps has it in his mind that the significant element in creation is not the mass or magnificence of the material spheres but the evolution of God's purposes through the ages. The mind staggers in endeavouring to grasp the vastness of the physical universe but much more overwhelming is the thought of those times and ages and aeons through which the purpose of God is gradually unfolding, unhasting and unresting, in the boundless life He has called into being. He who is the end and aim, the heir, of all things is also their creator. The καὶ brings out the propriety of committing all things to the hand that brought them into being. The revealer is the creator, John 1:1-5. He only can guide the universe to its fit end who at first, presumably with wisdom equal to His power, brought it into being. [“Cette idée d'un être celeste chargé de réaliser la pensée créatrice de Dieu est une idée philonienne; elle a pénétré dans le Judaisme sous l'influence de la philosophie grecque” (Ménégoz). It is true that this is a Philonic idea (see numerous passages in Carpzov, Bleek, McCaul and Drummond) but we may also say with Weiss “Die philonischen Aussagen … gehören gar nicht hierher”. Certainly Philo never claimed for a definite historical person the attributes here enumerated.] For the Son's agency in Creation see John 1:2; Colossians 1:15. Grotius' rendering “propter Messiam conditum esse mundum” is interesting as illustrating his standpoint, but would require διʼ ὅν.