Hebrews 1:2 - Exposition

In these last days . The true reading being ἐπ ἐσχάτον τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων , not ἐπ ἐσχάτων , as in the Textus Receptus, translate, at the end of these days', The Received Text would, indeed, give the same meaning, the position of the article denoting' "the lustier these days," not "these last days." The reference appears to be to the common rabbinical division of time into αἰὼν οὖτος , and αἰὼν μέλλων , or ἐρχόμενος : the former denoting the pro-Messianic, the latter the Messianic period. Thus "these days" is equivalent to αἰὼν οὓτος , "the present age," and the whole expression to ἐπὶ συντέλειᾳ τῶν αἰώνων , "at the end of the ages" ( infra, Hebrews 9:26 ); cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11 ," for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." The term, αἰὼν μέλλων , is also used in this Epistle (6. 5); of. 1 Corinthians 2:5 , τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν . For allusions elsewhere to the two periods, of. Matthew 12:32 ; Mark 10:30 ; Luke 18:30 ; Luke 20:35 ; Ephesians 1:21 ; Titus 2:12 . Cf. also in Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6 , where, for "Everlasting Father," Cod. Alex. has πατὴρ τοῦ μελλόντος αἰῶνος . A subject of discussion has been the point of division between the two ages—whether the commencement of the Christian dispensation, ushered in by the exaltation of Christ, or his second advent. The conception in the Jewish mind, founded on Messianic prophecy, would, of course, be undefined. It would only be that the coming of the Messiah would inaugurate a new order of things. But how did the New Testament writers after Christ's ascension conceive the two ages? Did they regard themselves as living at the end of the former age or at the beginning of the new one? The passage before us does not help to settle the question, nor does Hebrews 9:26 ; for the reference in both cases is to the historical manifestation of Christ before his ascension. But others of the passages cited above seem certainly to imply that "the coming age" was regarded as still future. It has been said, indeed, with regard to this apparent inference from some of them, that the writers were regarding their own age from the old Jewish standing-point when they spoke of it as future, or only used well-known phrases to denote the two ages, though they were no longer strictly applicable (see Alford's note on Hebrews 2:5 ). But this explanation cannot well be made to apply to such passages as 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Ephesians 1:21 , or to those in the Gospels. It would appear from them that it was not till the παρούσια (or, as it is designated in the pastoral Epistles, the ἐπιφάνεια ) of Christ that "the coming age" of prophecy was regarded as destined to begin, ushering in "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" ( 2 Peter 3:13 ). Still, though "that day" was in the future, the first coming of Christ had been, as it were, its dawn, signifying its approach and preparing believers for meeting it. "The darkness was passing away; the true light was already shining" ( 1 John 2:8 ). Hence the apostolic writers sometimes speak as if already in the "coming age;" as being already citizens of heaven ( Philippians 3:20 ); as already "made to sit with Christ in the heavenly places" ( Ephesians 1:6 ); having already "tasted the powers of the age to come" ( Hebrews 6:5 ). In a certain sense they felt themselves in the new order of things, though, strictly speaking, they still regarded their own age as but the end of the old one, irradiated by the light of the new. To understand fully their language on the subject, we should remember that they supposed the second advent to be more imminent than it was. St. Paul, at one time certainly, thought that it might be before his own death ( 2 Corinthians 5:4 ; 1 Thessalonians 4:15 ). Thus they might naturally speak of their own time as the conclusion of the former age, though regarding the second advent as the commencement of the new one. But the prolongation of" the end of these (lays," unforeseen by them, does not affect the essence of their teaching on the subject. In the Divine counsels "one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Hath spoken unto us (more properly, spake to us ) in his Son. "His" is here properly supplied to give the meaning of ἐν υἱῷ . The rendering, a SON , which seems to have the advantage of literalism, would be misleading if it suggested the idea of one among many sons, or a son in the same sense in which others are sons. For though the designation, "son of God," is undoubtedly used in subordinate senses—applied e.g. to Adam, to angels, to good men, to Christians—yet what follows in the Epistle fixes its peculiar meaning here. The entire drift of the curlier part of the Epistle is to show that the idea involved in the word "Son," as applied to the Messiah in prophecy, is that of a relation to God far above that of the angels or of Moses, and altogether unique in its character. This idea must have been in the writer's mind when he selected the phrases of his exordium. Nor is the article required for the sense intended. Its omission, in fact, brings it out. ἐν τῷ υἱῷ would have drawn especial attention to "the personage in whom God spake; ἐν υἱῷ does so rather to the mode of the speaking—it is equivalent to "in one who was SON ." Son-revelation (as afterwards explained), is contrasted with previous prophetic revelations (cf. for omission of the article before υἱὸς , Hebrews 3:6 ; Hebrews 5:8 ; Hebrews 7:28 ). Whom he appointed (or, constituted ) heir of all things; not, as in the A.V., "hath appointed." The verb is in the aorist, and here the indefinite sense of the aorist should be preserved. " Convenienter statim sub Filii nomen memoratur haereditas " (Bengel). Two questions arise.

In answer to question

(a) his eternal pre-existence has not yet been touched upon: it is introduced, as it were parenthetically, in the next and following clauses.

(b) Though the term Son is legitimately used in theology to denote the eternal relation to the Father expressed by the λόγος of St. John, yet its application in this Epistle and in the New Testament generally (excepting, perhaps, the μονογενὴς υἱὸς peculiar to St. John, on which see Bull, 'Jud. Eccl. Cath.,' Ecclesiastes 5:4 , etc), is to the Word made flesh, to the Son as manifested in the Christ. And hence it is to him as such that we may conclude the heirship to be here assigned.

(c) This is the view carried out in the sequel of the Epistle, where the SON is represented as attaining the universal dominion assigned to him after, and in consequence of, his human obedience. The conclusion of the exordium in itself expresses this; for it is not till after he had made purification of sins that he is said to have "sat down," etc; i.e. entered on his inheritance; having become ( γένομενος not ὢν ) " so much better," etc. This is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the Fathers generally (cf. the cognate passage, Philippians 2:9 ).