Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 1:2
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;
2. Hath spoken ] Rather, “spake.” The whole revelation is ideally summed up in the one supreme moment of the Incarnation. This aoristic mode of speaking of God’s dealings, and of the Christian life, as single acts, is common throughout the New Testament, and especially in St Paul, and conveys the thought that
“Are, and were, and will be are but is
And all creation is one act at once.”
The word “spoke” is here used in its fullest and deepest meaning of Him whose very name is “the Word of God.” It is true that this author, unlike St John, does not actually apply the Alexandrian term “Logos” (“Word”) to Christ, but it always seems to be in his thoughts, and, so to speak, to be trembling on his lips. The essential and ideal Unity which dominated over the “many parts” and “many modes” of the older revelation is implied in the most striking way by the fact that it was the same God who spake to the Fathers in the Prophets and to us in a Son.
in these last days ] The better reading ( , A, B, D, E, &c.) is “at the end of these days.” The phrase represents the technical Hebrew expression be-acharth ha-ymm (Num 24:14). The Jews divided the religious history of the world into “ this age ” ( Olam hazzeh) and “the future age” ( Olam habba). The “future age” was the one which was to begin at the coming of the Messiah, whose days were spoken of by the Rabbis as “the last days.” But, as Christians believed that the Messiah had now come, to them the former period had ended. They were practically living in the age to which their Jewish contemporaries alluded as the “age to come” (Heb 2:5, Heb 6:5). They spoke of this epoch as “the fulness of the times” (Gal 4:4); “the last days” (Jas 5:3); “the last hour” (1Jn 2:18); “the crisis of rectification” (Heb 9:10); “the close of the ages” (Heb 9:26). And yet, even to Christians, there was one aspect in which the new Messianic dispensation was still to be followed by “a future age,” because the kingdom of God had not yet come either completely or in its final development, which depended on the Second Advent. Hence “the last crisis,” “the later crises” (1Pe 1:5; 1Ti 4:1) are still in the future, though they thought that it would be a near future; after which would follow the “rest,” the “Sabbatism” (Heb 4:4; Heb 4:10-11; Heb 11:40; Heb 12:28) which still awaits the people of God. The indistinctness of separation between “this age” and “the future age” arises from different views as to the period in which the actual “days of the Messiah” are to be reckoned. The Rabbis also sometimes include them in the former, sometimes in the latter. But the writer regarded the end as being at hand (Heb 10:13; Heb 10:25; Heb 10:37). He felt that the former dispensation was annulled and outworn, and anticipated rightly that it could not have many years to run.
by his Son ] Rather, “in a Son.” The contrast is here the Relation rather than the Person of Christ, “in Him who was a Son.” The preposition “ in ” is here most applicable in its strict meaning, because “in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” “The Father, that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works” (Joh 14:10). The contrast of the New and Old is expressed by St John (Joh 1:17), “The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” In Christ all the fragments of previous revelation were completed; all the methods of it concentrated; and all its apparent perplexities and contradictions solved and rendered intelligible.
he hath appointed ] Rather, “He appointed.” The question as to the special act of God thus alluded to, is hardly applicable. Our temporal expressions may involve an inherent absurdity when applied to. Him whose life is the timeless Now of Eternity and in Whom there is neither before nor after, nor variableness, nor shadow cast by turning, but Who is always in the Meridian of an unconditioned Plenitude ( Pleroma). See Jas 1:17.
heir of all things ] Sonship naturally suggests heirship (Gal 4:7) and in Christ was fulfilled the immense promise to Abraham that his seed should be heir of the world. The allusion, so far as we can enter into these high mysteries of Godhead, is to Christ’s mediatorial kingdom. We only darken counsel by the multitude of words without knowledge when we attempt to define and explain the relations of the Persons of the Trinity towards each other. The doctrine of the , circuminsessio or communicatio idiomatum as it was technically called that is the relation of Divinity and Humanity as effected within the Divine Nature itself by the Incarnation is wholly beyond the limit of our comprehension. We may in part see this from the fact that the Son Himself is (in Heb 1:3) represented as doing what in this verse the Father does. But that the Mediatorial Kingdom is given to the Son by the Father is distinctly stated in Joh 3:35; Mat 28:18 (comp. Heb 2:6-8 and Psa 2:8).
by whom ] i.e. “by whose means;” “by whom, as His agent.” Comp. “All things were made by Him” (i.e. by the Word) (Joh 1:3). “By Him were all things created” (Col 1:16). “By Whom are all things” (1Co 8:6). What the Alexandrian theosophy attributed to the Logos, had been attributed to “Wisdom” (see Pro 8:22-31) in what was called the Chokhmah or the Sapiential literature of the Jews. Christians were therefore familiar with the doctrine that Creation was the work of the Pn-existent Christ; which helps to explain Heb 1:10-12. We find in Philo, “You will discover that the cause of it (the world) is God and the Instrument the Word of God, by whom it was equipped ( kateskeuasth)” De Cherub. (Opp. i. 162); and again “But the shadow of God is His Word, whom He used as an Instrument in making the World,” De Leg. Alleg. (Opp. i. 106).
also ] He who was the heir of all things was also the agent in their creation.
he made the worlds ] Literally, “the aeons” or “ages.” This word “aeon” was used by the later Gnostics to describe the various “emanations” by which they tried at once to widen and to bridge over the chasm between the Human and the Divine. Over that imaginary chasm St John had thrown the one wide arch of the Incarnation when he wrote “the Word became flesh.” In the N.T. the word “aeons” never has this Gnostic meaning. In the singular the word means “an age;” in the plural it sometimes means “ages” like the Hebrew olamim. Here it is used in its Rabbinic and post-biblical sense of “the world” as in Heb 11:3, Wis 13:9 , and as in 1Ti 1:17 where God is called “the king of the world” (comp. Tob 13:6 ). The word kosmos (Heb 10:5) means “the material world” in its order and beauty; the word aiones means the world as reflected in the mind of man and in the stream of his spiritual history; oikoumene (Heb 1:6) means “the inhabited world.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Hath in these last days – In this the final dispensation; or in this dispensation under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. Phrases similar to this occur frequently in the Scriptures. They do not imply that the world was soon coming to an end, but that that was the last dispensation, the last period of the world. There had been the patriarchal period, the period under the Law, the prophets, etc., and This was the period during which Gods last method of communication would be enjoyed, and under which the world would close. It might be a very long period, but it would be the last one; and so far as the meaning of the phrase is concerned, it might be the longest period, or longer than all the others put together, but still it would be the last one. See Act 2:17 note; Isa 2:2 note.
Spoken unto us – The word us here does not of necessity imply that the writer of the Epistle had actually heard him, or that they had heard him to whom the Epistle was written. It means that God had now communicated his will to man by his Son. It may be said with entire propriety that God has spoken to us by his Son, though we have not personally heard or seen him. We have what he spoke and caused to be recorded for our direction.
By his Son – The title commonly given to the Lord Jesus, as denoting his unique relation to God. It was understood by the Jews to denote equality with God (notes, Joh 5:18; compare Joh 10:33, Joh 10:36), and is used with such a reference here. See notes on Rom 1:4, where the meaning of the phrase Son of God is fully considered. It is implied here that the fact that the Son of God has spoken to us imposes the highest obligations to attend to what he has said; that he has an authority superior to all those who have spoken in past times; and that there will be special guilt in refusing to attend to what he has spoken. See Heb 2:1-4; compare Heb 12:25. The reasons for the superior respect which should be shown to the revelations of the Son of God may be such as these:
(1) His rank and dignity. He is the equal with God Joh 1:1, and is himself called God in this chapter; Heb 1:8. He has a right, therefore, to command, and when he speaks, people should obey.
(2) The clearness of the truths which he communicated to man on a great variety of subjects that are of the highest moment to the world. Revelation has been gradual – like the breaking of the day in the east. At first there is a little light; it increases and expands until objects become more and more visible, and then the sun rises in full-orbed glory. At first we discern only the existence of some object – obscure and undefined; then we can trace its outline; then its color, its size, its proportions, its drapery – until it stands before us fully revealed. So it has been with revelation. There is a great variety of subjects which we now see clearly, which were very imperfectly understood by the teaching of the prophets, and would be now if we had only the Old Testament. Among them are the following:
(a) The character of God. Christ came to make him known as a merciful being, and to show how he could be merciful as well as just. The views given of God by the Lord Jesus are far more clear than any given by the ancient prophets; compared with those entertained by the ancient philosophers, they are like the sun compared with the darkest midnight,
(b) The way in which man may be reconcile to God. The New Testament – which may be considered as what God has spoken to us by his Son – has told us how the great work of being reconciled to God can be effected. The Lord Jesus told us that he came to give his life a ransom for many; that he laid down his life for his friends; that he was about to die for man; that he would draw all people to him. The prophets indeed – particularly Isaiah – threw much light on these points. But the mass of the people did not understand their revelations. They pertained to future events always difficult to be understood. But Christ has told us the way of salvation, and he has made it so plain that he who runs may read.
(c) The moral precepts of the Redeemer are superior to those of any and all that had gone before him. They are elevated, pure, expansive, benevolent – such as became the Son of God to proclaim. Indeed this is admitted on all hands. Infidels are constrained to acknowledge that all the moral precepts of the Saviour are eminently pure and benignant. If they were obeyed, the world would be filled with justice, truth, purity, and benevolence. Error, fraud, hypocrisy, ambition, wars, licentiousness, and intemperance, would cease; and the opposite virtues would diffuse happiness over the face of the world. Prophets had indeed delivered many moral precepts of great importance, but the purest and most extensive body of just principles of good morals on earth are to be found in the teachings of the Saviour.
(d) He has given to us the clearest view which man has had of the future state; and he has disclosed in regard to that future state a class of truths of the deepest interest to mankind, which were before wholly unknown or only partially revealed.
1. He has revealed the certainty of a state of future existence – in opposition to the Sadducees of all ages. This was denied before he came by multitudes, and where it was not, the arguments by which it was supported were often of the feeblest kind. The truth was held by some – like Plato and his followers – but the arguments on which they relied were feeble, and such as were untitled to give rest to the soul. The truth they had obtained by tradition; the arguments were their own.
2. He revealed the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This before was doubted or denied by nearly all the world. It was held to be absurd and impossible. The Saviour taught its certainty; he raised up more than one to show that it was possible; he was himself raised, to put the whole matter beyond debate.
3. He revealed the certainty of future judgment – the judgment of all mankind.
4. It disclosed great and momentous truths respecting the future state. Before he came, all was dark. The Greeks spoke of Elysian fields, but they were dreams of the imagination; the Hebrews had some faint notion of a future state where all was dark and gloomy, with perhaps an occasional glimpse of the truth that there is a holy and blessed heaven; but to the mass of mind all was obscure. Christ revealed a heaven, and told us of a hell. He showed us that the one might be gained and the other avoided. He presented important motives for doing it; and had he done nothing more, his communications were worthy the profound attention of mankind. I may add:
(3) That the Son of God has claims on our attention from the manner in which he spoke. He spoke as one having authority; Mat 7:29. He spoke as a witness of what he saw and knew; Joh 3:11. He spoke without doubt or ambiguity of God, and heaven, and hell. His is the language of one who is familiar with all that he describes; who saw all, who knew all. There is no hesitancy or doubt in his mind of the truth of what he speaks; and he speaks as if his whole soul were impressed with its unspeakable importance. Never were so momentous communications made to people of hell as fell from the lips of the Lord Jesus (see notes on Mat 23:33); never were announcements made so suited to awe and appall a sinful world.
Whom he hath appointed heir of all things – see Psa 2:8; compare notes, Rom 8:17. This is language taken from the fact that he is the Son of God. If a son, then he is an heir – for so it is usually among people. This is not to be taken literally, as if he inherits anything as a man does. An heir is one who inherits anything after the death of its possessor – usually his father. But this cannot be applied in this sense to the Lord Jesus. The language is used to denote his rank and dignity as the Son of God. As such all things are his, as the property of a father descends to his son at his death. The word rendered heir – kleronomos – means properly:
(1) One who acquires anything by lot; and,
(2) An heir in the sense in which we usually understand the word. It may also denote a possessor of anything received as a portion, or of property of any kind; see Rom 4:13-14. It is in every instance rendered heir in the New Testament. Applied to Christ, it means that as the Son of God he is possessor or lord of all things, or that all things are his; compare Act 2:36; Act 10:36; Joh 17:10; Joh 16:15. All things that the Father hath are mine. The sense is, that all things belong to the Son of God. Who is so rich then as Christ? Who so able to endow his friends with enduring and abundant wealth?
By whom – By whose agency; or who was the actual agent in the creation. Grotins supposes that this means, on account of whom; and that the meaning is, that the universe was formed with reference to the Messiah, in accordance with an ancient Jewish maxim. But the more common and Classical usage of the word rendered by ( dia), when it governs a genitive, as here, is to denote the instrumental cause; the agent by which anything is done; see Mat 1:22; Mat 2:5, Mat 2:15, Mat 2:23; Luk 18:31; Joh 2:17; Acts , Act 2:22, Act 2:43; Act 4:16; Act 12:9; Rom 2:16; Rom 5:5. It may be true that the universe was formed with reference to the glory of the Son of God, and that this world was brought into being in order to show his glory; but it would not do to establish that doctrine on a passage like this. Its obvious and proper meaning is, that he was the agent of the creation – a truth that is abundantly taught elsewhere; see Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10; Col 1:16; Eph 3:9; 1Co 8:6. This sense, also, better agrees with the design of the apostle in this place. His object is to set forth the dignity of the Son of God. This is better shown by the consideration that he was the creator of all things, than that all things were made for him.
The worlds – The universe, or creation. So the word here – aion – is undoubtedly used in Heb 11:3. The word properly means age – an indefinitely long period of time; then perpetuity, ever, eternity – always being. For an extended investigation of the meaning of the word, the reader may consult an essay by Prof. Stuart, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims, for 1829, pp. 406-452. From the sense of age, or duration, the word comes to denote the present and future age; the present world and the world to come; the present world, with all its cares, anxieties, and evils; the people of this world – a wicked generation, etc. Then it means the world – the material universe creation as it is. The only perfectly clear use of the word in this sense in the New Testament is in Heb 11:3, and there there can be no doubt. Through faith we understand that the worlds were made by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. The passage before us will bear the same interpretation, and this is the most obvious and intelligible. What would be the meaning of saying that the ages or dispensations were made by the Son of God? The Hebrews used the word – owlaam – in the same sense. It properly means age, duration; and thence it came to be used by them to denote the world – made up of ages or generations; and then the world itself. This is the fair, and, as it seems to me, the only intelligible interpretation of this passage – an interpretation amply sustained by texts referred to above as demonstrating that the universe was made by the agency of the Son of God. Compare Heb 1:10 note, and Joh 1:3 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. Last days] The Gospel dispensation, called the last days and the last time, because not to be followed by any other dispensation; or the conclusion of the Jewish Church and state now at their termination.
By his Son] It is very remarkable that the pronoun , his, is not found in the text; nor is it found in any MS. or version. We should not therefore supply the pronoun as our translators have done; but simply read , BY A SON, or IN A SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things. God has many sons and daughters, for he is the Father of the spirits of all flesh; and he has many heirs, for if sons, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; but he has no Son who is heir of all things, none by whom he made the worlds, none in whom he speaks, and by whom he has delivered a complete revelation to mankind, but Jesus the Christ.
The apostle begins with the lowest state in which Christ has appeared:
1. His being a SON, born of a woman, and made under the law. He then ascends,
2. So his being an Heir, and an Heir of all things.
3. He then describes him as the Creator of all worlds.
4. As the Brightness of the Divine glory.
5. As the express Image of his person, or character of the Divine substance.
6. As sustaining the immense fabric of the universe; and this by the word of his power.
7. As having made an atonement for the sin of the world, which was the most stupendous of all his works.
“‘Twas great to speak a world from nought;.
Twas greater to redeem.”
8. As being on the right hand of God, infinitely exalted above all created beings; and the object of adoration to all the angelic host.
9. As having an eternal throne, neither his person nor his dignity ever changing or decaying.
10. As continuing to exercise dominion, when the earth and the heavens are no more! It is only in God manifested in the flesh that all these excellences can possibly appear, therefore the apostle begins this astonishing climax with the simple Sonship of Christ, or his incarnation; for, on this, all that he is to man, and all that he has done for man, is built.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Hath in these last days; the gospel day, last, as after the days of the old world, and after the law given to Israel by Moses: the days of the fourth kingdom of the Roman empire, in the height of which Christ came into the world, and at the end of it shall accomplish his kingdom, Dan 2:40,44. The last, because the perfection of those types which went before, when Christ settled in the church that religion which must remain unalterable, to the end of the world, Heb 12:25-28; the best days for clearest light and greatest mercies.
Spoken; revealed his will to us once and entirely, Joh 1:17,18; Jude 1:3,4; discovering the excellent things of God more clearly than they were before, Eph 3:3-11; 1Pe 1:10-12.
To us: the believing Hebrews were so favoured beyond their fathers, to have the best revelation of God in Christ made to them, Mat 13:16,17; Lu 10:23,24.
By his Son; our Lord Jesus Christ, who cometh out of the Father as a Son, Joh 1:14; 16:28. He is his bosom Son, nearest his heart, Joh 1:18; the complete Word of him, creating the new world as well as the old, Joh 1:1; his wisdom, who teacheth without any mistake, declaring all of God, being truth itself, and exhibiting of it, what he hath seen as well as heard, Joh 3:11.
Whom; this Son, who naturally issueth from his Father by a Divine and anutterable generation, Pro 8:22-31; 30:4. On him all the Fathers love doth terminate, Col 1:13. He is to be the Founder and Builder of Gods family, propagating being to a holy seed for him, Heb 3:3-6.
He hath appointed; the Father hath chosen and ordained him as God-man to heirship by an inviolable ordinance of his decree, as 1Pe 1:20; compare Eph 1:10; giving him thereby right and title to all things; appointing to him his nature, Heb 2:16, compare Heb 10:5; his offices in this nature, his kingly, Psa 2:6,7, his priestly, Heb 3:1,2, his prophetical, Act 3:22; being heir by nature, as God the Son, and heir by an irresistible ordinance, as God-man Mediator: so as he had a super-added right from the Father, which right he was able to make over to us, but his natural right he could not, Rom 8:17. And he was by solemn investiture put in possession of it at his ascension, when he sat down on the Fathers right hand, Heb 12:2; Mat 28:18; Eph 1:20-22; Phi 2:9-11.
Heir; Lord Proprietor, who hath sovereign and universal power over all, being the firstborn, and receiving the right of it in the whole inheritance, Psa 89:27; Rom 8:29; Col 1:15,18. The lot and portion is fallen to him by Gods law, the heir being Lord of all, Gal 4:1; being heir of his brethren, Psa 2:8, and the builder and purchaser of his inheritance, Rev 5:9-14; compare 1Pe 1:3,4,18,19; possessing the inheritance during his Fathers life, and making all his brethren heirs of it with him.
Of all things; of all things within the compass of God, all that God is, all that God hath, all that God can or will do. All dominions of God, heaven, earth, and hell, are his. He is Lord of angels, Eph 1:21 Col 1:18, and hath made them fellow servants with us, to himself, and ministering guards to us, Heb 1:14; Rev 5:11; 19:10; of devils, to overrule them, who cannot go or come but as he permits them, Mat 8:31 Col 2:15; of saints, Joh 17:13; Rom 8:29; of wicked men, his enemies, 2Th 1:8,9; of all creatures, Col 1:15-17; of all Gods works, spiritual, temporal, past, present, or to come; pardon, peace, righteousness, life, glory; all blessings of all sorts, for time and for eternity. This Son-prophet hath right to, actual possession of, and free and full disposal of them. All, both in law and gospel, his, Moses himself, and all his work, to order, change, and do his pleasure with.
By whom; his Son God-man, a joint cause, a primary and principal agent with the Father, and not a mere instrument, second in working as in relation; by this Word and Wisdom of God, who was the rule and idea of all things, all things were modelled, received their shapes, forms, and distinct beings, Joh 1:1-3; 5:19,20; Col 1:16. In the works of the Trinity, what one relation is said to do the other do, but in their order, answerable to the three principles in every action, wisdom, will, and power.
He made; created and framed, giving being where there was none, causing to subsist; suggesting herein his ability for redemption work. He who made the world can remove it, Heb 11:3.
The worlds; touv aiwnav, scarce to be met with in any part of Scripture but this Epistle; strictly it signifieth ages, and things measured by time; answer it doth to the Hebrew which imports both an age and the world: so ages are here well translated worlds, all creatures and things measured by them. The Scriptures acquaint us with an upper world, and the inhabitants thereof, angels and glorified saints; the heavenly world, Heb 1:10, where the morning stars sang together, Job 38:7; compare Gen 1:1. There is a lower earthly world, with its inhabitants, men, who live on the things in it, Psa 24:1. And there is a regenerate world, the new heavens and new earth made by Christ, and a new sabbath for them, Heb 12:26-28; compare 2Pe 3:13. There is Adams world that now is, this present world, Eph 1:21; and the world to come, which as it is made by, so for, the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, in which he eminently is to reign, Psa 8:5-8; of which see Heb 2:5.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. in these last daysIn theoldest manuscripts the Greek is. “At the last part ofthese days.” The Rabbins divided the whole of time into “thisage,” or “world,” and “the age to come”(Heb 2:5; Heb 6:5).The days of Messiah were the transition period or “last part ofthese days” (in contrast to “in times past”), theclose of the existing dispensation, and beginning of the finaldispensation of which Christ’s second coming shall be the crowningconsummation.
by hisSonGreek, “IN(His) Son” (Joh 14:10).The true “Prophet” of God. “His majesty is set forth:(1) Absolutely by the very name “Son,” and by threeglorious predicates, “whom He hath appointed,” “bywhom He made the worlds,” “who sat down on the right handof the Majesty on high;” thus His course is described from thebeginning of all things till he reached the goal (Heb 1:2;Heb 1:3). (2) Relatively,in comparison with the angels, Heb1:4; the confirmation of this follows, and the very name”Son” is proved at Heb1:5; the “heirship,” Heb1:6-9; the “making the worlds,” Heb1:10-12; the “sitting at the right hand” of God,Heb 1:13; Heb 1:14.”His being made heir follows His sonship, and precededHis making the worlds (Pro 8:22;Pro 8:23; Eph 3:11).As the first begotten, He is heir of the universe (Heb1:6), which He made instrumentally, Heb11:3, where “by the Word of God” answers to “bywhom”‘ (the Son of God) here (Joh1:3). Christ was “appointed” (in God’s eternal counsel)to creation as an office; and the universe so created was assigned toHim as a kingdom. He is “heir of all things” by right ofcreation, and especially by right of redemption. The promise toAbraham that he should be heir of the world had its fulfilment, andwill have it still more fully, in Christ (Rom 4:13;Gal 3:16; Gal 4:7).
worldsthe inferior andthe superior worlds (Col 1:16).Literally, “ages” with all things and persons belonging tothem; the universe, including all space and ages of time, and allmaterial and spiritual existences. The Greek implies, He notonly appointed His Son heir of all things before creation, but Healso (better than “also He”) made by Him the worlds.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,…. This is the Gospel revelation, or the revelation in the Gospel dispensation; which though it comes from the same author the other does, yet in many things differs from it, and is preferable to it; and indeed the general design of this epistle is to show the superior excellency of the one to the other; the former was delivered out in time past, but this “in these last days”; the Alexandrian copy, the Complutensian edition, and several other copies, read, “in the last of these days”: perfectly agreeable to the phrase , used in Ge 49:1 to which the apostle refers, and in which places the days of the Messiah are intended; and it is a rule with the Jews m, that wherever the phrase, “the last days”, is mentioned, the days of the Messiah are designed: and they are to be understood not of the last days of the natural world, but of, the Jewish world and state; indeed the times of the Messiah, or Gospel dispensation, may be called the last days of the natural world, according to the tradition of the house of Elias; which teaches, that the duration of the world will be six thousand years, and divides it into three parts, the last of which is assigned to the Messiah, thus; two thousand years void, (or without the law,) two thousand years the law, and two thousand years the days of the Messiah n: but it is best to understand this of the last days of the Mosaic economy, or Jewish dispensation; for the Messiah was to come before the Jewish civil and church states were dissolved; before the sceptre departed from Judah, and before the second temple was destroyed; and he was to come at the end, or toward the close of both these states; and which is called the end, or ends of the world, Hab 2:3 and quickly after Jesus, the true Messiah was come, an end was put to both these: from whence it may be observed, that the Messiah must be come; that the Mosaic economy, and Jewish worship, will never be restored again; that the Gospel revelation being made in the last days, ought to be regarded the more, it being the last revelation God will ever make. Moreover, this differs from the former in this respect, that was made to the fathers, this “to us”; meaning either the apostles in particular, or the Jews in general, to whom the apostle is writing: this shows that the Gospel revelation was first made to the Jews; and it being made to them personally, they were under great obligation to regard it; and that God had not cast off his people; and that though he had greatly indulged their fathers, he had showed greater favour to them, having provided some better thing for them: and there is a difference between these two revelations in the manner in which they were made; the former was at sundry times, and in divers manners, the latter was made at once, and in one way; that was delivered out in parts, and by piece meal, this the whole together; the whole mind and will of God, all his counsel, all that Christ heard of the Father; it is the faith that was once, and at once, delivered to the saints; and it has been given out in one way, by the preaching of the word: to which may be added, that formerly God spoke by many persons, by the prophets, but now by one only, “by his Son”; who is so not by creation, nor by adoption, nor by office, but by nature; being his own Son, his proper Son, begotten of him, of the same nature with him, and equal to him; and so infinitely preferable to the prophets: he is a Son, and not a servant, in whom the Father is, and he in the Father, and in whom the Spirit is without measure; and God is said to speak by him, or in him, because he was now incarnate; and what he says from God should be attended to, both on account of the dignity of his person, as the Son of God, and because of the authority he came with as Mediator: whom he hath appointed heir of all things; which must be understood of him not as God, and Creator; for as such he has a right to all things; all that the Father has are his; the kingdom of nature and providence belongs to him, he being the Former and Maker of all things; but as Mediator, who has all things committed to him, to subserve the ends of his office; and has a kingdom appointed him, and which he will deliver up again the word all may refer either to persons or things; to persons, not angels, good or bad, though both are subject to him, yet neither are called his inheritance; but elect men, who are his portion, and the lot of his inheritance; and to things relating to these persons, and for their use and service, in time, and to all eternity; as all temporal things, and all spiritual ones, the blessings and promises of the covenant of grace, the gifts and graces of the Spirit, and eternal glory and happiness, the saints’ inheritance, who are joint heirs with Christ.
By whom also he made the worlds; this is said in agreement with the notions of the Jews, and their way of speaking, who make mention of three worlds, which they call, the upper world (the habitation of God), the middle world (the air), and the lower world o (the earth); and sometimes they call them the world of angels (where they dwell), the world of orbs (where the sun, moon, and stars are), and the world below p (on which we live); and it is frequent in their writings, and prayer books q, to call God , “Lord of all worlds”; [See comments on Heb 11:3], these God made by his Son, not as an instrument, but as an efficient cause with him; for by him were all things made, whether visible or invisible; and the preposition “by” does not always denote instrumentality, but sometimes efficiency; and is used of God the Father himself, and in this epistle, Heb 2:10.
m Kimchi & Aben Ezra in Isa. ii. 2. n T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 97. 1. o Tzeror Hammor, fol. 1. 4. & 3. 2, 3. Caphtor, fol. 79. 1. p Tzeror Hammor, fol. 83. 2. Caphtor, fol. 90. 1. q Seder Tephillot, fol. 5. 2. & 40. 2. Ed. Amstelod.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
At the end of these days (‘ ). In contrast with above.
Hath spoken (). First aorist indicative of , the same verb as above, “did speak” in a final and full revelation.
In his Son ( ). In sharp contrast to . “The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ” (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition , giving the absolute sense of “Son.” Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God’s Son who reveals the Father (Joh 1:18). “The revelation was a son-revelation” (Vincent).
Hath appointed (). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of , a timeless aorist.
Heir of all things ( ). See Mr 12:6 for in Christ’s parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt). The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Gal 4:7; Rom 8:17). See the claim of Christ in Matt 11:27; Matt 28:18 even before the Ascension.
Through whom (‘ ). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent () in the work of creation as we have it in Col 1:16; John 1:3.
The worlds ( ). “The ages” (secula, Vulgate). See 11:3 also where = (the world) or the universe like (the all things) in Heb 1:3; Rom 11:36; Col 1:16. The original sense of (from , always) occurs in Heb 5:20, but here “by metonomy of the container for the contained” (Thayer) for “the worlds” (the universe) as in LXX, Philo, Josephus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
In these last times [] . Lit. at the last of these days. The exact phrase only here; but comp 1Pe 5:20 and Jude 1:18. LXX, ejp’ ejscatou twn hJmerwn at the last of the days, Num 24:14; Deu 4:30; Jer 23:20; Jer 25:18; Dan 10:14. The writer conceives the history of the world in its relation to divine revelation as falling into two great periods. The first he calls aiJ hJmerai au=tai these days (i. 2), and oj kairov oJ ejnesthkwv the present season (ix. 9). The second he describes as kairov diorqwsewv the season of reformation (ix. 10), which is oj kairov oJ mellwn the season to come : comp. hJ oijkoumenh hJ mellousa the world to come (ii. 5); mellwn aijwn the age to come (vi. 5); poliv hJ mellousa the city to come (xii. 14). The first period is the period of the old covenant; the second that of the new covenant. The second period does not begin with Christ ‘s first appearing. His appearing and public ministry are at the end of the first period but still within it. The dividing – point between the two periods is the sunteleia tou aijwnov the consummation of the age, mentioned in Heb 9:26. This does not mean the same thing as at the last of these days (i. 2), which is the end of the first period denoted by these days, but the conclusion of the first and the beginning of the second period, at which Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. This is the end of the kairov ejnesthkwv the present season : this is the limit of the validity of the old sacrificial offerings : this is the inauguration of the time of reformation. The phrase ejp’ ejscatou twn hJmerwn toutwn therefore signifies, in the last days of the first period, when Christ was speaking on earth, and before his crucifixion, which marked the beginning of the second period, the better age of the new covenant.
Hath spoken unto us [ ] . Rend. spake, referring to the time of Christ ‘s teaching in the flesh. To us God spake as to the fathers of old.
By his son [ ] . Lit. in a son. Note the absence of the article. Attention is directed, not to Christ ‘s divine personality, but to his filial relation. While the former revelation was given through a definite class, the prophets, the new revelation is given through one who is a son as distinguished from a prophet. He belongs to another category. The revelation was a son – revelation. See ch. Heb 2:10 – 18. Christ ‘s high priesthood is the central fact of the epistle, and his sonship is bound up with his priesthood. See ch. Heb 5:5. For a similar use of uiJov son without the article, applied to Christ, see ch. Heb 3:6; Heb 5:8; Heb 7:28.
Whom he hath appointed heir of all things [ ] . For eqhken appointed, see on Joh 14:16. For klhronomov heir, see on inheritance, lPe 1:4; and comp. on Christ as heir, Mr 12:1 – 12. God eternally predestined the Son to be the possessor and sovereign of all things. Comp. Psa 89:28. Heirship goes with sonship. See Rom 8:17; Gal 4:7. Christ attained the messianic lordship through incarnation. Something was acquired as the result of his incarnation which he did not possess before it, and could not have possessed without it. Equality with God was his birthright, but out of his human life, death, and resurrection came a type of sovereignty which could pertain to him only through his triumph over human sin in the flesh (see ver. 3), through his identification with men as their brother. Messianic lordship could not pertain to his preincarnate state : it is a matter of function, not of inherent power and majesty. He was essentially Son of God; he must become Son of man.
By whom also he made the worlds [ ] . Dia commonly expresses secondary agency, but, in some instances, it is used of God ‘s direct agency. See 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Gal 4:7. Christ is here represented as a mediate agency in creation. The phrase is, clearly, colored by the Alexandrian conception, but differs from it in that Christ is not represented as a mere instrument, a passive tool, but rather as a cooperating agent. “Every being, to reach existence, must have passed through the thought and will of the Logos” (Godet); yet “the Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father doing” (Joh 5:19). With this passage Col 1:16 should be studied. There it is said that all things, collectively [ ] , were created in him [ ] and through him (di’ aujtou as here). The former expression enlarges and completes the latter. Di’ aujtou represents Christ as the mediate instrument. jEn aujtw indicates that “all the laws and purposes which guide the creation and government of the universe reside in him, the Eternal Word, as their meeting – point.” 164 Comp. Joh 1:3; 1Co 8:6. For touv aijwnav the worlds, see additional note on 2Th 1:9. Rend. for by whom also he made, by whom he also made. The emphasis is on made, not on worlds : on the fact of creation, not on what was created. In the writer’s thought heirship goes with creation. Christ is heir of what he made, and because he made it. As pantwn, in the preceding clause, regards all things taken singly, aijwnav regards them in cycles. jAiwnas does not mean times, as if representing the Son as the creator of all time and times, but creation unfolded in time through successive aeons. All that, in successive periods of time, has come to pass, has come to pass through him. Comp. 1Co 10:11; Eph 3:21; Heb 9:26; 1Ti 1:17; LXX, Tob. 13 6, 10; Ecc 3:11. See also Clement of Rome, Ad Corinth. 35, oJ dhmiourgov kai pathr twn aijwnwn the Creator and Father of the ages. Besides this expression, the writer speaks of the world as kosmov (Heb 4:3; Heb 10:5); hJ oijkoumenh (i. 6), and ta panta (i. 3).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Hath in these last days spoken unto us,” (ep’ eschatou ton hemeron touton elalesen hemin) ”Spoke to us in these last days;” Our Creator, our refuge, our daily sustaining God, has condescended to speak to us in these last days,” days of the Gentile era and church age. This God spoke audibly from heaven saying, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him,” Mat 17:5; Mar 9:7; Luk 9:35.
2) “By his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,” (en huio hon etheken kleronomon panton) “In (a) Son (manner), (Even by him) whom he appointed, assigned, or designated heir restorer of all things; Luk 1:30-33; Rom 8:17; 1Co 15:24-28. The Father “Loved the Son and committed all things into his hands,” Joh 3:35; Heb 2:6; Heb 2:8.
3) “By whom also he made the worlds,” (di hou kai eposiesen tous aionas) “Through whom even or also he made, formed, fixed, or laid out the ages; Joh 1:1-3; 1Co 8:6; Col 1:16, Jesus was the agent of the lay-out of the ages, the person by whom all creation came to exist.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. Whom he has appointed, heir, etc. He honors Christ with high commendations, in order to lead us to show him reverence; for since the Father has subjected all things to him, we are all under his authority. He also intimates that no good can be found apart from him, as he is the heir of all things. It hence follows that we must be very miserable and destitute of all good things except he supplies us with his treasures. He further adds that this honor of possessing all things belongs by right to the Son, because by him have all things been created. At the same time, these two things (10) are ascribed to Christ for different reasons.
The world was created by him, as he is the eternal wisdom of God, which is said to have been the director of all his works from the beginning; and hence is proved the eternity of Christ, for he must have existed before the world was created by him. If, then, the duration of his time be inquired of, it will be found that it has no beginning. Nor is it any derogation to his power that he is said to have created the world, as though he did not by himself create it. According to the most usual mode of speaking in Scripture, the Father is called the Creator; and it is added in some places that the world was created by wisdom, by the word, by the Son, as though wisdom itself had been the creator, [or the word, or the Son.] But still we must observe that there is a difference of persons between the Father and the Son, not only with regard to men, but with regard to God himself. But the unity of essence requires that whatever is peculiar to Deity should belong to the Son as well as to the Father, and also that whatever is applied to God only should belong to both; and yet there is nothing in this to prevent each from his own peculiar properties.
But the word heir is ascribed to Christ as manifested in the flesh; for being made man, he put on our nature, and as such received this heirship, and that for this purpose, that he might restore to us what we had lost in Adam. For God had at the beginning constituted man, as his Son, the heir of all good things; but through sin the first man became alienated from God, and deprived himself and his posterity of all good things, as well as of the favor of God. We hence only then begin to enjoy by right the good things of God, when Christ, the universal heir, admits to a union with himself; for he is an heir that he may endow us with his riches. But the Apostle now adorns him with this title, that we may know that without him we are destitute of all good things.
If you take all in the masculine gender, the meaning is, that we ought all to be subject to Christ, because we have been given to him by the Father. But I prefer reading it in the neuter gender; then it means that we are driven from the legitimate possession of all things, both in heaven and on earth, except we be united to Christ.
(10) That is, heirship and creation.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) Hath in these last days . . .Better, at the end of these days spake unto us in a Son. The thought common to the two verses is God hath spoken to man; in all other respects the past and the present stand contrasted. The manifold successive partial disclosures of Gods will have given place to one revelation, complete and final; for He who spake in the prophets hath now spoken in a Son. The whole stress lies on these last words. The rendering a Son may at first cause surprise, but it is absolutely needed; not, Who is the Revealer? but, What is He? is the question answered in these words. The writer does not speak of a Son in the sense of one out of many; the very contrast with the prophets (who in the lower sense were amongst Gods sons) would be sufficient to prove this, but the words which follow, and the whole contents of this chapter, are designed to show the supreme dignity of Him who is Gods latest Representative on earth. The prophets commission extended no farther than the special message of his words and life; a Son spoke with His Fathers authority, with complete knowledge of His will and purpose. It is impossible to read these first lines (in which the whole argument of the Epistle is enfolded) without recalling the prologue of the fourth Gospel. The name Word is not mentioned here, and the highest level of St. Johns teaching is not reached; but the idea which the Word expresses, and the thought of the Only Begotten as declaring and interpreting the Father (Joh. 1:18; also Joh. 14:10; Joh. 14:24) are present throughout. There is something unusual in the words, at the end of these days. St. Peter speaks of the manifestation of Christ at the end of the times (1Pe. 1:20); and both in the Old Testament and in the New we not unfrequently read at the end (or, in the last) of the days. (See 2Pe. 3:3; Jud. 1:18; Num. 24:14; Dan. 10:14, &c.) The peculiarity of the expression here lies in these days. The ages preceding and following the appearance of Messiah are in Jewish writers known as this world (or, age) and the coming world (or, age); the days of Messiah seem to have been classed sometimes with the former, sometimes with the latter period; but the end of these days would be understood by every Jewish reader to denote the time of His appearing.
Whom he hath appointed.Better, whom He appointed: in the divine counsels He was constituted Heir of all things. The clauses which follow describe the successive steps in the accomplishment of this purpose. The words have often been understood as referring to the Sons essential Lordship: as Eternal Son He is and must be Heir of all. But this explanation is less consistent with the word appointed, with the strict significance of Heir, and with the development of the thought in the following verses; and it is on all grounds more probable that in these words is expressed the great theme of the Epistle, the consummation of all things in the Christ.
By whom.Rather, through whom. So in Joh. 1:3 we read that all things came into being through the Word; and in Col. 1:16, All things have been created through Him. In this manner Philo repeatedly describes the creative work of the Logos. Here, however, this mediatorial function has entirely changed its character. To the Alexandrian Jew it was the work of a passive tool or instrument; but to the Christian Apostle it represented a co-operating agent (Lightfoot on Col. 1:16).
The worlds.A word of very common occurrence in the New Testament as a designation of time occurs in two passages of this Epistle (here and in Heb. 11:3) where the context shows more than age to be intended. Under time is included the work that is done in time, so that the ages here must be (to quote Delitzschs words) the immeasurable content of immeasurable time. Also may seem an unnecessary addition, but (almost in the sense accordingly) it points to creation as the first step towards the fulfilment of the design expressed in the preceding clause.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. These last days The English gives accurately the general sense of the peculiar phrase, ’ , the ultimatum or finality of these days. We take it that ’ , at the finality, is the true antithesis to time past, or of old; and that of these days defines the finality as consisting of these Messianic, in contrast to the old prophetic, days. So Delitzsch defines the phrase as signifying “for our author here, as for Peter, (1Pe 1:20,) that ‘last time’ which he viewed as already begun, and as in process of unfolding itself before his eyes.”
His Son Greek, a son. The old seers were but prophets; this last is no less than a son. But inferentially, as the prophets were his prophets, so the son is no less than his Son. And how lofty a being, how infinitely superior to the prophets of old is this Son, Paul proceeds to unfold. Render the whole sentence thus: In many parts and by many methods God, having spoken to the fathers in the olden time by the prophets, has in the finality, consisting of these days, spoken unto us by a Son. There is in the sentence an elegant antithesis, consisting of a series of neatly adjusted contrastive terms. Compare remarks on Paul’s rhythmical passages in our vol. iii, p. 287, and our note on Rom 1:1. Perhaps there is not another as finely rounded a period in this epistle as this introductory one.
In the sublime three descriptive clauses that follow, the writer goes deeper and deeper at each step, if we may so express it, back into eternity. He traces his predicates regressively. First, the Son’s heirship of all things; preceded by his creation of all things; and that preceded by his inmost emanative identity with the divine Essence. The predicate phrase, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, is based upon, by whom also he made the worlds; and that upon the being and upholding of Heb 1:3, all furnishing a description of the infinite superiority of the eternal Son.
And, undoubtedly, we must here avail ourselves of the important distinction between “the order of nature” and “the order of time.” One eternal may, in the order of nature, precede another eternal. An eternal cause eternally precedes an eternal effect, as an eternal Father precedes an eternal Son. God’s eternal nature and person precede in order his foreknowledge, as his foreknowledge precedes his predeterminations. So the heirship of Christ, if eternal, is preceded by his creation of the worlds, which means not merely the production of planets and earths, but the eternal self-revelation of God in production of creature existence. And this creation is preceded by God’s self-expression in the eternal Word; or, as it is otherwise mentally conceived, the generation by the Father of the Son.
We are now prepared to answer the questions here aroused before the commentators, When did the Son become heir of all things? And what are the all things of which he became heir? To the first question the answer has been made by many annotators that his heirship took place at the resurrection and ascension. And undoubtedly it did take place, for the divine-human Son, at that time; but that was only an objectivizing of the eternal heirship of the Logos of John and the Son of our present writer. More erroneous is the answer of some commentators, that it was an heirship in God’s eternal purpose, as if the Logos by whom (Joh 1:3) every thing became existent which has become, were not eternal Son, and, if Son, then heir. The back-ground of the divine Essence becomes manifest through the Word resulting in creation; which is existence different from the divine Being.
Heir Not simply lord, possessor, (which would be true of the Father,) but derived possessor, as Son of a Father, though a Father that never dies.
All things Not only earth, planets, suns, fixed stars, and nebulae, but all the real universe of which these are but external glimpses perceptible to our little optics. Were we endowed with an additional number of senses, vast additional volumes of God’s created universe would open before our perceptions and our knowledge.
Worlds All the mundane systems of which the universe ever consisted. As between the two terms, cosmos, frame-world, and aeon, time-world, the latter is here used. So that the term worlds, here, first suggests systems successive in time, and then by secondary implication, takes in their space-filling or frame-work character, if such they have. So, also, is the same word used at Heb 11:3. That this is the meaning is absolutely proved by ver.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘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 12). 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.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘Whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds (ages).’
And Who is this One Who has come? He is not only ‘Son’, but both Son and Heir. Before time began He was ‘appointed heir of all things.’ Everything has been promised to Him, whether in heaven or earth. He is destined to receive ‘all things’, everything that exists, an assurance which will come to its climax at His final coming. Nothing will be excluded, except the One Who will subject all things to Him (1Co 15:27), the One Who is the Ultimate Being.
We note that this appointment seemingly comes before the creation of the world, otherwise we would expect the clauses to be the other way round. It was in the eternal reaches of heaven, before creation ever was, that in the counsel of God this appointment was made. For nothing that was to come would take God by surprise. It was all known and purposed beforehand. Just as Jesus was ‘delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ (Act 2:23; 1Pe 1:20), so did He first come in that counsel and foreknowledge in order to be delivered up, and so was His appointment as heir one that was from eternity (Eph 1:4; 2Ti 1:9).
We note here the use of the term ‘heir’. It must be interpreted correctly. It is a reminder that, when we are describing eternal things, earthly terminology has to be considered carefully. For God would not either die or retire. Just as with the term ‘son’, where we must not ask ‘when was he born’, for He ‘was’ in the beginning from all eternity (Joh 1:1-3), so when He is called ‘heir’ we must recognise what it is saying, that all will be His, but not that the Godhead as a whole will cease to be over all. (Whoever heard of an heir handing everything back? – 1Co 15:24).
‘Through whom also He made the worlds.’ The word for ‘worlds’ actually originally first meant ‘ages’. But it came to mean ‘that which contained the ages’, that is the physical world (compare Heb 11:3 where this is specific and crystal clear). Only the context in each can therefore tell us what is being indicated in that particular context.
So the One Who was appointed ‘heir of all things’ (of the whole universe in totality) was also the One through Whom God made the worlds. They were destined for Him and He then made them. It is telling us that it was through Jesus Christ, for Whom they were destined, that He created all things and all ages. He was the Word Who spoke and it was done, and He did so in the course of His appointment as heir of all things, to give Him the more of which He would be heir. He was to be heir of both Heaven and earth. We note then that His creative act was subsidiary to His Appointment over all things, for that included all heavenly worlds as well as creation.
But why should He be heir? Was not all His from the beginning? Yes, indeed it was, as Lord and as Creator. But by the rebellion of angels and of men it had in a sense been wrested from Him. His gift of freewill had resulted in the sin of angels and of men. The establishment of morality, the ‘making and willing with determination’ of the ‘right’ choice in all freewill decisions, necessary if beings were to be truly themselves, had resulted in immorality and rebellion, in ‘knowing (by experience) good and evil’, because angels and men deliberately chose wrongly. And therefore the position had now to be restored, by the deliverance wrought by Him, through sacrifice, of those whom God chose and effectually called from among those who sinned, of His ‘elect’ (1Pe 1:1-2), and the destruction of those who had rebelled and who refused to yield.
He could, of course, have destroyed all who failed instantly. But then His purposes to establish a freewill ‘Universe’ would have failed, and there would be none to enjoy it. Thus it was necessary for the process to carry through so that that end might be achieved for the good of all who responded.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 1:2. Hath in these last days, &c. This latter age of the world, or the days of the Messiah. By his Son, must here mean emphatically, “By his Son, as incarnate, and appearing in the human nature;” nor can any argument be gathered from hence, that God spoke not by the ministration of the Logos, or second Person, before; but only, that he spoke not in so clear and express a manner. The word heir signifies properly “one who hath a right to succeed to what another has in possession, after his death;” but this cannot be the meaning of the word in this place, as it is impossible for the God and Father of all to die; and therefore it is used in the sense of possessor or lord, as the ancient classics and lawyers use it: and thus it implies the same with what our Saviour says, Mat 28:18. All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. See Gal 4:1. Act 2:36. The apostle here lays down the assertion which he undertakes to prove, namely, that God had constituted his Son Jesus heir or Lord of all things. Having mentioned this, he just gives a hint or two of the greatness of his character, and then returns to his main assertion, pursuing it closely in the latter part of the chapter, and shewing that the angels themselves, the higher order of beings, are not only infinitely inferior to him, but subject to his jurisdiction.
By whom also he made the worlds All the Greek fathers unanimously say, this shews the divinity of Christ. The Socinians by the worlds here understand the new creation, or the church begun by Christ’s ministry upon earth, begotten and renewed by the evangelical dispensation. But this exposition cannot possibly stand; for, 1. Though Christ be stiled in some of the Greek versions, Isa 9:6. The Father of the age to come, yet the phrase , absolutely put, does never signify the church or evangelical state; nor does the scripture ever speak of the world to come in the plural, but in the singular number only, preserving the phrase Holam Habba, as they received it from the Jews. 2. Were this the import of the words, the worlds might as well have been said to have been created or made by Christ’s apostles, they being the great converters of the world; or at least, this being done by them assisted by the power of Christ, after he had been thus made heir of all things, it must have properly been said that Christ made the worlds by his apostles, which yet the Holy Ghost never thinks fit to intimate. Moreover, whereas this making of the world by Jesus Christ, is done by his prophetic office, that is to say, his speaking to us in the last days, the apostle had mentioned this already, and makes a plain gradation from it to his kingly office, in saying that he was constituted Lord of all things, not speaking of making the world by way of consequence, thus, and by whom; but by way of farther gradation, by whom also he made the worlds; as if he had said, Nor is it to be wondered that he should be constituted Lord of the whole world, seeing he made the whole. And that the apostle here speaks, not of the reforming of the new, but of the forming of the old world, he himself sufficiently instructs us, by saying in this same epistle, by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, Chap. Heb 11:3. For that by the phrase , we are to understand the material world, the Socinian commentators grant. This was the doctrine of all the primitive fathers from the beginning, as well as of all the early commentators on this text. St. Barnabas declares, that he is the Lord of the world, the maker of the sun, the Person by whom, and to whom are all things. He is, says Justin Martyr, the word by which the heaven, the earth, and every creature was made, by whom God at the beginning made and ordained all things, viz. the heavens and the earth; and by whom he will renew them. This Irenaeus delivers as the rule of faith contained in the scripture, which they who hold to, may easily prove that the heretics had deviated from the truth. He adds, that the barbarians who held the ancient tradition, did believe in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein, by Jesus Christ the Son of God; and this doctrine he repeats almost a hundred times elsewhere. Our doctrine, says Athenagoras, celebrates one God the Creator of all things, who made all things by Jesus Christ, from whom, and by whom all things were made. God, says Theophilus, made all things by him, and he is called the beginning, because he is the principle, and ruler of all things made by him. He adds, that by this principle God made the heavens: that God said to him, Let us make man; he being his word, by which he made all things. We rational creatures, says Clemens of Alexandria; are the work of God the word; for he was and is the divine principle of all things, by whom all things were made, and who, as the Framer of all things, in the beginning, gave also life to us; by whom are all things; who made man, our God and Maker, the cause of the creation. In the third century we learn the same from Origen, Tertullian, Novatian, St. Cyprian, and others, cited by the learned Dr. Bull. So that in these two verses there are visibly these gradations; one from Christ’s prophetic office, to his kingly office conferred on him as heir of all things; the other, from his kingly office to the foundation of it, laid in his divine nature, and in the work of the creation; it being, say Irenaeus and the ancient fathers, fit that he should reform and govern the world, by whom it was formed: that he should give new life to man, who gave him his being, and first breath.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 1:2 . As far as , Heb 1:3 . The dignity of the Son as the premundane Logos.
with double accusative, in the sense of , is no Hebraism ( , ), but is very frequent with the classics. Comp. e.g. Herodian, Hist. v. 7. 10 : , ; Xenophon, Cyrop. iv. 6. 3 : ; Aelian, Var. Hist. xiii. 6; Homer, Odyss. ix. 404, al. Comp. also Elsner ad loc.; Khner, II. p. 226.
, however, has reference not so much to the time when Christ, having completed the work of redemption, has returned to the Father in heaven (so the Greek expositors; and in like manner Primasius, Erasmus (Paraphr.), Calvin, Cameron, Corn. a Lapide, Grotius, Schlichting, Calov, Hammond, Braun, Limborch, Storr, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr. p. 295 ff.; [30] Maier, Moll, and others), but relates to the appointment made in the eternal decree of God before all time; thus has reference to Christ as the premundane Logos. This application is required in order to a due proportion with the declarations immediately following, and to the logical development of the well thought-out periods, in which the discourse reaches the exaltation of the incarnate Redeemer only with , Heb 1:3 . The idea of the pre-existence of Christ or the Son of God as the eternal Logos with its nearer definitions, as this comes forth here and in that which immediately follows, is the same as is met with also in Paul’s writings. Comp. Col 1:15 ff.; Phi 2:6 ; 1Co 8:6 ; 1Co 10:4 ; 1Co 15:47 ; 2Co 4:4 ; 2Co 8:9 . Yet, in the shaping of this idea on the part of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, not only the teaching of Paul, but likewise the Logos-speculations of Philo, with whose writings the Epistle to the Hebrews has manifold points in common, have not been without influence.
] heir, i.e. (future) Possessor and Lord of all things , namely, of the world. Chrysostom: , , , . Comp. Gal 4:7 ; Rom 8:17 .
] by whom . Grammatically unwarranted, Grotius: propter quern ( ). Comp. also Heb 2:10 .
] The emphasis falls upon the word , on that account preposed, while only takes up again under a varying form a notion already expressed in that which precedes, and indicates no heightening of the expression ( even , or more than this ; Wolf and others), but is intended to bring out the accordance between the statement in the second relative clause and that in the first; so that the fact that by the Son the were created is made to follow as something quite natural, from the fact that He was by God constituted (by whom He also created, etc.). Wrongly does Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 298 f.) invert the relation of the two members indicated by , in finding out the sense: “the installation of the Son in the office of the world’s dominion is in entire accordance with the fact that by the Son the world was created; in other words, from the relation of the Son to God and the world, revealed in the latter fact, His installation in the office of the world’s dominion presents nothing extraordinary, but rather appears something which we could not at all expect to be otherwise.” [So in substance Owen, who seeks to combine the two meanings of .] Had this been meant, then , must have been written. For the of the second clause accentuates the fact that what follows is in accord with that which precedes, not that what precedes is in accord with that which follows. Comp. Phi 3:20 , where by means of the fact that we expect the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven as a deliverer is represented as something quite natural, since our is in heaven; but not conversely is the fact that our is in heaven deduced from the presupposition of our expecting Christ from thence.
] does not here denote the ages; either in such wise that the totality of the periods of time from the creation of the world to its close is meant (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Daniel Heinsius), for this thought would be too abstract; or in such wise that the two main periods in the world’s history the pre-Messianic and the Messianic are to be understood thereby (Paulus, Stein), for in connection with the absolute no one could have thought of this special division into two parts. Nor must we either apprehend of the Aeons in the sense of the Gnostics (Amelius in Wolf, Fabricius, Cod. Apocryph. N. T . I. p. 710); for at the time when our author wrote this notion of the word did not yet exist. is to be understood of the worlds , of the totality of all things existing in time (and space), so that it is identical with the preceding and the following of Heb 1:3 . , it is true, has always with the classics the strict notion of duration of time; but, as in the case of the Hebrew , this notion might easily pass over into the wider notion of that which forms the visible contents of time, thus into that of the complex of all created things. This interpretation is confirmed by the reading of Heb 11:3 , where cannot possibly be used in any other sense.
As parallel passages to this second relative clause of Heb 1:2 , expressing the thought of a creation of the universe by the premundane Son of God, comp. in Paul’s writings, Col 1:16 ; 1Co 8:6 ; in those of John, Joh 1:3 ; Joh 1:10 . Philo, too, supposes the world was created by the Logos, as the earliest or first-born Son of God. Comp. de Cherubim , p. 129 (ed. Mangey, I. p. 162): , , , , , , , [ .
De Monarch . lib. ii. p. 823 B (ed. Mangey, II. p. 225): , .
Legg. allegor . lib. iii. p. 79 A (ed. Mangey, I. p. 106): , .
[30] According to Riehm, the author first (ver. 2) glanced at the final point of the power of the Redeemer, and then at the beginning thereof, and after this (ver. 3) described the way to that final point with respect to the beginning. But however delicate and acute this conception of the subject, it is too greatly refined and artificial. In point of simplicity and naturalness it falls short of the view that at vv. 2, 3 the various phases of the life of Christ are described in their historic succession, so that only in connection with the intermediate member
. . ., ver. 3 ( see on the verse ) there resounds throughout, in addition to the main reference to an earlier condition of the life of Christ, at the same time the subordinate reference to a later condition of His life. That which Riehm urges in support of his own view, and in refutation of the opposite one, is easily disposed of. When he thinks, in the first place, that only by his apprehension the whole structure of the period becomes thoroughly clear, this is already shown to be inaccurate by the fact that the simple is always more clear than the complex. For even if it be admitted in some respects that a new division of thought begins with the , ver. 3, which specially brings into relief the subject, whereas before was the subject, yet nothing is to be inferred from this, because the character of the relative statements, ver. 2, is not changed thereby, inasmuch as the reference to God assuredly appears in the third relative clause, namely, in , ver. 4. When Riehm further contends that in his explanation ver. 2 agrees much better with that which precedes, inasmuch as by the , ver. 1, the historic Christ is confessedly to be understood, but now an inexplicable leap in the thought would arise, if the author had first ascribed to the historic Christ a number of predicates, which were appropriate to Him only as the premundane Logos, and should only afterwards speak of His present glory, this contention is already sufficiently refuted by the wholly parallel procedure of the Apostle Paul, Phi 2:5 ff., who likewise takes his departure from the historic Christ, and then, in the same order which Riehm calls an “inexplicable leap in the thought,” attaches thereto further statements with regard to the person of the Redeemer. Moreover, in our passage the order of succession censured as an “inexplicable leap in the thought” is perfectly justified, because , ver. 1, is the total expression, which, as such, includes in itself all the stadia in the life of Christ; and thus from it one might proceed with equal justice immediately to the premundane Christ as to the exalted Christ. If Riehm further supposes that in connection with the appointment as heir, ver. 2, we cannot think of a destination made in the eternal decree of God, then the analogous declaration of Scripture: , Rom 4:17 , already proves the opposite; and if he finds the expression appropriate only to the incarnate Son, inasmuch as the name could hardly otherwise occur in connection with than in reference to a possession which the once had not, there underlies this objection only this amount of truth, namely, that the expression no doubt includes in itself a reference pointing to the future; but that which it is designed to express by the first relative clause is assuredly also only the thought that Christ was in the ideal sense before all time appointed or made something, which in the real sense He could only be in the full extent at the end of all time. When, finally, Riehm believes that , ver. 2, must be understood of the dominion of the exalted Christ, for the reason that the passage Heb 1:8-9 , bearing upon the dominion of the exalted Christ, is supposed to refer back to those words, this is altogether erroneous, since a special referring back on the part of Heb 1:8-9 to the opening proposition of ver. 2 is not by any means to be admitted. See below, the analysis of contents of vv. 5 14.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 1:2-4 . The author unfolds the idea of superiority contained in , Heb 1:1 , in sketching a brief portraiture in full of the Son of God, and setting vividly before the readers the incomparable dignity of this Son, as manifested in each single one of the various periods of His life.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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;
Ver. 2. Hath in these last days ] God doth his best works last (our last also should be our best, as Thyatira’s, Rev 2:19 ); the sweetest of honey lies in the bottom. Contrarily, Satan (Laban-like) shows himself at parting; and (as the panther doth the wild beasts) inveigleth silly souls (into sin), and then devoureth them,Jas 1:14-15Jas 1:14-15 1Pe 5:8 .
Heir of all things ] Be married to this heir, and have all. Ubi tu Caius, ego Caia, may the Shulamite say to her husband, as the Roman ladies said to theirs.
By whom also he made the worlds ] Visible and invisible, Col 1:16 ; or the ages under the Old and New Testament; which last Heb 2:5 he calleth the world to come.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 .] whom He constituted (aor., not perfect, referring, as also , to the the date of the eternal counsel of God.
with this double accusative is commonly reputed a Hebraism. But as Bleek remarks, our Epistle is singularly free from Hebraistic constructions, and there is in fact no reason whatever for deducing our present expression from such a source. Elsner gives from Xen. de Rep. Lac. p. 684, : Arrian. Epict. p. 264, : Eur. Hec. 722: and Bleek from Xen. Cyr. iv. 6. 2, ) heir ( , , , . Chrys.: and so Thl. “Convenienter statim sub Filii nomen memoratur hreditas.” Bengel. That . is not equivalent to simply, is plain: the same expression could not, as Bleek well remarks, have been used of the Father. It is in virtue of the Sonship of our Lord that the Father constituted Him heir of all things, before the worlds began. “In Him also,” says Delitzsch, “culminates the fulfilment of the promise given to the seed of Abraham, .” See below. See for St. Paul’s use of the word and image, reff.: and Gal 4:7 ) of all things (neuter: , , Chr. And we cannot give this a more limited sense, nor restrict it to this world; especially as the subsequent portion of the chapter distinctly includes the angels in it. It is much disputed whether this heirship of Christ is to be conceived as belonging to Him essentially in his divine nature, or as accruing to Him from his work of redemption in the human nature. The Fathers, and the majority of the moderns, decide for the latter alternative. So Chrys., and even more emphatically Thdrt.: , . , . , . And so the Socinian and quasi-Socinian interpreters, arriving at the same view by another way, not believing the pr-existence of Christ. But it is plain that such an interpretation will not suit the requirements of the passage. For this humiliation of his, with its effects, first comes in at the end of Heb 1:3 . All this, now adduced, is referable to his essential Being as Son of God; not merely in the Godhead before his Incarnation, but also in the Manhood after it, which no less formed a part of His ‘constitution’ by the Father, than his Godhead itself. So that the , as observed above, must be taken not as an appointment in prospect of the Incarnation, but as an absolute appointment, coincident with the , belonging to the eternal Sonship of the Lord, though wrought out in full by his mediatorial work. Delitzsch contends for its exclusive application to the exaltation of Christ in his historical manifestation, beginning with the creation of the world: but I cannot see that he has proved his point), by whom (see ref. John: as His acting Power and personal instrument: so Thl., aft. Chrys.: , , . , . The idea of Grotius, fortified by a misrendering of Beza’s, Rom 6:4 , that “ , per quem , videtur hic recte accipi posse pro , propter quem ,” is only worth recording, to make us thankful that the labours of the great scholars of Germany have brought in a day when it no longer needs refutation) He also made ( created . According to the ancient arrangement of the words, adopted in the text, the word brought into emphasis by is not , but . And so Bengel, “Emphasis particul , et , cadit super verbum fecit , hoc sensu: Filium non solum definiit hredem rerum omnium, ante creationem: sed etiam fecit per eum scula”) the ages (the meaning of has been much disputed. The main classes of interpreters are two. 1. Those who see in the word its ordinary meaning of “ an age of time ;” 2. those who do not recognize such meaning, but suppose it to have been merged in that of “ the world ,” or “ the worlds .” To (1) belong the Greek Fathers: Chrys. (see however note on ch. Heb 11:3 ), Thdrt. ( . , , , . ‘ ’ . This he then supports by Mat 28:20 ; Psa 89:8 , LXX: Eph 1:21 ; Eph 2:7 ; and concludes, . , , ), Thl. ( , ; , ;), c. &c., and Thom. Aquin., and Heinsius. On the other hand, (2) is the view of the majority of Commentators. It is explained and defended at length by Bleek, none of whose examples however seem to me to be void of the same ambiguity which characterizes the expression here. The Jews, it appears, came at length to designate by their phrase (see above on . . .), not only the present age, but all things in and belonging to it and so of the “future age” likewise. He produces a remarkable instance of this from Wis 13:9 , , , (of the things in the world) ; He therefore would regard as strictly parallel with above, and would interpret, “Whom He has constituted lord, possessor and ruler over all, over the whole world, even as by Him He has made all, the universe.” And nearly so Delitzsch, Ebrard, and Lnemann: these two latter adding however somewhat, inasmuch as they take it of all this state of things constituted in time and space. Ebrard says: Die ewige Selbst-offenbarung Gottes in sich, durch das emige Aussprechen seiner Fulle im ewigen personlichen Wort, das Gott zu sich ( Joh 1:1 ) redet, und im Wehen des Ewigen Geistes, bildet den Grund und somit das Ewige (nicht zeitliche) Prius der vom Willen des Dreieinigen ausgehenden Offenbarung seiner in einer Sphare, die nicht ewig, sondern zeitlich raumlich, nicht Gott, sondern Creatur ist . And this last view I should be disposed to adopt, going however somewhat further still: for whereas Ebrard includes in God’s revelation of Himself in a sphere whose conditions are Time and Space, and so would understand by it all things existing under these conditions, I would include in it also these conditions themselves , which exist not independently of the Creator, but are His work His appointed conditions of all created existence. So that the universe, as well in its great primval conditions, the reaches of Space, and the ages of Time, as in all material objects and all successive events, which furnish out and people Space and Time, God made by Christ. It will be plain that what has been here said will apply equally to ch. Heb 11:3 , which is commonly quoted as decisive for the material sense here. Some (Schlichting, al.) have endeavoured to refer , 3. to the new or spiritual world, or the ages of the Messiah, or of the Christian Church: principally in the interests of Socinianism: or, 4. as Sykes and Pyle, to the various dispensations of God’s revelation of Himself: or even, 5. as Fabricius (Cod. Apocr. i. p. 710, Bl.), to the Gnostic ons, or emanations from the Divine Essence, and so to the higher spiritual order of beings, the angels. Against all these, besides other considerations, ch. Heb 11:3 is a decisive testimony). It will be seen by consulting the note on Joh 1:1 , how very near the teaching of Philo approached to this creation of the universe by the Son. See, among the quotations in my Vol. I. Edn. 6, p. 679, especially those from Philo, vol. i. p. 106: and that in p. 681 from ib. p. 162. See Isa 9:6 Heb. and LXX-A [1] [2] .
[1] A The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .
[2] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Hath . . . spoken = Spake.
in . . . days = at the end of these days. i.e. at the period closed by the ministry of John.
in. Greek. epi. App-104.
Son. Greek. huios. App-108. No article, but its absence only “more emphatically and definitely expresses the exclusive character of His Sonship”. See Heb 5:8.
hath. Omit.
by. Greek. dia. App-104.
also. Read after “worlds”.
made. Greek. prepared.
worlds. Greek. aion. App-129 and App-151. Compare Heb 11:3.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] whom He constituted (aor., not perfect, referring, as also , to the -the date of the eternal counsel of God.
with this double accusative is commonly reputed a Hebraism. But as Bleek remarks, our Epistle is singularly free from Hebraistic constructions, and there is in fact no reason whatever for deducing our present expression from such a source. Elsner gives from Xen. de Rep. Lac. p. 684, : Arrian. Epict. p. 264, : Eur. Hec. 722: and Bleek from Xen. Cyr. iv. 6. 2, ) heir ( , , , . Chrys.: and so Thl. Convenienter statim sub Filii nomen memoratur hreditas. Bengel. That . is not equivalent to simply, is plain: the same expression could not, as Bleek well remarks, have been used of the Father. It is in virtue of the Sonship of our Lord that the Father constituted Him heir of all things, before the worlds began. In Him also, says Delitzsch, culminates the fulfilment of the promise given to the seed of Abraham, . See below. See for St. Pauls use of the word and image, reff.: and Gal 4:7) of all things (neuter: , , Chr. And we cannot give this a more limited sense, nor restrict it to this world; especially as the subsequent portion of the chapter distinctly includes the angels in it. It is much disputed whether this heirship of Christ is to be conceived as belonging to Him essentially in his divine nature, or as accruing to Him from his work of redemption in the human nature. The Fathers, and the majority of the moderns, decide for the latter alternative. So Chrys., and even more emphatically Thdrt.: , . , . , . And so the Socinian and quasi-Socinian interpreters, arriving at the same view by another way, not believing the pr-existence of Christ. But it is plain that such an interpretation will not suit the requirements of the passage. For this humiliation of his, with its effects, first comes in at the end of Heb 1:3. All this, now adduced, is referable to his essential Being as Son of God; not merely in the Godhead before his Incarnation, but also in the Manhood after it, which no less formed a part of His constitution by the Father, than his Godhead itself. So that the , as observed above, must be taken not as an appointment in prospect of the Incarnation, but as an absolute appointment, coincident with the , belonging to the eternal Sonship of the Lord, though wrought out in full by his mediatorial work. Delitzsch contends for its exclusive application to the exaltation of Christ in his historical manifestation, beginning with the creation of the world: but I cannot see that he has proved his point), by whom (see ref. John: as His acting Power and personal instrument: so Thl., aft. Chrys.: , , . , . The idea of Grotius, fortified by a misrendering of Bezas, Rom 6:4,-that , per quem, videtur hic recte accipi posse pro , propter quem, is only worth recording, to make us thankful that the labours of the great scholars of Germany have brought in a day when it no longer needs refutation) He also made (created. According to the ancient arrangement of the words, adopted in the text, the word brought into emphasis by is not , but . And so Bengel, Emphasis particul , et, cadit super verbum fecit, hoc sensu: Filium non solum definiit hredem rerum omnium, ante creationem: sed etiam fecit per eum scula) the ages (the meaning of has been much disputed. The main classes of interpreters are two. 1. Those who see in the word its ordinary meaning of an age of time; 2. those who do not recognize such meaning, but suppose it to have been merged in that of the world, or the worlds. To (1) belong the Greek Fathers: Chrys. (see however note on ch. Heb 11:3), Thdrt. ( . , , , . . This he then supports by Mat 28:20; Psa 89:8, LXX: Eph 1:21; Eph 2:7; and concludes, . , , ), Thl. ( , ; , ;), c. &c., and Thom. Aquin., and Heinsius. On the other hand, (2) is the view of the majority of Commentators. It is explained and defended at length by Bleek, none of whose examples however seem to me to be void of the same ambiguity which characterizes the expression here. The Jews, it appears, came at length to designate by their phrase (see above on …), not only the present age, but all things in and belonging to it-and so of the future age likewise. He produces a remarkable instance of this from Wis 13:9, , , (of the things in the world) ; He therefore would regard as strictly parallel with above, and would interpret, Whom He has constituted lord, possessor and ruler over all, over the whole world, even as by Him He has made all, the universe. And nearly so Delitzsch, Ebrard, and Lnemann: these two latter adding however somewhat, inasmuch as they take it of all this state of things constituted in time and space. Ebrard says: Die ewige Selbst-offenbarung Gottes in sich, durch das emige Aussprechen seiner Fulle im ewigen personlichen Wort, das Gott zu sich (Joh 1:1) redet, und im Wehen des Ewigen Geistes, bildet den Grund und somit das Ewige (nicht zeitliche) Prius der vom Willen des Dreieinigen ausgehenden Offenbarung seiner in einer Sphare, die nicht ewig, sondern zeitlich raumlich, nicht Gott, sondern Creatur ist. And this last view I should be disposed to adopt, going however somewhat further still: for whereas Ebrard includes in Gods revelation of Himself in a sphere whose conditions are Time and Space, and so would understand by it all things existing under these conditions, I would include in it also these conditions themselves,-which exist not independently of the Creator, but are His work-His appointed conditions of all created existence. So that the universe, as well in its great primval conditions,-the reaches of Space, and the ages of Time, as in all material objects and all successive events, which furnish out and people Space and Time, God made by Christ. It will be plain that what has been here said will apply equally to ch. Heb 11:3, which is commonly quoted as decisive for the material sense here. Some (Schlichting, al.) have endeavoured to refer , 3. to the new or spiritual world, or the ages of the Messiah, or of the Christian Church: principally in the interests of Socinianism: or, 4. as Sykes and Pyle, to the various dispensations of Gods revelation of Himself: or even, 5. as Fabricius (Cod. Apocr. i. p. 710, Bl.), to the Gnostic ons, or emanations from the Divine Essence, and so to the higher spiritual order of beings, the angels. Against all these, besides other considerations, ch. Heb 11:3 is a decisive testimony). It will be seen by consulting the note on Joh 1:1, how very near the teaching of Philo approached to this creation of the universe by the Son. See, among the quotations in my Vol. I. Edn. 6, p. 679, especially those from Philo, vol. i. p. 106: and that in p. 681 from ib. p. 162. See Isa 9:6 Heb. and LXX-A[1] [2].
[1] A The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.
[2] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 1:2. , whom He appointed heir of all things) Immediately following the name of Son, mention is appropriately made of the inheritance or heirship; and God really appointed Him heir, before that He made the worlds, Eph 3:11; Pro 8:22-23; hence in the text the making of the worlds follows after the heirship. As the Son, He is the first-begotten: as the Heir, He is the heir of the whole universe, Heb 1:6.- ) This is the ancient order of the words: by whom also He made the worlds. The emphasis of the particle , also, falls on the verb made in this sense: He not only appointed the Son heir of all things before creation, but also made the worlds by Him.[4] The particle , by, takes away nothing from the majesty of the Son. On the fact, see Heb 1:10; and on the particle, comp. ch. Heb 2:10. By the Son He made the worlds, and all things that are therein; ch. Heb 11:3. Therefore the Son was before all worlds; and His glory is evident, looking backwards to anterior times, although it is not until these last days that God has spoken to us in Him. Indeed in this way He has conferred on these last days complete salvation.
[4] Therefore in the Germ. Vers., which has put the word gemacht last, we must compensate by pronunciation for what the author has here conceded to convenience of arrangement.-E. B.
ABD() corrected, f Vulg. Memph. Syr. read the order as Bengel does. But Rec. Text, without any very old authority, save Orig. 4, 60c, and later Syr., read .-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
these: Gen 49:1, Num 24:14, Deu 4:30, Deu 18:15, Deu 31:29, Isa 2:2, Jer 30:24, Jer 48:47, Eze 38:16, Dan 2:28, Dan 10:14, Hos 3:5, Mic 4:1, Act 2:17, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 2Pe 3:3, Jud 1:18
spoken: Heb 1:5, Heb 1:8, Heb 2:3, Heb 5:8, Heb 7:3, Mat 3:17, Mat 17:5, Mat 26:63, Mar 1:1, Mar 12:6, Joh 1:14, Joh 1:17, Joh 1:18, Joh 3:16, Joh 15:15, Rom 1:4
appointed: Heb 2:8, Heb 2:9, Psa 2:6-9, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Isa 53:10-12, Mat 21:38, Mat 28:18, Joh 3:25, Joh 13:3, Joh 16:15, Joh 17:2, Act 10:36, Rom 8:17, 1Co 8:6, 1Co 15:25-27, Eph 1:20-23, Phi 2:9-11, Col 1:17, Col 1:18
by whom: Pro 8:22-31, Isa 44:24, Isa 45:12, Isa 45:18, Joh 1:3, 1Co 8:6, Eph 3:9, Col 1:16, Col 1:17
Reciprocal: Gen 1:1 – God Gen 25:5 – General Deu 16:1 – the passover Deu 16:6 – at even Job 38:4 – I Psa 8:6 – madest Psa 93:1 – world Pro 8:27 – he prepared Isa 42:5 – he that created Isa 60:2 – the Lord Isa 66:2 – For all those Jer 27:5 – made Jer 32:17 – thou Jer 51:15 – hath made Mat 12:42 – behold Mat 16:16 – Thou Mat 21:37 – last Luk 1:32 – the Son Luk 20:14 – the heir Joh 1:10 – and the world was Joh 1:34 – this Joh 3:35 – and Joh 9:35 – the Son Joh 13:32 – shall Joh 14:28 – Father Act 2:33 – by Act 3:22 – him Act 17:24 – that made 1Co 11:12 – but 2Co 8:9 – though Heb 2:1 – Therefore Heb 3:3 – this Heb 3:4 – but Heb 3:6 – as Heb 4:14 – Jesus Heb 7:28 – maketh the Heb 9:26 – in Heb 11:3 – faith 1Pe 1:20 – in 1Pe 4:19 – a faithful 1Jo 2:18 – it is Rev 4:11 – for thou
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 1:2. Last days means the closing days of the Jewish Dispensation, since that was when Jesus lived in his personal ministry. The Son gave the words of the Father to the apostles (Joh 17:8) and they to us, and that is the way in which we of this age have been spoken to of God. Appointed heir of all things. Heir is used in the sense of possessor (Joh 17:10) because God turned all things pertaining to the new dispensation over to Him (Mat 28:18). By whom also he made the worlds. This refers to the cooperation which Jesus showed in all of God’s works. See the plural “us” in Gen 1:26 Gen 3:22; also read Joh 1:3.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
God Has Spoken in These Last Days God changed His spokesman in these last days, that is, the days of the gospel dispensation. As James D. Bales points out, the contrast is between the time when God delivered His authoritative word through the prophets and the time when He spoke through His Son to us. During His personal ministry, Jesus made it clear that Moses’ law was still in force ( Mat 8:4 ; Mat 23:1-4 ). He insisted it would not pass away until all of it passed ( Mat 5:17-19 ). Since part of the law was in force during Christ’s ministry, all of it was in force.
Christ did not assume authority until after His resurrection ( Act 2:34-36 ; Rom 1:4 ; Eph 1:19-23 ). Thus, Jesus brought about the end of one age and the beginning of another ( Eph 2:15 ; Col 3:1-6 ). Peter announced the beginning of the last days on the day of Pentecost ( Act 2:16-21 ). Jesus now speaks to all who will receive His message. In fact, He instructed His disciples to teach all nations ( Mat 28:18-20 ).
God Has Spoken by His Son The messenger during the gospel dispensation is the only begotten Son of God. Obviously the message is important if God sent His Son to deliver it to man. Psa 2:7-8 shows Jesus was appointed by God to be the Son. God planned for Him to receive the nations as an inheritance. Psa 22:22-27 shows He will rule over them. They will show their subjection to Him and honor Him by worship.
So we do not misunderstand, the writer tells us God made the worlds by the Son who is His spokesman. Such is in complete agreement with Joh 1:1-5 . It should also be noted that Jesus said it was His purpose to do the work God sent Him to do. He prayed God’s will would be done ( Joh 9:4 ; Mat 26:36-44 ). It might appear Jesus was just another part of creation, yet Paul told the Colossian brethren Christ created the worlds. Everything now stands by His power ( Hebrews 1:17 ). All things are upheld by His word in that they were put in motion by and remain because of it.
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Heb 1:2. Hath in these last days Namely, the last of the Jewish Church and state, which were then drawing to their final abolition. Or the times of the Messiah may be intended, as 2Ti 3:1. Here we have the second fact of which the apostle proposed to discourse, namely, that the person by whom God hath revealed the gospel is his Son, appearing in the human nature; a person far superior to the highest creatures, even a person properly divine; from which it is reasonable to infer, that the revelation made by him to mankind is more perfect than that made to the Jews by angels, and that the dispensation founded thereon is a better and more permanent dispensation than the law. In saying, God hath spoken to us, the apostle chiefly intends the members of the Jewish Church. The Jews of those times were very apt to think if they had lived in the days of the former prophets, and had heard them deliver their message from God, they would have received it with cheerful obedience. Their only unhappiness, as they thought, was, that they were born out of due time, as to prophetical revelations, Mat 23:30. Now the apostle, aware of this prejudice, informs them that God, in the revelation of the gospel, had spoken to themselves what they so much desired; and that if they did not attend to this word, they must needs be self-condemned. Besides that, the care and love which God had manifested toward them, in speaking to them in this immediate manner, requiring the most indisputable obedience, especially considering how far this mode excelled what he had before used toward their fathers. For this revelation, by the Son of God, is more perfect than any preceding one, because, 1st, It is more clear, even respecting things formerly revealed; as, for instance, Gods spiritual nature, (Joh 4:24,) and some of his attributes, particularly his love; the fall and depravity of man; his redemption; the person, offices, and work of the Redeemer; the salvation that is through him, particularly as it is future and eternal; that it is attained by faith, the fruits of which, and the spirituality of Gods law, are set in a clearer point of view in the gospel than formerly. 2d, More full, giving us explicit information of things hardly intimated before, as the abolition of the Jewish dispensation, the temporary rejection of their nation because of their unbelief, a general and solemn judgment; that the consequences of it will be eternal; that the heavens and the earth shall be destroyed, and a new heaven and new earth shall be prepared for the habitation of the righteous. So that whereas the former dispensations might be compared to starlight, or moonshine, this last revelation is called the day-spring from on high visiting us, (Luk 1:78-79,) and the Sun of righteousness arising upon us: and no wonder, considering that the messenger of this new covenant is the Son of God, to whom Gods will was known not by dreams, visions, voices, &c., or in any of the ways before mentioned, but, as St. John speaks, he was in the bosom of the Father; that is, was intimately and perfectly acquainted with his eternal mind and counsels, being his wisdom, word, and truth, and therefore fully qualified to give mankind a revelation every way perfect and complete.
Whom he hath appointed heir of all things That is, of the whole creation; of all creatures, visible and invisible, which were all made for him, as well as by him, Col 1:16. The apostles grand design throughout this epistle being to engage the Hebrews to constancy and perseverance in their attachment to the gospel, with its fundamental doctrines, he takes his main argument for that purpose from its immediate author, the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Him, therefore, in this chapter he describes at large, declaring what he is absolutely, in his person and offices; and comparatively, with respect to other ministerial revealers of the mind and will of God, principally insisting on his excellence and pre- eminence above angels. After the name of Son, his inheritance is mentioned. God appointed him the heir long before he made the worlds, Eph 3:11; Pro 8:22. Crellius, a noted Socinian, with whom some other Socinians have agreed, allowed that Christ hath the highest dominion and empire over men and angels. But still they would persuade us that all this was spoken of him as a mere man, as the son of Mary. But how a mere man, or mere creature, should have this empire over all men and angels, and all creatures in the universe, or even should know them all, and have power over death, is as impossible to understand as the mystery of the incarnation, or that of the Trinity. But to guard us against this error, the inspired writers have taken care to inform us that he existed before he was born of Mary; before Abraham, Joh 8:58; before all things, Col 1:17; that he was loved by the Father, and had glory with him before the foundation of the world, Joh 17:5; Joh 17:24. Nay, and, as the apostle here asserts, that the worlds were made by him. It is true, the word , here used by the apostle, may be rendered ages, or dispensations; yet in Heb 11:3, it must mean, as it is rendered, worlds. And we know, from Joh 1:2-3; Joh 1:10; Col 1:16; Eph 3:9; 1Co 8:6, and Heb 1:10 of this chapter, that the Son of God did in fact make the worlds; and agreeably to the apostles words here, (God hath spoken unto us by his Son, by whom he made the worlds,) in their plain and literal meaning, he was the Son of God when the worlds were made by him. Accordingly, He, without whom was not any thing made that was made, is called the only-begotten of the Father, Joh 1:1-14, where see the notes. Therefore, the Son, as the Son, was before all worlds: and his glory reaches from everlasting to everlasting, though God spake by him to us only in these last days. This is the third fact of which the apostle proposes to discourse, namely, that the Author of the gospel, in consequence of his having made the worlds, is Heir, or Lord, and Governor of all. And although, after becoming man, he died, yet, being raised from the dead, he had the government of the world restored to him in the human nature. To the faithful, this is a source of the greatest consolation; because if the world is governed by their Master, he certainly hath power to protect and bless them; and every thing befalling them will issue in good to them. Besides, being the Judge as well as the Ruler of the world, he hath authority to acquit them at the judgment, and power to reward them for all the evils they have suffered on his account. This, that the author of the gospel is the Son of God, is the main hinge on which all the apostles subsequent arguments throughout the epistle turn, and this bears the stress of all his inferences; and, therefore, having mentioned it, he proceeds immediately to that description of him which gives evidence to all he deduces from this consideration.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2. Whom he set forth the heir of all things, through whom also he ordained the ages. Satan conquered this world in Eden when he captured Adam and Eve, its king and queen. God recognized his conquest. 2Co 4:4. If Satan had carried out his scheme he would have added this world to hell. Christ volunteered, bled and died, gloriously redeeming this world from Satans conquest. When he flew up to heaven God received him as a conqueror and said: Well done. Hence Christ is the rightful heir of all things, i.e., the whole earth and all the people. Hence he saves all the people who will let him and will completely save the whole earth and firmament, not only from sin, but all the effects of sin, completely sanctifying and restoring it back to the heavenly state in which Satan found it. This world was a part of heaven before the devil broke it loose in order to add it to hell. Christ is going to purify it by the fiery baptism (2Pe 3:10-13), and add it back to heaven. Rev 21:1. Where the old English says, made the world, the Greek has aioonas, i.e., the ages. Hence we translate it, ordained the ages. The popular opinion, proclaimed from a hundred thousand pulpits, that the world is to have an end, originated from a wrong translation of this word aioon. It does not mean world, as the old English has it, but age, while cosmos means world. The Bible positively reveals the eternal perpetuity of this world. Time, which is simply the measure of the mediatorial kingdom, will have an end. After the glorious millennial ages shall have come and gone, during the final judgment the earth will be cremated and thoroughly sanctified by fire, made over and transformed into a heaven, and given to the occupancy of the redeemed saints and glorified angels forever. The last two chapters in the Bible present a vivid and glorious description of this earth and firmament after their glorious transformation into the heavenly state. In this verse we see the ages were instituted in the divine restitutionary economy in the progressive development of this miserable, fallen world, preparatory for the coming kingdom. The antediluvian, patriarchal, Mosaic, Judaic ages have come and gone, each verifying its office in the grand preparatory drama. The Gentile age winds up the grand panorama and ushers in the glorious kingdom.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
1:2 Hath in these {a} last days spoken unto us by [his] {b} Son, {2} whom he hath appointed {c} heir of all things, by whom also he made the {d} worlds;
(a) So that the former declaration made by the prophets was not complete, and nothing must be added to this latter.
(b) That one Son is God and man.
(2) The second part of the same statement: The same Son is appointed by the Father to be our king and Lord, by whom also he made all things: and in whom only he sets forth his glory, yea and himself also to be under obligation to us, who upholds and supports all things by his will and pleasure.
(c) Possessor and equal partner of all things with the Father.
(d) That is, whatever has been at any time, is, or shall be.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Seven facts in these verses stress the Son’s unique greatness and the culminating character of His revelation. For the writer’s original Jewish readers the number seven connoted a complete work of God, as in the Creation.
First, He is the "heir of all things." All things will fall under His authority. While Jesus Christ is presently in authority over all things, in the future God the Father will subject all things to Him in a more direct sense than the one in which they are now subject to Him (cf. Php 2:9-11). The writer introduced the concept of inheritance here and proceeded to develop it in this epistle (cf. Psa 2:8; Heb 2:5-9). The believer’s inheritance is a major theme in Hebrews.
Second, the Son "made the world" (Gr. aiones, lit. "ages," i.e., the whole created universe of time and space). The Son was God’s agent in creation (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16). He created both matter and history; both ideas are in view here. [Note: Bruce, p. 4.] However the emphasis is on the various dispensations through which the world has passed, is passing, and will pass. [Note: W. H. Griffith Thomas, Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary, p. 22.] Jesus Christ is not a created being, as Jehovah’s Witnesses and some others claim. He is the Creator of all.
Third, the Son is "the radiance of His [God’s] glory." The Greek word apaugasma, translated "radiance," refers to what shines out from the source of light. Jesus Christ revealed the glory of God in a veiled way during His incarnation. Peter, James, and John saw that radiance revealed more directly on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mat 17:1-2).
Fourth, the Son is "the exact representation of His [God’s] nature." The Greek word charakter, translated "representation," occurs only here in the New Testament. Greek writers used it to describe the emperor’s picture on Roman coins and the clear-cut impression made by a seal (a facsimile). It did not express a general likeness but an exact duplication of the original. Jesus Christ let humankind know exactly what the nature of God, whom no one has seen, is like during His earthly ministry (cf. Joh 14:9).
Fifth, the Son "upholds all things by the word of His power" (i.e., His mighty, enabling word). The idea is not so much that Jesus upholds the universe as a dead weight, similar to Atlas shouldering the world. Rather He carries all things forward (Gr. pheron) on their appointed course (Col 1:17). Jesus Christ’s word has tremendous power and authority. It is the greatest force in the universe (cf. Gen 1:3; et al.).
Sixth, the Son "made purification of sins" as no one else could. He did so by His self-sacrifice on the Cross and by His work as the ultimate priest. The Greek word katharismos, translated "purification," means both removal and cleansing (cf. Mar 1:44; 2Pe 1:9). "Sin" (hamartia) is a very common word in Hebrews occurring 25 times. The only other New Testament book in which it appears more frequently is Romans, where Paul used it 48 times.
"Hebrews views sins and their remedy in cultic [formal Israelite worship] terms. The purification of sins by Christ’s sacrifice is related, on the one hand, to the establishment of a new order of relationships between God and mankind, and on the other hand to obedience (Heb 10:1-18, especially Heb 1:8-10) and moral effort (Heb 12:1-4). Apart from passing references to adultery and the love of money (Heb 13:4 f.), Hebrews says little about individual sins, and contains no list of vices comparable to Rom 1:29-31; Gal 5:19-21; or 1Pe 4:3. The fundamental sin for Hebrews is that of unfaithfulness to God, which may superficially appear as neglect or lassitude (amelesantes, Heb 2:3; or nothroi, Heb 5:11), but which in essence is rebellion against God’s will, and more specifically apostasy (Heb 2:1-4; Heb 3:7-19; Heb 6:4-6; Heb 10:26-31)." [Note: Ellingworth, p. 102.]
Seventh, the Son "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" when He returned to heaven after His ascension. He took the choice place of honor and authority in relation to God the Father (cf. Eph 4:10; Php 2:9; Luk 22:69). Here the writer introduced his key text, Psalms 110, which he proceeded to expound in the chapters to follow.
The writer referred to the place where Jesus now sits ruling as the Father’s right hand in heaven. This is not the same as the Davidic throne, which will be on earth in the future (Isa 9:6-7; Dan 2:44; Dan 7:13-14; et al.). Jesus will begin His rule over Israel on earth as the Davidic Messiah after He returns to the earth at His second advent (Rev 20:1-6). Presently He rules over the church and the angelic host in heaven (Eph 4:15; Col 1:18; Col 2:10). [Note: See Cleon L. Rogers Jr., "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation," Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):81-82.]
"The concept of enthronement at God’s right hand would convey to contemporaries an impression of the Son’s royal power and unparalleled glory." [Note: Lane, p. 16.]
Each one of these seven actions points to the full deity of Jesus Christ. The original Jewish audience, faced with temptation to abandon discipleship of Jesus for return to Judaism, received a strong reminder of His deity at the very outset of this epistle. The writer also presented Him as Creator, Prophet, Priest, and King in these verses. He would say much more about Jesus as Priest-King in the following chapters.