GOD HAS SPOKEN!

Hebrews 1:1-4

By

Herald Gandi

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for BL422: Greek Exegesis
Dr. William Varner
The Master’s College
Santa Clarita, California
April 29, 2014

Hebrews 1:1-4 Greek Text and Translation

1.1
Πολυµερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
2
ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡµερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡµῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόµον πάντων, διʼ οὗ
καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·
3
ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ
ῥήµατι τῆς δυνάµεως αὑτοῦ, καθαρισµὸν τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ποιησάµενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς
µεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,
4
τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόµενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρʼ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόµηκεν
ὄνοµα. 1

1. Although long ago, in many parts and many ways, God spoke to the Patriarchs by the
Prophets,
2. In these last days, He spoke to us by a son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through
whom also He made the world,
3. who is the radiance of His glory, and the facsimile of His essence, bearing even all things by
means of the power of His word, when He made purification of sins, He sat down at the right
hand of the Majesty on High,
4. having become so much better than the Angels as He has inherited a more excellent name than
they.

Discourse Analysis
In the art of interpreting God’s word, discourse analysis plays a key role. George Guthrie
says, “‘Discourse’ refers to a semantic unit of communication which is more than one sentence
in length and forms a unified whole.”2 This useful tool considers units of thoughts, in however
form they are written, instead of each word or sentence. This method of analysis is called text
linguistics, which assumes that the author has a conception of a theme in his mind that he intends
to communicate in his writing. This authorial intent is reflected in the author’s use of structure in
language, grammar, syntax, vocabulary etc.3
To further investigate this method of analysis, Joel Green says that text-linguistics,
“works under the assumption that a close tie exists between the way a text is structured and the
meaning of the text.”4 Authorial intent is embedded in the structure of a text rather than in
individual words or even in syntax. Words, on the surface level, have a particular meaning that is
determined by the larger structure of the text.
Just as the author first had an impression of the theme that he expressed in his choice of
language, grammar, style etc., we need to work our way back to the authorial conception of the
theme by working through the lexical, syntactical and rhetorical analyses of the text.5 Naturally,

1 Holmes, M. W. (2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Lexham Press.

2 Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-linguistic Analysis. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Print. 35.
3 Guthrie, 46.
4 Green, Joel B. Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.
Eerdmans Pub., 1995. Print. 176.
5 Guthrie, 47.

discourse analysis makes sense to assume that the main meaning of a text lies beyond the
sentence level. David Alan Black simplifies it this way, “a text-linguist would like to know how
the individual parts of a discourse combine to produce the text’s overall meaning”6
Discourse Analysis is not only concerned with the text and its technical details, but also
assumes that language is connected to culture. Jeffrey Reed says, “Discourse analysts take
seriously the roles of the author, the audience, and the text in communicative events.”7 Since
language is highly influenced by culture, it is invaluable to study the historical and cultural
background of the day when Hebrews was written.

Historical and Cultural Background of Hebrews

There have been many speculations as to the authorship of Hebrews over the years. Many
have suggested Paul to be the author of Hebrews but the idea is refuted by the fact that there are
vast stylistic differences between Hebrews and other Pauline epistles, which we will not go into
detail here. Others have suggested Luke, Apollos, etc. but have fallen short to provide
convincing evidence for their arguments. Such speculation is unnecessary considering the fact
that God chose to give us the wonderful book of Hebrews without disclosing who the human
author is. However, we can gather some information about the author that can help us gain some
insight into his personality. The book of Hebrews is very theological with an emphasis on the
Old Testament ceremonial system, the tabernacle, the Torah and the people. This tells us that the
author must be well educated in his Jewish studies. Not only that but Harold Attridge says that
the author of Hebrews was, “obviously well educated, having had the benefit of rhetorical
training, some acquaintance with Greek philosophical categories, and extensive experience in the
exegesis of Jewish scriptures in a Greek form.”8 There is a good chance he might be a Jewish
believer because of his knowledge of the Old Testament. Finally, we know that he was not an
eyewitness of Jesus (2:3).
There also has been debate as to who the audience was. The best argument is the Jewish
believers in Rome because in the closing statements in 13:24, it says that those from Italy send
their greetings, not those in Italy. The author must be sending this letter to Jewish believers in
Rome and so he mentions believers from there who are now with him somewhere else. This
book was written sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to encourage and
exhort the Jewish believers who were facing persecution and were tempted to go back to
Judaism, by showing them the superiority of Jesus the Messiah over the Old Testament system
and laws.

Literary Characteristics
First of all, it is important to understand that Hebrews is a sermon. At the end of the
book, the author adds epistolary comments and ends the book. Attridge says, “The body of the
text, which the epistolary postscript styles a ‘word of exhortation’, is generally recognized to be

6 Black, David Alan, Katharine G. L. Barnwell, and Stephen H. Levinsohn. Linguistics and New Testament
Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992. Print, 170.
7 Reed, Jeffrey T. "Discourse Analysis As New Testament Hermeneutic: A Retrospective And Prospective
Appraisal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (1996): n. pag. Web.
https://www.galaxie.com/article/jets39-2-04, 229.
8 Attridge, Harold W., and Helmut Koester. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Print. 5

a product of rhetorical art…an epideictic oration… a sermon or homily.”9

There is another rhetorical element that the author uses to effectively communicate his
point. Dr. Varner says the author, “piles up the titles and activities of Jesus first and then
concludes by mentioning his name. This rhetorical device (climax) builds anticipation on the part
of the reader until the climax arrives: JESUS!”10 Another literary characteristic of Hebrews is
that the author writes long sentences with the subject and the verb far apart, which are called
periodic sentences. Some example are 1:1-4, 2:2-4, 12:18-24 etc.11

Introduction to Hebrews 1:1-4

This section 1:1-4 serves as an introduction to the book of Hebrews. Unlike many other
epistles, Hebrews does not have a formal introduction that mentions the author, the recipients
and greetings. Instead, it jumps right into the message. These four verses are some of the most
Christ-exalting verses in the entire Bible without even mentioning the name Jesus or Christ. The
rhetorical effect is absolutely outstanding. Westcott comments on this section, “the first
paragraph of this Epistle gives a summary view of its main subject, the finality of the absolute
Revelation in Christ as contrasted with the preparatory revelation under the Old Covenant.”12
The rest of the book works on this principle of contrasting the Old Covenant with the person and
the work of Christ.
Having discussed the merits of Discourse Analysis in interpreting God’s word rightly, let
us apply those principles to the text and behold the glories of God’s infallible, inerrant and all-
sufficient word. In order to get the main meaning of the text before lexical or syntactical
analysis, we need to look at the structure of the passage. A sentence flow chart will help us
identify the main clause and other independent or dependent subordinate clauses.

9 Atrridge, Harold W, Epistle to the Hebrews. 14.
10 Varner, William. Class Notes, Exegesis of Hebrews, n.d. 2b
11 Varner. 2.
12 Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Texts with Notes and Essays. London: Macmillan,
1892. Print. 1-2.

Sentence Flow Chart

Πολυµερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν

ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡµερῶν τούτων
ἐλάλησεν ἡµῖν
ἐν υἱῷ,
ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόµον πάντων,
διʼ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·
ὃς
ὢν ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ,
φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήµατι τῆς δυνάµεως αὑτοῦ,
καθαρισµὸν τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ποιησάµενος
ἐκάθισεν
ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς µεγαλωσύνης
ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,
τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόµενος τῶν ἀγγέλων
ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον
παρʼ αὐτοὺς
κεκληρονόµηκεν ὄνοµα
The sentence flow chart above helps us identify the main point of the text and its connection to
subordinate clauses by bringing out the structure of the text. One of the main strengths of
Discourse Analysis is analyzing how different propositions of the text relate to each other. As
Dr. Fuller says,

“After we have a flow chart of the author's argument, we will be able to isolate out each
of the author's main logical levels and gain an overview of the argument's development. The
result of our labor will be an understanding of the main point of a text and the ways in which it is
supported”13

In attempting to extract the main point out of this text, we need to consider each
proposition and its relation to the entire text. However, these 4 verses form one complex
sentence with many clauses (participial, relative, prepositional, correlative and segment).
Clearly, from the flow chart, we see that the main proposition of this text is, “ἐλάλησεν” (Aorist.

13 Written as Logical Relationships Between Propositions by Daniel P. Fuller (Fuller Theological Seminary)
"Reference Manual for Interpreting the New Testament." Discourse Analysis (n.d.): 22. Web.
<http://www.viceregency.com/ReferenceManual4NTInterp.pdf>.

Act. Ind. 3S) whose subject is “ὁ θεὸς” which translates, “God has spoken.” All the other clauses
are subordinate to this main clause. It is the main clause because of the main verb that is in the
Indicative mood, which usually conveys the main point. Also, this is the main verb because
noun, “ὁ θεὸς” governs almost all the other clauses. Therefore, this masterful exordium has one
main point, which will be this paper’s main point also.

God Has Spoken!

1. 1-2a Πολυµερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡµερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡµῖν ἐν υἱῷ,

Right away, one thing is evident from the Greek; alliteration in Πολυµερῶς,
πολυτρόπως, πάλαι, πατράσιν, προφήταις with the initial π. As we saw earlier, this letter is a
sermon that was read aloud in different churches in the first century. Alliteration provided an
effective form of communication in oral tradition. We find this all over the Bible (eg. Jas 4:1).
Rhetorically speaking, “πάλυς” was a common word used to begin a rhetoric. Siriach 1:1 begins
similarly.14
Syntactically, this sentence is a periodic sentence with the subject introduced in the
participial clause and the verb coming after a couple of clauses. This is characteristic of the book
of Hebrews, as we have seen earlier. Conceptually, this is a contrastive sentence contrasting the
method, the time, the recipients and the agents of God’s revelation.15 God communicated in
many parts and many ways (Πολυµερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως). This refers to the different methods
such as oracles, visions, dreams, theophanies, burning bush, thunder, still small voice etc.,
whereas now, He has spoken in one singular way.
There is a contrast in time, πάλαι and ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡµερῶν τούτων. The latter phrase
is a Hebraism. For example in Genesis 49:1, "‫אַ ֲח ִ ֥רית הַ יּ ִ ָֽמים‬," is the phrase that is rendered in the
LXX as, “ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡµερῶ,” meaning, “in the end-time” Other examples are Numbers
24:14, Duet. 4:30, Is 2:2, Jer. 23:20 etc. Bruce says, “The use of the phrase here implies an
inaugurated eschatology.”16 Hebraism aside, the genitives used here are Genitives of time, which
signify the kind or quality of time (last days). 17 The third contrast is in the recipients of the
revelation, τοῖς πατράσιν and ἡµῖν. This signifies a continuity in the progressive revelation of
God. In 3:9 and 8:9, the author uses the same word for “forefathers” to refer to Israelites in
Exodus. Cockerill says, “Forefathers is a general way of referring to all of God’s people in the
Old Testament.”18 Continuing the same pattern of speaking to His people, God has spoken now
to His people.
The final contrast is in the agents of revelation, ἐν τοῖς προφήταις and ἐν υἱῷ. Just like
the forefathers, “Prophets” is another term that refers to all the prophets in the Old Testament
that God used to talk to His people. The author of Hebrews uses Moses, the greatest prophet in
the OT, in chapter 3 comparing him to Jesus. In contrast to the multiple different prophets God
used in the past, in this end-age, one final time, He spoke through a Son. Notice, “ἐν υἱῷ,” is a

14 Atrridge, Harold W, Epistle to the Hebrews. 37
15 Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1-2
16 Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990. Print. 3
17 Wallace, 122.
18 Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2012. Print. 33.

prepositional phrase that is anarthrous, “by a Son.” This absence of the article indicates a
qualitative use of the noun. Wallace says, “God, in his final revelation, has spoken to us in one
who has the characteristics of a son. His credentials are vastly different from the credentials of
the prophets (or from the angels).”19
Rhetorically, in the structure of this passage, this anarthrous noun builds curiosity and
anticipation on the part of the audience because it is unqualified. They don’t know who this
“Son” is. It is intriguing to see that “ἐν υἱῷ” is the only new piece of information in these lines.
His Jewish audience already knows that God spoke to their forefathers through dreams and
visions by the Prophets. The author found something in common with his audience by referring
to their heritage. He adds new information to an old message and grabs their attention. As we
saw earlier, he does not reveal the identity of the Son until 2:9. It is evident that the author of
Hebrews was well trained in the art of Rhetoric. Not only that, but the author was also following
the Semitic mindset of looking at time. They thought of future as facing backwards to while
facing the past. They understood that they could not see the future but they could see the past.
Buchanan says, “This is why eschatological beliefs were inseparably tied to history…his basis
for understanding what the future might be was the past, from which he deduced the future in
terms of typologies or patterns of historical events.”20 This gives us the reason why mentioning
the Old Testament figures and covenants is so important to the Hebrews.
All the adverbs that we have looked at modify the aorist participle, “λαλήσας,” which
goes with the aorist indicative, “ἐλάλησεν.” Interestingly, the subject of the two is “ὁ θεὸς.” John
Brown says, “Amid all this diversity, however, of outward circumstances, the great Author of the
whole remained from the first to the last the same.”21
The participle functions concessively to the main verb. We know that participial clauses
are dependent clauses.22 Therefore, the main idea of the passage is conveyed by the main clause,
“God has spoken.” The idea is that although God spoke before, His revelation was not complete.
But He has now spoken to complete His revelation. F.F. Bruce says, “The progression is one
from promise to fulfillment…His word was not completely uttered until Christ came; but when
Christ came, the word spoken in Him was indeed God’s final word.”23 This is the main meaning
of this passage, the rest of the clauses are subordinate to it.
Considering the fact that God did not speak for four hundred years in the intertestamental
period, this message, “God has spoken,” must have sparked a great interest in the message of the
book of Hebrews. This could very well be the reason why the author chose to declare that God
has finally spoken, not in mysterious ways, not through types and shadows but the real deal.
Lightfoot says, “The later revelation comes not through many voices but in one full gush through
Him who has the dignity of a Son. In His Son God speaks His final, satisfying words to men.”24
Speaking of this Newell says, “This wondrous fact of God’s having spoken in past days is
to prepare us for a more stupendous statement” that God has spoken to us by a Son. 25 This idea

19 Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Print. 245.
20 Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972. Print. 4.
21 Brown, John. Hebrews. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972. Print. 20.
22 Wallace, 659.
23 Bruce, 2,3.
24 Lightfoot, Neil R. Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1976. Print. 54.
25 Newell, William Reed. Hebrews: Verse by Verse. Chicago: Moody, 1947. Print. 3.

is supported by the fact that in 2:2-4, the author compares the word spoken through Angels and
the Word spoken through the Lord. If the consequences of the former are great, how much more
will be the consequences of the latter, considering that the Son is far greater and superior than the
Angels!

2b. ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόµον πάντων, διʼ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

Here we have the first of the seven relative clauses, three explicit and four understood,
that describe who the Son is and what He does/did. From the diagram, we know that “God” is the
subject of the first two relative clauses and “Son” is the subject of the rest of them. “ὃν” is an
accusative relative pronoun whose antecedent is “υἱῷ.” The author introduces God in the first
two lines and shifts the focus to this unidentified character, “a Son,” and line-by-line, he starts to
build the identity of the Son using the seven relative clauses. This first relative clause identifies
the Son as having been appointed heir of all things, through whom God created the world.
“ἔθηκεν” comes from the verb, “τιθηµι,” which in this context means, “make, consign”26
it is very interesting to see that the author quotes Psalm 110:1 in Heb. 1:13, which has the Aorist
subjunctive, “θῶ” that comes from the same verb “τιθηµι.” The peculiar thing about this is that
the subject of both these verbs is God and both of these verbs concern the Son. If the author
really intended to juxtapose these two together, then the idea would be: God appointed a Son to
be heir over all things to the extent that He even appointed His enemies to be His property. The
Son is made heir of absolutely everything, so much so that Abraham Kuyper famously said,
“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who
is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”
The major significance of this clause is realised when it is read in light of the second
Psalm. This Psalm is a messianic Psalm that is quoted often in the New Testament.27 The
connection of this clause, “ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόµον πάντων” to Psalm 2 is the fact that it is quoted
directly in the same chapter of Hebrews, after a couple of verses. This simply cannot be a
coincidence because in Psalm 2:8, God promises His Son to give Him the nations as,
“κληρονόµιαν” (inheritance). Here in Hebrews 1:2, the author declares that God has made the
Son, “κληρονόµον” (heir) of all things! But the writer of Hebrews believes that the Son is heir,
not only of this world, but also of everything else that exists! This idea is conjoined with John
1:3, Colossians 1:16 and 1 Cor. 8:6.
Moreover, Hebrews is written to the Jewish believers in Rome, who must have been
familiar with Psalm 2. This is a clear fulfillment of the promise of Psalm 2 in this Son. No
wonder the writer of Hebrews chose to use this word. F.F. Bruce says, “These words no doubt
echo the oracle of Ps. 2:8, addressed to one who is both the Lord’s Anointed and acclaimed by
God as His Son.”28An important thing to notice here is that this Son character was not made Son
but was already, ontologically, Son. Likewise, concerning Him being heir, BDAG, quoting
Didymus says, “for (the Father) did not subsequently make him (the Savior) an heir, but revealed
him as one who was such.” 29
As a conjunctive thought or a coordinate clause, he adds that God created the world

26 Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, and William Arndt. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2000. Print. 1004
27 This Psalm is quoted in Luke 3:21-22, Acts 13:29-35 and Hebrews 1:5.
28 F.F. Bruce. 4.
29 BDAG. 548

through this Son. Philip Hughes writes that the word “αἰῶνας” literally means, “the world in its
historical perspective.”30 But NEB translates it right, “all orders of existence.” That includes
everything that exists in this universe. The author begins the book with God speaking, just like
the books of Genesis and John. It is also fascinating to see that he mentions God creating the
world through a Son here. Notice the rhetorical subtlety here: He is slowly revealing the identity
of the Son by equaling Him with God. Jews know that God created the world (Is. 42:5); this Son
is God’s agent. Remember that until now, God is the subject of the two relative clauses.

3a. ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασµα τῆς δόξης καὶ (ὃς ὢν) χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

The focus now shifts from “ὁ θεὸς”being the subject, to “υἱῷ” with the main clause of the
passage staying the same. This statement carries the whole weight of the Son’s identity in this
passage. Syntactically, from the diagram, we know that there are two head nouns in the
nominative case, “ἀπαύγασµα” and “χαρακτὴρ” followed by a participial form of εὶµὶ. These
nominatives are called “Predicate Nominatives”. The two gentives are modifying the two head
nouns and the “αὐτοῦ” at the end is governing the genitive modifiers.
The word “ἀπαύγασµα” is used both actively, in the sence of radiance or effulgence, and
passively, in the sense of reflection. Philo uses this word actively in talking about the
relationship of Logos to God.31 It is best to translate this word actively here too, “who is the
effulgence of His glory…” The genitive that modifies it, “τῆς δόξης,” is the very glory of God!
Hughes comments on this saying, “This is nothing less than the essential glory of God himself,
corresponding to the shekinah glory…the radiant glory of Yahweh’s presence which settled as a
luminous cloud on Mt. Sinai…32” What brightness and light is to the Sun, the Son is to God!
They are both inseparable. In the bigger context of the passage considering the main clause, God
has spoken in a Son, who is the radiance of His shekinah glory, which even the greatest prophet
like Moses could not see face-to-face but saw the after-glory. This is how the writer of Hebrews
sets up for Christ’s supremacy over Moses in the following chapters.
The word, “χαρακτὴρ” is only used once in the NT. It is used in the sense of
“impression” or “stamp” on coins. Bruce says, “(it) expresses this truth even more emphatically
than eikon, which is used elsewhere to denote Christ as the ‘image’ of God.”33 What is He an
impression of? The genitive that modifies it is “τῆς ὑποστάσεως.” BDAG defines it in this
context as, “a (n) exact representation of (God’s) real being.”34 It is like knowing someone only
from talking to him on the phone. We make our own image of who they are and what they look
like, based on our conversations with them. But when we see them face-to-face, everything
becomes clear. Cockerill says, “When the Son of God became a human being, people saw God
face to face…all of those ‘phone conversations’ through the prophets now fit together and make
sense.”35 Although the Son is not the same person as God, because He is the representation of
Him, He is one in essence with God. In John 14:9, Jesus tells Philip that seeing Him is seeing

30 Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans
Pub., 1977. Print. 40.
31 BDAG, 99.
32 Hughes, 42.
33 F.F. Bruce, 6.
34 BDAG, 1040.
35 Cockerill, 36.

 10

God. It doesn’t get any clearer than that! Putting together both of these words together, Westcott
says, “The ‘glory’ of God finds expression in the Son as its ‘effulgence’: the ‘essence’ of God
finds expression in Him as its ‘type.’”36

3b. (ὃς) φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήµατι τῆς δυνάµεως αὑτοῦ

Having proclaimed the Son’s nature and work in relation to God, the writer adds
something, “preliminary to his main thought.”37 Or in more elegant words, “We now pass from
the thought of the absolute Being of the Son to His action in the finite creation under the
conditions of time and space”38 As to the use of the particle “τε,” it introduces a new idea to the
main clause. “The providential action of the Son is a special manifestation of His Nature and is
not described in a coordinate statement: what He does flows from what He is.”39
“φέρων” is a present participle from the verb, “φέρω,” which literally means, “to bear.”
But here in this passage it means, “to cause to continue in a state or condition”40 Although it
might seem passive, Westcott says, “This present and continuous support and carrying
forward…is not to be understood simply of the passive support of a burden…it rather expresses
that ‘bearing’ which includes movement, progress, toward an end.”41 What is the Son bearing
and sustaining? “τὰ πάντα” is the accusative direct object of the participle φέρων. This goes back
to God making the Son heir of all things. Both of these words come from the same root, “πάς.”
So the article τὰ is functioning anaphorically, referring back to “all things” that God made the
Son heir over! So the Son not only made the universe but also continuously upholds it and
sustains it. This Son is actively involved in the very existence of the universe.
That the universe is running without collapsing is only because the Son is upholding it by
the power of His word! Hughes says, “Were it not for the sustaining providence and government
of God, all would relapse into non-existence…the Son, so to speak, is the nucleus of creation.”42
This idea of sustenance and bearing can be illustrated by the Septuagint’s translation of Numbers
11:14 where Moses (speaking of the people of Israel) says, “I am not able to carry this people
alone." The Septuagint uses the word “φέρω," in the sense of governing and guiding the people
of Israel.43 So we can get the sense of the word here in Hebrews 1, of the Son’s ability to govern
and guide the entire universe.
The phrase, “τῷ ῥήµατι τῆς δυνάµεως αὑτοῦ,” is another Hebraism to say “by His mighty
word.”44 The Son governs and guides the universe by means of His mighty word. In 11:3, the
writer uses “ῥήµα” in the act of God speaking the world into existence. This usage of the word
here, obviously, has the same creative and sustaining force to it. Bruce says, “The creative
utterance which called the universe into being requires as its complement that sustaining

36 Westcott, 10.
37 Lightfoot, 55. Remember that the main thought of this passage is “God has spoken.” All the other clauses,
including this one, are subordinate to the main clause.
38 Westcott, 13.
39 Westcott, 13.
40 BDAG, 1052.
41 Westcott, 14.
42 Hughes, 45,46.
43 Wuest, Kenneth Samuel. Hebrews in the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader. Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., 1947. Print. 39.
44 Attridge, 45.

 11

utterance by which it is maintained in being.”45 It is even more interesting to notice that the
word, “ῥήµα” is used instead of “λόγος” because ῥήµα is used in the sense of an “utterance
communicated directly from God as God’s voice speaking an oracle or creative decree.”46 The
word ῥήµα is not simply any word; it is qualified and described by the following genitive, “τῆς
δυνάµεως αὑτοῦ.” Hughes says, “It is always and inevitably a word which effects its intended
purpose.”47 This is the majesty and work of the Son, in whom God has spoken to the generation
in the last days.

3c. (ὃς) καθαρισµὸν τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ποιησάµενος, (ὃς) ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς µεγαλωσύνης ἐν
ὑψηλοῖς,

There is a textual variant in 3b and 3c clauses. The standard reading that UBS 4 employs
is, “τῆς δυνάµεως αὑτοῦ, καθαρισµὸν... ” This reading is supported by Codex Sinaiticus, Codex
Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, some later uncials and the Latin Vulgate. There is a variant
reading, “τῆς δυνάµεως, διʼ αὑτοῦ καθαρισµὸν” supported by P46, which is the one the earliest
papyri dating back to third century A.D, and some later miniscule manuscripts with “διʼ εαὑτοῦ”
in place of “αὑτοῦ”.48 These readings put more emphasis on the Son as having made purification
for sins, “sustaining all things by the word of His power, when he had by himself made
purification for sins.”
Another variant of this reading is, “τῆς δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ, διʼ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισµὸν.” This
text is supported by Codex Bezae (D) dating back to the 5th century, which is known for its
extensive rephrasing, additions and omissions, later uncials from 8th and 9th century, Byzantine
family of majority texts from the second millennium49, Old Latin manuscripts, lectionaries,
Syriac and Coptic manuscripts. This variant is a perfect example of a scribal practice that Text
Criticism calls, “conflation.” Scribes in the later centuries, while copying the text, sometimes had
two different readings in two manuscripts. In an effort to retain as much original text as possible,
they combined or conflated both readings of the texts and copied it down. So we have in the later
manuscripts a conflated reading, “τῆς δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ, διʼ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισµὸν,” which conflates
“αὐτοῦ” and “διʼ ἑαυτοῦ.” But we need to consider the text of earlier manuscripts like Codex
Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus all of which have, “τῆς δυνάµεως αὑτοῦ,
καθαρισµὸν.” Having established the original text, let us see what it means.
The writer masterfully tells who the Son is and what He does in verses 1-3b, but in 3b, he
focuses on a specific work of the Son concerning sin and His exaltation after that. Lightfoot calls
it the “climax of his long sentence.”50 This work of the Son is even greater than the creation and

45 F.F. Bruce, 6.
46
Miller, Neva F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Analytical and Exegetical Handbook. Dallas: Summer Institute of
Linguistics, 1988. Print. 9.
47 Hughes, 46.
48 Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Paul Wikgren, Barbara Aland, and
Iōan D. Karavidopoulos. The Greek New Testament: Former Editions Edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo
M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren: Fourth Revised Edition Edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland,
Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini and Bruce M. Metzger in Cooperation with the Institute for New
Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010. Print. 741
49 UBS 4, 19.
50 Lightfoot, 56.

 12

the governing of the universe.51 F. F. Bruce puts it beautifully,

“The grace which has provided a remedy for the defilement of sin by a life freely offered
up to God on our behalf calls forth a sense of personal indebtedness which the
contemplation of divine activity on the cosmic scale could never evoke.” 52
The greatness of the Son moves from being the greater means of revelation from God, to being
made the heir of all things to being the creator of the Universe to being the effulgence of God’s
glory to being the facsimile of God to being the greater High Priest! This sentence launches a
major discussion of the theme of Jesus being the High priest from 4:14 through 10:31, especially
in chapters 9 and 10 where the writer argues that Christ’s offering cleansed the conscience from
sin whereas the animal sacrifices only purified outwardly.
As you can see from the diagram, the main point of this relative clause is “ἐκάθισεν” that
He sat down at the right hand of God. The participle “ποιησάµενος” is an aorist middle participle
functioning temporally, “After he (the Son) made purification of sins...” Its antecedent is clearly
“υἱῷ.” Also, the participle is in the middle voice. This indicates the Son’s involvement in the
purification of sins as personal and self-sufficient, “After He Himself made purification of
sins...” The aorist tense is used to say that the atoning work of the Son was a “single historical
accomplishment.”53
The noun “καθαρισµὸς” is only used twice in the NT to refer to Christ’s atoning work;
here and 2 Peter 1:9. Its verb “καθαρίζω” is used more often.54 The noun means, “Cleansing
from inward pollution, purify,”55 it also includes expiation and purging. This language alludes to
the Aaronic and Levitical sacrifices in the Old Testament (Ex. 30:10). After all, like we saw
earlier, this book contrasts the Old covenant with the New, the levitical priesthood with Christ’s
priesthood. This cleansing that the Son made once for all, is greater than the animal sacrifices in
the Old Testament because the Son’s one sacrifice cleansed, “τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν,” sins (plural)!
Miller says, “It seems to be sin in its broadest and universal aspects that is being cleansed
away.”56 Thousands of animal sacrifices could not cleanse any sins, but one sacrifice of the Son
cleansed all sins! This act of cleansing is greater not only in in its efficacy but also in its
completeness as the main verb presents.
“ἐκάθισεν”! This verb has massive implications in its context theologically. This is the
seventh (understood) relative clause that declares the glories of the Son. Attridge says, “The
second part of the exordium reaches its syntactical and rhetorical climax in the affirmation that
the Son, God’s image and agent in creation and redemption ‘took a seat’ at God’s right hand.”57
The author draws attention to the fact that the Son sat down after making purification of sins. In
this context, the Son is depicted as a greater High Priest who made one sacrifice to cleanse sins.
In the Holy place in the tabernacle and in the temple, there is one piece of furniture that is
conspicuous by its absence: something to sit on. It is because the High priest had to stand and
keep offering sacrifices as long as he was at the altar (10:11). But the Son, who is both High
Priest and the sacrifice, after he made cleansing for sins, sat down! His work is now complete!

51 Wuest, 39.
52 F.F. Bruce, 7.
53 Miller, 11.
54 Attridge, 46.
55 BDAG, 489.
56 Miller, 10.
57 Attridge, 46.

 13

The Son did not just sit anywhere, but He sat down at, “ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς µεγαλωσύνης ἐν
ὑψηλοῖς.” “τῆς µεγαλωσύνης” is used periphrastically to mean God. –σύνη is an ending that
signifies quality, so the one who has the quality of greatness.58 The right side of the Majesty on
High is the place of honor and dignity. “ἐν ὑψηλοῖς” modifies the verb, “ἐκάθισεν,” and not “τῆς
µεγαλωσύνης.” It is the Son who sat down “in exaltation.” The reason that it is worded this way
is because of the emphasis on the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. Buchana says that the reason it is
said this way is, “the author’s attempt to keep his quotations of scripture intact.”59
The Son sat, not in the earthly tabernacle, but in the Heavenly one. This act of sitting is
“the assumption of a position of dignity and authority.”60 This verse, very clearly, fulfills Psalm
110:1. The author also quotes this verse in 1:13. This passage, therefore, is very messianic. The
author is writing to Jewish believers who are familiar with the Messianic prophecies.
Rhetorically, this statement must have blown the audience away. They knew no priest who
offered one sacrifice and sat down at the right hand of God. The author still doesn’t give away
the name of the Son. This kept them on the edge of their seats.

4. τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόµενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρʼ αὐτοὺς

κεκληρονόµηκεν ὄνοµα.

This verse serves as a “bridge” between 1:1-3 and 1:5-14.61 It is characteristic of the book
of Hebrews to introduce a subject or a “hook word” and elaborate on it in the following verses.
Here, “τῶν ἀγγέλων” is the hook word. The author contrasts between the Angels and the Son in
1:5-14.
“τοσούτῳ... ὅσῳ” construction indicates a degree of comparison.62 We also have another
of the key words that runs throughout the book of Hebrews and helps perpetuate the theme of the
book, “κρείττων.” One of the major themes of this book is to show that Jesus is better than the
Old Testament figures and system. This word is used thirteen times in this book to compare and
say that Jesus is better. There is an inclusio that forms with the words, “κεκληρονόµηκεν” in
verse 4 and “κληρονομεῖν” in verse 14. The Son has inherited a greater name than the Angels
and the Angels serve those who inherit salvation. Why Angels? The recipients of this letter are
Jewish believers who knew the role of the Angels in the giving of the law (2:2) and other
revelatory incidents. There might have been Angel worship going on in their community. The
Scribes at Qumran believed that the archangel Michael had more authority than the Messiah.63
Whatever the case, in the remaining verses of the chapter, the writer quotes seven O.T passages
to prove that the Son is better than the Angels.
There is a participial clause here with aorist middle participle, “γενόµενος,” functioning
subordinate to the following main verb, “κεκληρονόµηκεν,” meaning, “Having become so much
better than the Angels, by as much as he has inherited a name that is greater than them.” So the
emphasis is on the name the Son has inherited. This does not mean that the Son was not better

58 Miller, 12.
59 Buchanan, 8.
60 Wuest, 41.
61 Cockerill, 37.
62 Miller, 13.
63 MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2010.
Print. 1848

 14

than the Angels before His exaltation. The participle “γενόµενος,” signifies a change of state, not
a change of nature or being.64 The Son has always been the Son. This is shown in verse 2, where
the author emphatically introduces a “Son” character. This proves that by His nature,
ontologically, He is Son. As Lightfoot rightly says, “The Son’s eternal existence and nature are
not here in view; rather His work of redemption and His consequent exaltation.”65
In the ancient times, name (ὄνοµα), played a very important role. Someone’s name meant
all that they are, their identity, their person, their qualifications, their authority etc. Hughes says,
“The name signifies, particularly for the Hebrew mind, the essential character of a person in
himself and in his work.”66 To have a name that is greater than that of the Angels is to be greater
than the Angels in person, in majesty, in authority, in nature, in qualifications and in everything!
“διαφορώτερον” means, “being different, with focus on value, outstanding.”67 The Son is on a
different scale than the Angels and is far superior to them.

Conclusion
This masterful, divinely inspired literary piece contains some of the most incredible
truths about the Son through whom God has spoken to us in the final days. All these truths about
the Son are not random in any sense. They are intentionally crafted to portray the Son as the
promised Messiah to the Jewish people and to the whole world. This is very important to the
whole premise of this book: Jesus is better than the other agents who mediated between God and
man before. God, in the O.T prescribed three specific offices, which served as mediators between
God and Israel: Prophet, Priest and King. Deuteronomy 18:18 says, “I will raise up for them a
prophet like you (Moses)…and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all
that I command him” (ESV). Hebrews 1:2 says, “He (God) has spoken to us by a Son.” This Son
is the Prophet!
Psalm 2 talks about God establishing His King in Zion and He calls Him His Son. He
gives His Son all the nations as inheritance. In Hebrews 1:2 God has made the Son heir of all
things. This Son is the King! Psalm 110:4 says that the greater Son of David, the Messiah, will be
priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 1:3 says, “After making purification for
sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” This Son is Priest! In the Son, all the
three are fulfilled. This is why He is greater than all the other prophets, angels, kings, leaders,
priests etc. Bruce puts it beautifully,
“He possesses in Himself all the qualifications to be the mediator between God and men.
He is the Prophet through whom God has spoken His final word to men; He is the Priest
who has accomplished a perfect work of cleansing for His people’s sins; He is the King
who sits enthroned in the place of chief honor alongside the Majesty on high.”68
He is the promised Messiah who is Prophet, Priest and King at the same time. Finally, here is
how the author of Hebrews reveals the identity of the Son in 2:9, “But we see him who for a little
while was made lower than angels, namely JESUS, crowned with glory and honor…” (2:9). The
Son is Jesus! God has spoken in these last days by His Son, Jesus the Messiah, the very Word of
God!

64 MacArthur, 1848.
65 Lightfoot, 56.
66 Hughes, 50.
67 BDAG, 240.
68 F.F. Bruce, 8.

 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Paul Wikgren,
Barbara Aland, and Iōan D. Karavidopoulos. The Greek New Testament: Former Editions
Edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen
Wikgren: Fourth Revised Edition Edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes
Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini and Bruce M. Metzger in Cooperation with the
Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2010. Print. 741

Attridge, Harold W., and Helmut Koester. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Print. 5

Black, David Alan, Katharine G. L. Barnwell, and Stephen H. Levinsohn. Linguistics and New
Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Nashville, TN: Broadman,
1992. Print, 170.

Brown, John. Hebrews. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972. Print. 20.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990. Print. 3

Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972. Print. 4.

Cockerill, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,
2012. Print.

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, and William Arndt. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2000. Print.
1004

Eerdmans Pub., 1995. Print. 176.

Fuller, Daniel (Fuller Theological Seminary) "Reference Manual for Interpreting the New
Testament." Discourse Analysis (n.d.): 22. Web.
<http://www.viceregency.com/ReferenceManual4NTInterp.pdf>.

Green, Joel B. Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI:
W.B.

Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-linguistic Analysis. Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1994. Print.

Holmes, M. W. (2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Lexham Press.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI:
W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1977. Print. 40.

 16

Lightfoot, Neil R. Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1976. Print. 54.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Bibles, 2010. Print. 1848

Miller, Neva F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Analytical and Exegetical Handbook. Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1988. Print. 9.

Newell, William Reed. Hebrews: Verse by Verse. Chicago: Moody, 1947. Print. 3.

Reed, Jeffrey T. "Discourse Analysis As New Testament Hermeneutic: A Retrospective And

Prospective Appraisal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (1996): n. pag.
Web. https://www.galaxie.com/article/jets39-2-04, 229.

Varner, William. Class Notes, Exegesis of Hebrews, n.d. 2b

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Print. 245.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Texts with Notes and Essays.
London: Macmillan, 1892. Print. 1-2.

Wuest, Kenneth Samuel. Hebrews in the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., 1947. Print. 39.